Think Fast Talk Smart: Communication Techniques - 96. Rock and Role: How Assigning Gender to Inanimate Objects Influences Us

Episode Date: June 27, 2023

Why is a boat a “she?” Why give names like Alexa or Siri to inanimate pieces of software? According to assistant professor of organizational behavior Ashley Martin, ascribing gender to everyday objects helps us to connect with them more deeply.“Gender is this humanizing force that allows people to interact with non-human things as if they’re human,” says Martin, whose research focuses on gender equality, gender inclusion, and gender’s role within team and organizational dynamics. And while Martin is interested in how anthropomorphizing technology can benefit the humans who use it, she also notes how “problematic stereotypes” could be perpetuated as a result.In this episode of Think Fast, Talk Smart, Martin joins host Matt Abrahams to discuss how our ideas about gender inform the way we relate to the world and how we can leverage the latest research to promote greater diversity, equity, and inclusion. Connect:Premium Signup >>>> Think Fast Talk Smart PremiumEmail Questions & Feedback >>> [e-mail] Transcripts >>> Think Fast Talk Smart WebsiteNewsletter Signup + English Language Learning >>> FasterSmarter.ioThink Fast Talk Smart >>> LinkedIn,  Instagram, YouTubeMatt Abrahams >>> LinkedIn ********Thank you to our sponsors.  These partnerships support the ongoing production of the podcast, allowing us to bring it to you at no cost.Strawberry.me. Get 50% off your first coaching session today at Strawberry.me/smartJoin our Think Fast Talk Smart Learning Community and become the communicator you want to be. 

Hi, Matt here. We have two days left before we close our listener viewer survey. A big thank you to all of you who have already provided feedback. Please take a few minutes to share your input on the show. We still have a few prizes left to give to lucky respondents. Go to FasterSmarter.com.com. To give us your input. That's FasterSmartter.com.io slash survey. And now a word from one of our sponsors.

Their support allows us to bring you quality content free of charge. If you've ever thought, I know I can do more, but something's holding me back. You're not alone. Whether you're navigating career growth, seeking better balance, or wanting to communicate with more confidence, coaching can help you bridge the gap between intention and action. At strawberry.comme, you'll get matched with a professional coach who's trained to help you clarify your goals, build lasting confidence, and make intentional choices professionally and personally. This is not therapy. It's not consulting. It's a thought partnership designed to help you take action with more clarity and purpose. I strongly believe in the value of coaching. All of us can benefit from the help of a coach.

Visit strawberry.combe slash smart to get matched up with your coach today. That's strawberry. dot me slash smart and get 50% off your first coaching session. It's the most affordable time ever to see if coaching is right for you. I've always been curious why we give human characteristics to non-human things. For example, we use gender when we refer to our cars, our tools, even our storms like hurricanes. Today we explore gender on people and things. I'm Matt Abraham. and I teach strategic communication at Stanford Graduate School of Business. Welcome to Think Fast, Talk Smart, the podcast. Today I am super excited to be joined by Ashley Mart, who is an associate professor of organizational

behavior at Stanford GSB. Ashley's research focuses on gender equality and inclusion, and she teaches a course in managing groups and teams. Welcome, Ashley. I'm super happy to get a chance to speak with you. Thank you so much, Matt. I'm really excited to be here. Awesome.

Well, let's rock and roll. And I literally mean that. I'd like to chat about how I first came to know your research. I read about a rock study you did that shed interesting light on gender and gender roles. Can you please share your rock study? What was that all about? So in this study, we were trying to capture how important gender is when we think about what it means to be human. And so usually the way people do this is they look at faces or they use neuroimaging.

And oftentimes this is because it's really hard to isolate social categories when we're thinking about human beings. They come with a variety of them. So, you know, when looking at any given person, we can see their race, their age, their gender, their level of attractiveness. And so it's really hard to isolate the importance of any given social category. And so what we did was we thought we would use the process of anthraciveness. anthropomorphism. And for everyone listening, anthropomorphism, you do it all the time, I guarantee. It's essentially treating a non-human thing as if it was human, as if it has unique emotions or a personality. You know, we do it all the time. We see faces and plugs on the wall. You know, we treat our pets as if they're part of the family.

We talk to our plants or our cars. And what this allows us to do is really create a human out of something that's not there and see which social categories go with that. And so what we did in the lab with the rock was we had participants come in the lab, and we gave them a ripper rock, so a five to seven inch river rock and a bunch of googly eyes, some pom-pom, sparkles, paints, markers, an embarrassment of riches of materials. And we asked them to make a pet rock, to create a human-like rock to make the rock come alive. And so they were given about 15 minutes to decorate a human-like rock. And so once they were given, they were given about 15 minutes to decorate a human-like rock. And so once they finish that task, we asked them the importance of different social categories in doing that task. So how important was gender while you were creating a rock? How

important was race or age or sexual orientation, a number of different social categories that are usually important when we look at a human being. And what we found was very interesting, in my opinion. Almost everyone used gender when they were anthropomorphizing their rock. And it was very easy to see. You can see it with the eyelashes, with the rosy cheeks, with the beards, the long hair, the jewelry. It was just very apparent the gender of this rock. Well, other social categories were harder to tell. And what was also very interesting about that study was that we found that gender was also the most predictive social category in how human-like that rock was seen to be. And so that study really showed us how important gender is in humanization. That to me is just fascinating, not only because of

the results. And I think it's interesting that rock and roll spelled very differently really make a difference. And I applaud your creativity in the research design and how fun. I mean, it sounds like your lab looked like a kindergarten art center, but it really made it some interesting difference. I want to stay on the conversation of non-human things because I hear. here that you've looked into the impact of assigning gender to technology, things like Siri and Alexa. But what did you find and what can we take away from your work on this assignment of gender to technology, especially in the world of AI and chat GPT? Technology is being increasingly anthropomorphized as technology is fulfilling more human-like roles, more social roles, if you will. We're seeing

it imbued with more human-like qualities from chatbots to virtual assistants. Technology is being created in human-like ways. And with the study that I just talked about, we realized this interesting phenomenon is, you know, gender is really facilitating the process of seeing something as human. And so how is that going to affect the way in which we interact with gendered versus non-gendered technology? And one reason it's important to explore the relationship

is actually because gender stereotypes and technology are very harmful. So when we imbue Siri and Alexa with a female name and a, you know, female voice, what we're doing is reifying these stereotypes and roles of women, that women are more helpful and they're kind and they're caring, which are actually quite problematic. But the results of Amelia and ICE Rock study, what it really showed is actually gender is this humanizing force that allows people to interact with nonhuman things as if they're human. And so we looked at that very question in the study that you're talking about where we thought that gender might provide a way to feel more attached or connected to our anthropomorphize technology.

And so we looked at this in a number of ways. One was through Amazon reviews. And we found that with robotic vacuums, for example, of when people anthropomorphize those robotic vacuums and gave them a gender, they saw them as more human-like. And they used more affiliative language when they talked about it. So they use words like, I loved this product. You know, this is my friend. They gave it a name.

They really liked the product, and they gave it a higher rating. And so that was an interesting finding. And so we decided to test it more experimentally, where we looked at voice assistance, autonomous vehicles. And what we found was even just using a pronoun. So describing a car as a she versus a he versus not describing it with a pronoun at all, we find that people feel more attached to gendered technology in part because they see it as more human-like.

And so really that study unearthed this paradox of gender. gender where, you know, gender is problematic. It's reifying some really problematic stereotypes, but it's also this humanizing force that allows us to see something as more human. And so there's really a tension between amplifying these gender stereotypes and also promoting anthropomorphism. I see this happen all the time where people give gendered associations with things that aren't real. I was in a company recently where the conference rooms were all named for women and And that's interesting. And we actually on this show, when I interviewed chat GPT, we put the typed responses into a voice simulator.

And we had to choose what voice do we use? And we consciously chose a female voice because we thought it sounded less threatening than male voice. So you're making me question decisions I make and decisions I see all the time. So thank you for that. It's very provocative. You did some work on the difference between identity aware and identity blind approaches to race and gender. Can you define what is meant by these two approaches and what did you find and what recommendations come from that research? Yeah, I'm really glad you brought this research because it actually builds on the importance of gender.

So this is really outlining the problems with gender. And so to answer your question about defining identity awareness and blindness. So the formal definition is these are ideologies around how to best approach differences in diverse settings. And to break that down a little bit, there's really two approaches to navigating diversity. There's some nuance there, but really they fall into two categories. One is about embracing differences, amplifying differences, recognizing differences. And another is ignoring differences or de-emphasizing differences, really focusing on what people have in common. And we've seen this a lot in the race literature.

If you've heard of colorblindness and multiculturalism, these are in essence diversity ideal. One is saying we should be aware of race differences, we should talk about them, and another is saying, actually, we shouldn't. You know, we're all people, we're all humans, we're all Americans, we should just really ignore race in favor of a common identity. And so a lot of research. This is not my research. A lot of research, in fact, over 100 papers have looked at race diversity ideologies. And a lot of it has found that multiculturalism or this awareness approach is a better strategy. It leads people to feel more included.

It allows people to recognize discrimination or unequal opportunities. You know, you really can't recognize differences in opportunities if you're not talking about differences. It makes people feel less anxious. It just has a host of positive consequences. And so in my work, which is recently published, I looked at the implications of this for gender. So, you know, looking at let's take the exact same approaches to difference that we're talking about for race and just apply them to gender.

So is it good to discuss, amplify, emphasize gender differences or minimize them, deemphasize them in favor of similarities? And what was interesting is I found the exact opposite results for gender compared to race. So I actually found that when you tell people to emphasize or amplify gender differences, it's actually increasing stereotyping. It is related to more bias, less support for diversity policies. So, you know, it's having this divergent effect. The exact same approach to diversity is having a divergent effect for gender. And why this is happening is because the types of differences that are being evoked for race and gender are actually quite unique. When you tell people to be aware of race differences, they usually think of things like culture, cultural backgrounds, or they think about, you know, experiences, how people are treated and opportunities.

So inequality, discrimination. And these are really helpful differences to be mindful of. And so, you know, it leads to all these adaptive outcomes. For women, that's not really what's happening. That's not what people are thinking about. They're not really thinking about different, you know, experiences women face, different opportunities or hurdles that women have to overcome. They're thinking about stereotypes.

So, you know, they're thinking, yes, women have all these great qualities, like what we were talking about with Siri and Alexa. You know, they're empathetic and they're incredibly helpful and they're good mentors. And they think these are really positive things. And, you know, men are dominant and assertive. And sometimes we don't even like those qualities. But those are the qualities that we associate with leadership. And so by highlighting these gender differences, we're actually reifying these stereotypes that end up undermining equality. And so you asked, you know, what can we do with this? How do organizations end up using this? What advice would I give? And I guess

it would be twofold. One is that I can't really support monolithic diversity strategies because what I'm finding in my own work is that the exact same approach to diversity, where people are told to embrace differences, is leading to adaptive outcomes for racial minorities and maladaptive outcomes for women. And so this is quite problematic. You don't really want a one-size-fits-all diversity strategy.

And then the second would be to focus on the right types of differences I think we have broad statements around embracing differences or being aware of differences. And what I'm finding is that people aren't thinking about the same differences for every group. And so I think we want to be aware of differences like discrimination or inequality. And we don't want to amplify these stereotypes around leadership. And so perhaps orienting people around which differences we should be discussing and talking about might provide a fruitful, having you for solving problems related to inequality. That's really powerful. What I hear you say is in the diversity, equity and inclusion, the DE and I work that people do, including belonging as well,

that we need to be more nuanced, that we need to separate out these different aspects versus treating it as one size fits all. And I know in companies I've been in, in companies I consult in, there's this go to the diversity training and it treats it all as one thing. It sounds like it would be much wiser and more equitable and a more nuanced way. I hope everybody listening reflects on that, for sure. I'd like to turn our attention to some other research you've done. You've looked specifically at hiring more women into senior leadership roles. What does this do for organizations in general, as well as for women within those organizations? Thanks for bringing up this study. This is with My collaborator, Sandra Matz, Asher Lawson, and Imral Huda.

And what we did in this study is we actually looked at organizational language through shareholder documents and investor calls. And we looked how that language changed after hiring a female CEO compared to not. So what we found is that stereotypes reflected in language changes after hiring a woman. And women, you know, after being hired into the CEO position, tend to be described in more agentic or leader-like ways. And so this very active of hiring a female CEO is actually changing a lot of different organizational language,

whether it be investor calls or shareholder documents. So what I took away from this research is actually changing representation can change stereotypes. And that's reversing the intuition that we have when we go about solving diversity problems. when we think about DEI programs, implicit bias training, really the goal here is to change people, to change their own stereotypes, to change their own behavior so that we can create a culture that's more inclusive and end up hiring more women. And what this paper is showing is that actually hiring more women can change the very

