Genderlect Styles - does it really matter how men and women communicate?

Deborah Tannen, a leading linguistics professor at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, USA has studied and defined the communication styles and barriers between genders. Tannen (1990, 1992) describes communication between men and women as “cross-cultural communication”. One may ask the question, what is linguistics and how does genderlect fit into the equation? As Tannen explains, “linguistics is the academic discipline devoted to understanding how language works” (Tannen, 1990). Genderlect is the term used by Griffin (2000) to label Tannen’s theory of cross-cultural communication between men and women. Griffin continues to explain, “the term genderlect suggests that masculine and feminine styles of discourse are best viewed as two distinct cultural dialects rather than as inferior or superior ways of speaking” (Griffin, 2000, p.436).

The relevance of this theory is apparent to every person the world over as we all attempt to communicate with the opposite gender, whether in a professional or personal situation. The effort of understanding the different types of communication between men and women is worthwhile, as it will enhance better working relationships and help reduce misunderstandings and conflicts.

Tannen’s genderlect theory has many components and broaches the many differences between men and women in communication. These differences, as Tannen outlines, begin in childhood where patterns established continue through adulthood. She states that even though boys and girls may grow up in the same household, they are treated very differently. “These cultural differences include differing expectations about the role of talk in relationships and how it fulfils that role” (Tannen 1992: 109). To better understand these differences, one will endeavour to summarise the focal points that Tannen makes in much of her literature.

Status vs. Connection
In her book “You Just Don’t Understand”, Tannen states that men are more concerned with status and independence whereas women prefer connection and intimacy. Tannen believes that these differences can give women and men a different viewpoint at the same situation (Tannen, 1990). However, as Griffin (2000) summarises Tannen’s work, status and connection aren’t the only things that concern the two genders, but they are the most important goals in life.

It can be seen that this attitude and perception can present problems between the communication channels of men and women. In Tannen’s bestseller You Just Don’t Understand, Tannen begins by relaying her personal relationship with her first husband. The husband’s comment “I do not give you the right to raise your voice at me, because you are a woman and I am a man” (Tannen 1990, p.23) can be translated into, I am the head of the family and higher than you are, therefore do not talk down at me. In this particular section, Tannen talks about how her husband grew up in a different country where women do not have the same rights as men (Tannen, 1990, p.23). Could this sort of upbringing really change how men and women think of the world? Tannen (1990) seems to think so and makes reference to how boys and girls grow up in what appears to be completely different worlds. Tannen (1990) refers to anthropologist Daniel Maltz’s and Ruth Broker’s work with children and how they socialise to add weight to her theory. The research by Maltz and Broker identified that boys and girls take preference to playing in same sex groups. Boys were observed to play in larger groups and girls favoured playing in pairs or smaller groups. Boys have a leader in their games who dictates how a game is played and a hierarchical system is evident. Boys challenge each other and competition is encouraged. In contrast, girls maintain intimate relationships by having a best friend - mompetition is not encouraged. “Girls are not accustomed to jockeying for status in an obvious way; they are more concerned that they be liked” (Tannen, 1990, p.43-47).

In the study carried out by Das and Das (2002), it can be seen that women indeed identify with traits such as compassion and concern. The students in this study were asked to identify their best lecturer. The findings showed that male students were more likely to choose a male lecturer and female students chose a female lecturer. “Female graduate students rated their female major professors higher on quality of interactions and concern for student welfare than their male major professors” (Schroeder & Mynatt, 1999 as cited by Das & Das, 2002).

The study also investigated students who had been in the workforce and had returned to study. The results showed that both males and females of this group favoured the male lecturers. Das and Das hypothesise that this phenomenon occurs because most businesses, even in today’s world, encourage masculine values and males occupy positions of power, which influence these returning student’s decisions.

Report vs. Rapport talk
Tannen (1990) writes, “for most women; the language of conversation is primarily a language of rapport: a way of establishing connections and negotiating relationships.” On the other hand, Tannen refers to conversation for most men as a “primary means to preserve independence, and negotiate and maintain status in a hierarchical social order” (Tannen, 1990, p.77). This statement can be related back to Tannen’s reference to status and connection as the primary goal driving men and women’s conversation styles.

Women as young girls tell their best friend their secrets to show each other consideration and reaffirm their close friendships. Females talk in twos or small groups and pay attention to each other by eye contact or by nodding and by talking back during their conversations. Tannen also states that this behaviour is carried through into adulthood. However, men and young boys talk about things such as sports and activities that they can do. To men and boys, secrets and emotions are internalised. One is considered weak if displays of emotion are revealed. To better understand this concept of Tannen’s theory, Griffin (2000) has condensed it down into the following five main areas.

