Meetings: Where You Sit, How You Act, and What People Think Of You -- Plus Evidence of Sexism

When I was in graduate school at The University of Michigan, the group dynamics researchers used to talk about how seemingly innocent things could have a big effect on how much influence that people had.  One of the things they talked about a lot (as I recall from old studies done at Harvard) was that just putting people at the head of the table -- randomly assigning them -- would lead them to talk more, to order other people around, and to be seen as the leader. Indeed, a lot of this research is summarized in this great story called "You are Where You Sit" that was in BusinessWeek in 2007 -- especially in the above graphic (click on to see a larger version). 

Unfortunately, as I was looking for those old Harvard studies -- which I am still searching for -- I ran into a disturbing series of experiments on sex differences by Natalie Porter and her colleagues.  These studies show that when research subjects were shown pictures of people sitting around a table, that when a man was sitting at the head, he was nearly always identified as the leader, but when a woman was sitting at the head of the table, she was only  identified as the leader consistently when it was an all female group. Note that both male and female research subjects made more or less identical ratings -- so the women held the negative stereotypes just as strongly as the men,  Here is the abstract if you are curious:

This study shows that women are unlikely to be seen as leaders. Subjects (n =448) rated each member of a five-person group (shown in a photograph) on leadership attributes and also chose one of the five as "contributing most to the group. "Eight different stimulus slides were used. In two slides the "head-of-the-table" cue to group leadership was pitted against sex-role stereotypes. A man seated at the head of the table in a mixed-sex group was clearly seen as leader of his group, but a woman occupying the same position was ignored. The head-of the-table cue identified women as leaders only in all-female stimulus groups. The data were consistent with the hypotheses that sex stereotypes still control social judgments, and that discrimination operates nonconsciously and in spite of good intentions.

This study is old, but not that old -- 1983.  I wonder if it would still hold today. Based on how few women are CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, I fear that they still would. What do do you think?

Note the reference is:  Porter, N., Geis, F.L., & Jennings, (Walstedt), J. (1983). Are women invisible as leaders? Sex Roles, 9, 1035-1049.

Comments

[ObserverOnTheHill]

Regarding # 7 - The best test of a person's character is how he or she treats those with less power.

My father taught me : The best test of a person's character is how he treats those WHO CAN DO NOTHING FOR HIM.

I think this is a better litmus test as you may feel someone w/ "less" power may someday have more so you cover you bets.

[Cindy]

I've seen several of these studies about where you sit and they never mention people who stand. I don't mean underlings who stand behind the people they serve but those who just chose to stand. Where I work there are a couple of us that typically stand during meetings, particularly in larger group meetings. We have no trouble being heard or listened to but I wonder now what unconsious messages other people are receiving.

[Louise]

I know that anecdote are not data but this matches my experience (I work in Europe). I have found that identifying myself as the budget holder early in the first meeting (particularly with suppliers) focuses people attention.