Re the show “The Apprentice” it seems that women in the all female “Apex” group have a considerably more difficult time than men accepting or adapting to a dominant - subordinant heirarchial work structure in assigning and carrying out tasks. In each episode I’ve seen (last two) it seems that one (or more) of the female members have a passive-aggressive “You’re not the boss of me” attitude toward the assigned “boss” for a particular task that interferes with getting orders carried out.
Is this a typical dynamic for all female groups, or do women readily adapt to heirarchial task assignments in all female groups in real life, or do they do something competely different?
I know there are effective all female groups in real life. How do they get the job done?
God, that episode irritated the crap out of me - I love how Carolyn told them straight out that they’re an embarassment to professional women.
My experience with female groups comes from degrees at a women’s college and then library school, which is basically the same thing, right? I don’t want to make any sweeping generalizations about women in general, but in my experience these are some characteristics of female group behavior:
Women often don’t want to seem domineering or overly pushy. I know often I’ve seen myself as the leader of a group (or more often the only member with multiple functioning brain cells) but felt I couldn’t really “take charge” in an alpha male sort of way - and ended up saying “Well what do you think” more than I would have liked to. Female leaders often find themselves leading by suggestion, I guess.
Similarly, female groups tend to be much more collaborative than male groups. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it can be taken to bad extremes (see when the women were trying to pick a name on the show - that was dead on).
Women are usually reluctant to hurt anybody’s feelings. (All bets are off for that viper’s nest.) That sometimes means nobody wants to make a decision that some people may not like. You may witness this behavior any time a group of womenwho don’t know each other very well is trying to pick a restaurant.
I don’t think it’s the case that women won’t accept a leader who has proven herself as a good leader, works alongside her followers, is competent, etc. I do think that women who have just met and are not in a structured work environment may tend to resentment and “who does she think she is” when one person tries to take charge.
In my experience, women’s groups are very strong in teamwork, in getting a breadth of diverse ideas from everybody, and in tasks that requires these strengths. They’re also good at encouraging one another and in working as a cohesive group. Men’s groups, on the other hand, are good at making a single goal, fulfilling that single goal, picking one leader, all that. Personally I’d far prefer to work in a mixed group of capable professionals than a single sex group of either brand.
I was sickened and embarassed to watch the women on The Apprentice. That is not how a normal healthy group of females works, even a group composed entirely of alpha personalities. The women in the first season had their problems (and their tits hanging out), but they weren’t actively cringeworthy when compared to the way the similar men’s group functioned. I wish they’d show a normal healthy professional group of females for contrast, like whatever women are on Carolyn’s team. And then I wish that normal healthy group of women would go break the Apex team’s noses.
The forty or so women with whom I went through eight weeks of basic training were certainly well able to work together cooperatively and function within a sharply-defined hierarchy.
*The Apprentice * doesn’t show women in a very good light. From what I have heard, at least this season they’re relying somewhat less on their boobs to win tasks, thank God.
I must say, though, that if Mark Burnett is going to provide us with unflattering stereotypes of female behavior in the business world, I preferred last season’s.
If I were a normal non-crazy professional black woman, Mark Burnett would have to be very careful before he started his car in the morning. Just sayin’.
Stacie was no Assorama; she was railroaded for sure. Still, I sense a conspiracy to show black women in a bad light on these shows. For that matter, I’m seeing all women (and to a lesser degree, all black people) as being put down on “reality” shows, basing that opinion on Survivor, Big Brother, and The Apprentice. Surely women in real life aren’t so nasty and incompetent.
I think most of the problems come from having so many ambitious women in one group. Most normal groupings of women at work have a more balanced power structure. Especially in a retail setting you have one or two leader-types (manager and assistant) and a bunch of worker-bees, many of whom actively avoid any decision-making role. A lot of women prefer to be followers and will work like crazy doing what they’ve been instructed to do, but don’t ask them to be in charge. As a leader-type, I have continually been surprised by women who tell me they do not want to be in a position of responsibility…refusing to become an opener/closer key holder, for example. They just want to come in, do their job and then leave it at the door. Then there are the ones who are mildly ambitious: they will take on added responsibility and move up the ladder, but they don’t seek it out.
The only time you don’t get a lot of cooperation is when all the management types are together, and especially if they are being critiqued on their leadership skills. Each one thinks she knows the best way to do something, and to yield to someone else makes you look weak, they think. Since this is precisely the situation on The Apprentice, it is not surprising the sparks are flying. Sad and depressing, but not surprising.