stereotypes that we're seeking to mitigate through a lot of these diversity strategies. And it kind of leads to this virtuous cycle. So it sounds to me as if doing both could be really helpful, hiring more women and also continuing to work on the stereotypes and then all of a sudden you get this multiplier effect. Absolutely. And that goes back to something that you just said, which is DEI programs are incredibly difficult. And I've learned anything that everything is more complicated and more nuanced than I think I previously knew. And so I applaud diversity programs and companies that are implementing them because they're important. But certainly they are hard and they are challenging and they require a lot more nuanced than I think we're currently giving. So that's advice to everyone. It's keep up with the work, but just do the work in a more nuanced, reflective way and take advantage of your research and that of others, for sure. I want to move away from your research and into your teaching.

You teach a course on managing groups and teams. Can you share two key concepts you cover as well as the role that communication might play in successful team management? Yes, I love this course. So I think groups and teams are so important. They're really what makes organizations and, you know, the human species successful. We are really a successful species because we're able to work well in groups. So this course is pleasure to teach. We cover a lot of concepts. So we talk about diversity and hierarchy and process. So it's really

tough to pick one of my favorite. I think one topic that covers a lot of different problems is the idea of process loss. So process loss is really anything that undermines. a team's performance or ability to succeed. And sometimes those problems fall into coordination, so people's ability to work together, sometimes motivation, where people become, you know, not willing to put in the effort, and sometimes ability.

So we don't structure teams in ways that allow them to use the talent within them. And one of the solutions that we talk about is roles. So it's really important in teams to have roles, to know who to turn to for what, to know who's in charge when, so that you can effectively focus on your task at hand. And so that's one thing that I think is really important,

and I try to cover in my class. And it also leads to your second question here, which is we talk a lot about roles in communication, and that's very important. So in order to effectively communicate, there are different roles you can have and you can use. And so we talk about the four-player model, which is essentially breaking down actions

of communications in teams. And so there are four possible X that one can use in a team when they're communicating. One is a movement where someone initiates something. They have an idea. They recommend something. So that's move. And there's support where someone amplifies something that the mover has said. They support it.

They reify the intention. There's also opposition where someone says, I disagree. I think we should take a step back. And then there's reflection where people reflect back what's going on as a team or some of the dynamics that are happening. And so for an order for effective communication to occur, we often recommend that all of these actions

are equally represented in a team. So you need enough movement to have momentum towards a certain path. You need support to create cohesion in a team to make people feel like they like each other. You also need opposition so that you're not blindly moving down the wrong path. And you need reflection to create collective intelligence

so that teams can understand how they're working together and do better on the next task. So not only do those four acts need to be equally represented in a team dynamic or conversation, but they should also be equally represented in terms of an individual. So you want to make sure that you're engaging in all four of these acts. If you get stuck in a role where, let's say, you're the opposer,

and you're always saying, I don't want to do this or I don't think this is a good idea, you might just be seen as the crumogenely person who's disagreeable rather than the person who's bringing up actually a very good problem or something that people should pay attention to. And so in some, I think the class highlights the importance of different roles and those roles could be the leadership roles. They could be your role on a team and how you contribute. And they could also be the roles that you play in creating effective communication.

You did my job of summarizing very well. Thank you. You're supporting. One of the things that I was thinking of as you were articulating roles and then those different movements, I think it would be beneficial for everybody to reflect on a recent team interaction they have. And think about what role were you playing? What roles were others playing? Where were you over indexed? You had too many people doing one thing and where were you missing? And then do exactly the same thing with the communication that happened. I often talk about, and listeners have heard me say this, that we need to reflect on the communication that we have in our lives in order to change it. Otherwise, we're doing that definition of insanity. Same thing over and over again, expecting different results. And you gave us some very interesting tools and ways of breaking that down. And thank you for that. I think that all of us could benefit from reflecting on the roles we had and the moves we

and others make. We'll be right back to finish our conversation. But first, a quick word from what are. of our sponsors. Their support allows us to bring you this show free of charge. If you've ever felt like you're trying to do everything yourself, especially when the stakes are high, you're not alone. One of the biggest shifts I see in effective leaders growing their organizations comes from focusing on the right things. But that's hard to do when you're stretched thin. You need to be able to delegate some tasks to competent professionals. That's where Upwork

can really help. Upwork is a one-stop platform to find, hire, and pay expert freelancers across areas like marketing, development, data and analytics, and more. It gives you fast access to specialized talent so you can move quickly, fill key gaps, and scale your work without taking on full-time overhead. You can browse profiles, review past work, and get support scoping your project so you can hire with confidence. It's a simple way to focus your time where it matters most. Visit upwork.com right now and post your job for free. That's upwork.com to connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's upw-w-rk.com.

And now back to our conversation. Well, Ashley, before we end, I'd love for you to answer the same three questions I ask everybody who joins me. Are you up for that? Absolutely. All right, here we go. If you were to capture the best communication advice you ever received as a five to seven word presentation slide title, what would it be?

don't be afraid to use silence. I like this advice. It's actually thinking of it on the spot, but I think silence is a powerful tool. I think oftentimes when we're communicating, we're afraid of it. And we try to fill gaps and voids in conversation. But I also think that prevents us from listening,

from being able to engage, and also to exude an executive presence. The most effective communicators, I know, are really the ones who are comfortable with silence. they let the room speak. They summarize what's going on and engage with what's going on because they're able to hold space for that.

Did I wait long enough to prove the point? So the power of silence is very real. And it signals so many things. It signals comfort. It signals listening. It invites reflection. It's a powerful tool. And it's one, as you rightly mentioned, I believe,

people don't focus on. It makes us feel very uncomfortable. comfortable. Question number two, who is a communicator that you admire and why? I would say Deb Gruenfeld. She's my colleague here at the GSB and I just love watching her communicate. She uses silence so well. She is a perfect example of someone who really is so powerful and doesn't need to talk all the time. You know, when I came into the classroom and I started teaching MBAs, I, you know, did this thing where I would come up to the front of the class and I would clap and say, hey, listen up, I'm here. And, you know, try to get their attention in that way. And I would

think that I needed to talk to be the one who's sharing information and teaching them something. And then I watch Deb teach. And she just comes up to the front of the classroom and she's silent. And she waits for people to stop talking and engage with her. She was really able to hold space for other people to talk. She really listens and there's such power in using those tools to communicate. So I really admire the way she does it. I'm still learning to do it as well as Deb. I'm not even close, but I've learned a lot from her about communication. So Deb is a wonderful person and a fantastic teacher and she was one of our early guests. So anybody wanting to listen to the way in which Deb communicates, please, please go back and listen to that episode. It was all about power and nonverbal

presence and it was fascinating. All right, question number three, what are the first three ingredients that go into a successful communication recipe? The words I would use are listen, engage, and express. So we've talked a little bit about listening with silence. Tell me more about engage and express. I think engaging comes from listening, so you need to do that first. But really hearing what people are saying and engaging with those particular.

particular questions and those particular problems. I think sometimes, at least I used to, have set points that I wanted to communicate. And oftentimes I was missing what people actually cared about or what they actually wanted to know. And there was a better entry point for me to do that if I really took in what they were saying and tried to engage on that level. So that's where that piece of advice comes from. And then Express is going against that advice in some ways. It's engaging. But if there is something at the end of that that you still want to communicate or you still want to say that either violates the room or what people want to engage with, I think that's still important to communicate because there should be a message that you want to transmit and for people to hear and listen to and leave with. So in essence, you need to share your voice to share your opinion, even if it's not what was expected. I like it. I'm a big fan of trying to remember things. So it's eel. It's express, engage, and listen.

I'm glad you said that. I was hoping for three E's. It didn't happen. But, you know, I think it works. I think it works. Well, Ashley, it was a true pleasure having you here. I learned so much. I learned that some of the things that I did and my children did as kindergartners can actually enlighten us academically, that nuance is important when it comes to diversity, equity, and inclusion. And really reflecting on our roles and the type of communication we have in teams is so important. Thank you so much and I appreciate the teachings you provided us with. Oh, thank you so much. It was so fun to be here. Thanks for joining us for another episode of Think Fast, Talk Smart, the podcast from Stanford Graduate School of Business. This episode was produced by Jenny Luna,

Ryan Campos, and me, Matt Abrams. Our music was provided by Floyd Wonder. For more information in episodes, find us on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you, and please make sure to subscribe and follow us on LinkedIn. Before we wrap up, I just want to say thank you for listening. It really means a lot to hear how people all over the world are using these ideas in their own lives. It inspires me and the whole team that brings you this show. If you want more episodes and resources, feel free to follow, subscribe, and explore past conversations. We're grateful for your support of Think Fast Talk Smart.