Public vs. Private
1. Conversations
Tannen (1990) states that women do most of the talking in private conversations such as when they are at home. Most men on the other hand, are very quiet at home, but will freely talk up in public and participate in discussion groups. To elaborate on this point, men use a reporting communication style, “to command attention, convey information, and insist on agreement” (Griffin, 2002, p.439), also avoiding small talk. Women on the other hand have a rapport communications style enjoying private conversations. However, when in a public situation, women aren’t as comfortable in voicing their opinions.

In today’s competitive corporate world, competition for the sale of products and services are aggressive. Corporations will go all out to secure a client base and then work even harder to keep it. To do this, public seminars are held and slick and fast talking sales consultants showcases these products and services. So who is most likely to be given this role by these corporations? In applying Tannen’s theory it would seem that men are more inclined to be better suited, more comfortable and are most likely to succeed in this particular role. This is evident in Tannen’s theory where men are more comfortable speaking in public and thrive in a competitive environment. A good example of an excellent male public speaker is Anthony Robbins who has sold thousands of motivational material.

2. Story Telling
Tannen agrees with other theorists that stories are told by men and women as a means to conveying aspirations, desires and ideals. Men are usually the heroes in their own stories and often portray an event in a humorous manner, which holds the attention of ones audience and puts the storyteller on a pedestal. Women however, do not like to be the centre of attention. Rather, they seek acceptance by relaying stories about other people and if talking about themselves, will often describe the situation in a belittling manner, which everyone can relate to (Tannen, 1990, 1992; Griffin, 2000).

3. Listening skills
Women are active listeners, which means that when someone is talking to them, they will talk back, or nod to show they are listening, building a rapport with the speaker. Men on the other hand don’t say much at all. Men find it rude when someone talks while they are talking as this can be seen as a move to challenge ones position on the status ladder. Yet for woman, these so called disruptions as men put it are a way of showing the speaker that they are interested in what the speaker has to say. For women, a silent man during conversation is a man who isn’t interested and not listening.

4. Asking questions
Women in conversation will ask questions to show interest and agreement in the subject. Men on the other hand ask questions to query that the other person really knows what they are talking about. Tannen (1990) writes of occasions where she would do a radio talk back show on communications. Women will usually phone and ask questions that will show concurrence. Men on the other hand phone and ask questions to challenge her knowledge of the subject. Tannen (1990) also approaches the issue of men’s reluctance to ask question in situation where they require assistance, as this action portrays him as being dependent on the person providing the information, thus lowering their status. Whereas women will happily ask for help such as getting directions from another individual who may know where a particular place is located. Tannen continues and reiterates men’s desire for status and independence in these situations of finding a solution or a location on their own. Women however, are more at ease and are not worried about lowering their status to gain information.

5. Conflict
According to Tannen, competition for status drives men; therefore they are more at ease with conflict. Men use conflict to determine their place in the pecking order. On the other hand “to most women, conflict is a threat to connection” (Tannen, 1990, p.150). Tannen also goes on to say that women will do anything to avoid getting into a conflict.

Metamessages
Tannen (1990, 1992) describes metamessages as the unspoken or underlying messages contained in the actual message. These could be the tone in which the message is delivered and the non-verbal messages that are displayed by the speaker, such as gestures and facial expressions. This is evident in the following television show; Reba (Channel 2, 11am, Wednesday December 30, 2003) where certain things were observed which Tannen (1990, 1992) refers to in her theory of genderlect styles. A young couple got into an argument because the husband had decided he would start a diet to get himself back into shape. When the wife appeared and asked what he was doing, he simply replied that he was going on a diet and suggested that it may be nice to do something together such as this diet. Before the husband had finished what he was saying, the wife is very upset and starts shouting at him before leaving the kitchen. Throughout the show, the husband tries to figure out what has happened and what he has done wrong. In the end, he simply comes out and says, please tell me what I have done wrong or said, as I have no idea why you are upset. A summary of their conversation is as follows,

Husband:
I give up. Please tell me what I have done or said that has upset you.
Wife:
I asked you not to look at me while I got out of the shower.
Husband:
And I did as you asked.
Wife:
That’s just it isn’t it, you never used to in the past. I knew that you still looked at me when I got out of the shower even though I had asked you not to, it made me feel attractive. But this time you didn’t even peek like you used to. It’s because you don’t find me attractive anymore isn’t it? It’s because you think I’m fat isn’t it?

The above conversation is a classic example of Tannen’s metamessages. Using Tannen’s theory, it is clear how misunderstandings like this can cause problems in relationships.

Conclusion
Tannen’s findings and colourful illustration of the communications methods between men and women clearly support her theory that “communication between men and women is cross-cultural” (Tannen, 1990, 1992). The behavioural differences learnt by men and women as children, indicate and dictate how they will react to each other in their adult lives. The differences as pointed out by Tannen, which, are the main driving force behind men and women, are “status” and “connection”.

Status and connection are not necessarily conscious primary goals but are inherent in all of us. Throughout our lives, men and women place more emphasis on different things to achieve their goals. For women, greater value is placed on building a connection and rapport by doing things such as speaking in small groups, actively listening, stopping at the petrol station to ask for directions and avoiding conflicts. For men weight is placed on being independent and maintaining status, using tools encompassing one-up-men-ship and competition.

Critique
How does Tannen’s theory fit in with today’s world then? Are men really concerned with status and women with connection? Do women really talk more readily at home and are men really mutes at home yet become an abundance of words in public?

While researching and collecting material for this report, I read in an article by Daughters (2000) where she referred to men’s reluctance to ask for directions as being too proud. And yet Daughters believes that it is only polite to make as much eye contact as possible whist driving a car. The ramifications of taking ones eyes off the road are far greater than a man getting lost and leaving his pride intact. These two different points of view directed at these two actions, clearly identify Tannen’s theory of the differences between men and women.

Since carrying out this research, I have attempted to look into this subject far more than usual. Tannen suggests that women talk more at home than men, however, upon observation of what has and does currently take place in my own home, I have noted that I do just as much talking as my wife. This could potentially mean that Tannen’s view of men and women understanding each other’s genderlect styles have started to take course since she first wrote about it. Or it could be that as Das and Das (2001) suggest, I may fit into the minority group of males that are termed gender natural.

Consider the Information Technology (IT) industry where most computer programmers are men. Programmers like to keep their programs their property and detest and take offence if another programmers points out any mistakes or weaknesses in their code. This can been seen as support to Tannen’s theory of men’s concern with independence and status. Being told of a mistake in a program code could also be seen as less knowledgeable and therefore one down on the other person. However in the last few years, the introduction of development methodologies such as Extreme Programming (XP), programmers are required to work in pairs thus ruling out the competition.

Since Tannen’s work, many books about the relationships between men and women such as “Men are from Mars, women are from Venus” (Gray, 1993) are coming out supporting Tannen’s theory that men and women’s communications styles are indeed different. It could also be seen that businesses are trying to incorporate Tannen and other theorists’ work to help them bridge the gap between men and women in the professional arena.

Tannen, as sited by Griffin (2000) suggests, to validate her theory we can use what is termed the “aha” factor. By using this subjective method, it is easy to endorse Tannen’s work. Throughout reading Tannen’s literature, I too experienced many “aha” moments. Even thought many people can and do relate to this theory, there are critics that question parts of Tannen’s work. Bourke, Burroughs-Denhart and McClish as sited by Griffin (2000) are communications scholars that believe that even though Tannen indicates the viewpoints of men and women are equal, they believe “many of her comments and examples tend to put down masculine values” (Griffin, 2000, p.444). Other feminist linguistic scholars propose that Tannen has ignored issues such as “male dominance, control, power, sexism, discrimination, sexual harassment and verbal insults” (Griffin, 2000, p.444). Many of these critics disclaim Tannen’s work, however, each taking a different viewpoint. Some saying that Tannen puts down masculine values and others, mostly feminist believe that she ignores the feminine values. Although Tannen’s critics accuse her of being biased, I believe that she is being gender natural and many people, men and women can identify with her theory.

Final Note
In conclusion, Tannen’s theory clearly highlights the differences in communication between men and women. We learn these behaviours when we are young and carry these attitudes and lessons into adulthood. To better understand and minimise conflict, men and women will need to take into consideration Tannen’s literature.

References
Das, M., & Das, H. (2001). Business student’s perceptions of best university professors: Does gender role matter? Sex Roles, Vol. 45, Nos 9/10 Daughters, E. (2000). Application of Genderlect theory. Retrieved December 19, 2003, from http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~ed383697/genderapp.htm

Griffin, E. (2000). A first look at communication theory (4th ed.). United States: The McGraw-Hill companies, Inc.

Regan-Sachs, R. (2003). Snapshot: Deborah Tannen linguistic professor. Retrieved December 19, 2003, http://www.thehoya.com/news/093003/news8.cfm

Robinson, D. (1998). Home page of Deborah Tannen. Retrieved December 19, 2003, from http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/tannend/

Tannen, D. (1990). You just don’t understand. NSW: Random House Australia.

Tannen, D. (1992). That’s not what I meant! London: Virago Press Limited.