Oh, and if you remember from last season, one woman got fired because she didn’t speak up and defend herself in the boardroom. So this season, no one will shut up.
I don’t think Ap§ex’s behavior is typical of women working in a group, not even for ambitious women. I work with almost exclusively women, in a clearly defined hierarchy, and we don’t have those sorts of problems. Maybe it’s because all of us have one overarching goal that requires cooperation. Maybe it’s because we’re smart enough to realize we don’t know everything. Maybe it’s because we realize that snotting and snorting and acting like an ass will get us the boot (that shit gets in the way of our overall goal, after all). There have been a few over the years who got all full of themselves and tried that sort of thing, but that’s because they had a bad attitude, not because they’re women.
I think a lot of the issues on the show are because these particular women are all used to being the queen bee. They’re used to everyone automatically deferring to them (some theories say because they’re pretty, I say it’s to shut them up). Everybody’s used to being the diva, and they’ll be damned if they’re going to give up the spotlight. There are a few exceptions, but I think a lot of them view any attempts at leadership or authority as usurping their rightful spotlight. As ZSofia puts it, “who does she think she is?”
To be a bit kinder to, heh, “A§pex”, it’s true that they see themselves as being evaluated on their leadership ability, not their ability to follow orders, work well in a team, etc. (This may or may not really be what they’re being evaluated on; both Bill and Kwame last season tried to show well as leaders and followers.) So you have all these women who think they HAVE to be leading, and they’re all alpha types, and there’s no clear-cut heirarchy for them. Every week the project manager changes, and they carry baggage from week to week over what the heirarchy was then as opposed to what it is now. So I can see how that would create interpersonal problems, especially when you bring two people into the boardroom last week and one of them comes back to the room with you. Still, a group of mature professionals ought to be able to handle that. The ladies did last season, and the men did this one. Pamela, on the men’s team, seems perfectly fine in either role as well. Of course she’s not an evil backbiting bitch, which is why she took her first opportunity to jump the women’s ship.
I suppose the viper-pit nature of A§pex could also be Real World casting by Burnett and company to create drama, or editing to suggest that the men’s team has no problems, but hell, girls, they can’t edit in things you didn’t do and didn’t say. They dress like grownups this season but they act like they’re in junior high. So my verdict is that while some of their behavior is an exaggeration of actual female group behavior (especially how they get stuck brainstorming for hours because nobody wants to make the decision), but most of it is vile evil bitchiness not found in typical female groups.
I mean, you never say those things to anybody’s face.
Personally, as a woman, I’d prefer to work with men. Women are more bitchy, backbiting and emotional. (IMHO, of course) Men usually just focus on the job and there isn’t the inter-personal BS that you have with women.
As you may have guessed, I’m not the touchy-feely sort.
It was exactly the opposite. The women were like a machine. The men were about as effective as a cast-iron pincushion. The women won the first four weeks in a row and they had to reorganize the teams.
If women can’t work together in a group as well as men, explain Season 1.
In my last two jobs I’ve been on teams which were all women + 1 man, and they function very differently. In the first group, there was a lot of cliqueishness, one upmanship, and bitchery, dictated from the top down by the Queen Bee boss lady from hell. Her example set the tone for everyone else, and it was horrible. I hated it and had to leave.
At my current job, it’s totally different. We are a mostly peaceful group who respect and like each other and aren’t possessive or territorial of our classroom materials, ideas, or support. I really think it depends on the women in question. Season 1’s women mostly seemed to like each other until they got into the last 4 or so (Katrinam, Omarosa, Heidi, and Amy) and then the fur started to fly. I think that was more a function of tension and competitiveness of the game rather than anything gender-specific.
I do think some women automatically feel threatened by other women in their realm and will compete reflexively, focusing on things that are not directly related to performance or job-related issues. Men, if they do get competitive, seem to express it differently, not focusing on things like stylistic choices, perceived sexuality, “attitude,” or appearance. Those things do seem like cattier things to focus on in the business world.
Like StGermain, I am a professional woman who generally prefers to work primarily with men, and for the same reasons she cites. However, even the worst female teams and individuals I’ve worked with don’t hold a candle to those embarassments at Apex. All but the most litigation-phobic companies I’ve worked for would have shown them the door ages ago. I can only hope deliberately “creative” editing and casting are part of the reason they appear so hopelessly unprofessional.
I don’t want to make any sweeping generalizations about women in general, but in my experience these are some characteristics of female group behavior: