Gender Differences in the Workplace - Research Paper Example

?Gender Differences in Communication and Gender Inequality in the Workplace From traditional values and gender-specific roles, the new millennium haswitnessed the evolution of women in their quest for their place equal to men. Numerous studies have shown how women, previously viewed as feeble in their performance in jobs traditionally reserved for men, have empowered themselves to prove that they are as capable, if not more, than their male counterparts. This essay will discuss gender differences in the workplace, specifically how each gender communicates and how they perform as organizational leaders. It will derive its information from research of the literature on gender and organizations. It is particularly relevant in the aspect of organizational communication, human resource management/ development as well as organizational development, as practitioners should be made aware of gender differences in order to hold appropriate expectations and delegate tasks suitable to each member of the staff. It also aims to promote harmony in the workplace through effective organizational communication. Gender Differences in Communication as Molded by Socialization. Men and women are known to be wired differently in many aspects but also in terms of communication. Such gender differences are solidified in their lifetime as they are treated differently from birth. Rasquinha & Mouly (2005) contend that from the time they are born, baby girls are considered fragile and they are exposed to delicate language and handled very gently. Boys, on the other hand, are exposed to strong tones and power-filled language and are handled less gently as they are tossed in the air and held upright from a younger age to demonstrate their power and strength. The Sociolinguistic Subculture Approach suggest that boys and girls grow up in essentially different talk subcultures resulting from the differing expectations parents and peers direct toward them about acceptable ways to talk (Maltz and Borker, 1982). Children as young as two classify themselves and other people as belonging to one of two genders. By age three, girls develop skills at talking earlier than boys and these talking skills are utilized to explore relationships with others. They are more likely than boys to deploy language strategies that demonstrate attentiveness, responsiveness, and support (Leaper, 1991). They develop intimate relationships by selecting a “best friend” and use language to find common ground with that friend. Boys at the same age are not as verbal. They use more strategies that demand attention, give orders, and establish dominance (Leaper, 1991). They engage in group activities with other boys and test out their ‘high’ and ‘low’ status roles: “I’m the leader”, “you follow me”, etc. They establish positions among the group and they are apparently louder, more physical and less verbal than girls (Rasquinha & Mouly, 2005). By the age of 7, children have acquired gender constancy (Kohlberg & Zigler, 1967) and knowledge of gender-role stereotypes (Huston, 1983; Martin, 1989). As they transition to middle childhood, interaction strategies become more gender-differentiated. Whereas girls become more competent in collaborative strategies, boys stick to their reliance on domineering influence strategies. Bakan (1966) explained that boys are taught to value autonomy, competition and linear problem solving and such values are expressed by the encouragement of self-assertion and self-expansion (Mason, 1994). They grow up learning that information and communication relationships can be used to obtain power. On the other hand, girls are socialized to be more communal, valuing relationships and collaboration. Mason (1994) argued that the communal orientation is characterized by concern, selflessness, consideration for others and a desire to be one with them. Girls learn that communication is one avenue where relational bonds are strengthened, thus they learn to value it well (Chodorow, 1989). Tannen (cited in Rasquinha & Mouly, 2005), a professor of linguistics, theorized that as adults, men and women reproduce such behavior patterns. Men engage in 'one up' strategies to position themselves in groups and women use talk to build harmonious relationships with each other. Men focus on facts instead of feelings while women are the opposite. They expect their feelings to be acknowledged and supported. “Women speak and listen for a language of connection and intimacy. Men speak and listen for a language of status and independence” (Rasquinha & Mouly, 2005, p.10). Linguistic Differences of Men and Women Research on communication has identified specific use of language to determine speaker’s confidence, assertiveness and efficiency in negotiations. Lakoffs (1978) has operationalized a tag question as “midway between an outright statement and yes-no question.. .the tag question seeks confirmation and thereby communicates an attitude of uncertainty (p. 54)." Examples are the additional “don’t you think so?” or “wasn’t it?” after stating an opinion. Disclaimers are defined as “introductory expressions that excuse, explain, or request understanding or forebearance” (Eakins and Eakins, 1977, p. 45). Examples are “You may not agree, but..” or “I’m no expert, but…”. Tag questions and disclaimers are usually used to “soften the blow” of an otherwise strong statement or opinion. Sometimes, the effect of using such is lessening the credibility of the point being made by the speaker. Closely related to disclaimers are qualifiers (also referred to as hedges), which are adverbs (e.g., "maybe," "perhaps," "sort of ) that tend to weaken the strength of the statement presented. Most often, disclaimers and qualifiers are considered to be less directive speech evoked by those with less power in a situation (Lakoff, 1990). Interruptions may be classified as plain interruptions and unsuccessful interruptions. Pearson (1985) indicates that interruptions occur when a person "begins to speak before the last word that could suggest the end of the speaker's statement, question, or comment (p. 197). Unsuccessful interruptions are those which no one responded to and the interrupted speaker continues to talk and keep the attention of the others. Interruptions are usually symptoms of assertive behavior in that the speaker attempts to be heard. Overlaps are simultaneous speech occurring very close to each other, like possible transition from one speaker to another. Zimmerman and West (1975) found that men overlap women more than women overlap men and concluded that overlaps are similar to interruptions as a means of asserting dominance. Back channels are minimal responses that signal the listener's encouragement and support, such as "yeah," "mm-hmm," and "right" (Kollock et al. 1985, p.39). Research suggests that back channels are mostly used by those with less authority to show deference to people with higher authority. The subculture approach argues that back channels may be a reflection of women's greater learned expressiveness, sociability, and showing of interest (Maltz and Borker 1982; Carli 1990). In relation to this, Kollock, Blumstein, and Schwartz’s (1985) study of couples in intimate relationships suggests that the more powerful partner was defined as the one who had more influence in decision-making relative to the other. Results indicated that, the more powerful partner demonstrated a higher rate of interrupting than the less powerful partner, regardless of gender. Also, the less powerful partner, had a higher rate of "back channels" than the more powerful partner Linguistic literature indicates that women's communication characteristically includes more intensifiers, implied imperatives, tag questions, politeness, wordiness, allowance of interruptions, disclaimers, qualifiers, and hesitations than men's language (Eakins & Eakins, 1976; Hewitt & Stokes, 1975; Pearson, 1985). Linguistics research confirms that women are more fluid with language and that women pay more attention to listening - for facts AND feelings. On the other hand, men's language has been characterized as more assertive/aggressive, precise, and instrumental than women's language (Fitzpatrick & Bochner, 1981; Liska, Mechling, & Strathas, 1981). They oppose, they joke, they use banter to undermine the speaker. In a corporate setting, Smeltzer and Watson (1986) did a study to investigate gender differences in communication during negotiations. They found out that women use significantly more disclaimers, interruptions, and attempted interruptions than men during collective bargaining sessions. However, no significant differences were found between men and women's use of tag questions. Apparently, the use of language may be specific to the situation at hand. Women generally use non-assertive communication, as they were raised to be that way. It is no wonder that they tend to use more tag questions and disclaimers. However, when they feel more self-confident, they use more assertive communication (Stake & Stake, 1979). Also, although early research findings suggest that men interrupt more often in conversations (Thorne & Henley, 1975; Zimmerman & West, 1975), more recent research, such as the one by Smeltzer and Watson (1986) suggest that highly educated women surpassed men in the number of interruptions they made. However, interruptions are not necessarily indications of dominant communication styles (Kennedy & Camden, 1983). Women in the workplace need to be aware of their use of tag questions, disclaimers, interruptions and the like, and should learn to use more assertive communication skills to overcome gender discrimination and make themselves heard and acknowledged in male-dominated situations. Workplace communication Richmond & McCroskey (2005) defines organizational communication as “the process by which individuals stimulate meaning in the minds of other individuals by means of verbal or nonverbal messages in the context of a formal organization” (p. 20). There are six functions that seem to dominate communication in the organizational context. The functions are to inform, regulate, integrate, manage, persuade, and socialize. These functions aim to support workers in the performance of their duties within the organization. Women value the relationship between perceived organizational support and communication with their colleagues more than men because they see their relationships as more communal and based on equality (Amason & Allen, 1997). At the same time, they find communication relationships with supervisors and top management as important due to the fact that they look for validation and self-worth from such authority figures (Fagot, 1985). Men, in contrast see the relationship between organizational support and information provided by their supervisors as important because they are predisposed towards personal accomplishment, competition and the pursuit of power (Monendas, 1992). They may view information derived from top management as tools to help them achieve their goals. In terms of how they use talk to further their goals, men may speak for a longer time than women in public situations and this may be interpreted as conveying dominance (Aries, 1976; Tannen, 1990). Women talk more in private settings in order to establish and maintain relationships and to show interest and participation (Tannen, 1990). Professionals are traditionally considered to exhibit masculine communication behavior such as rationality, power, decisiveness, and objectivity rather than so called feminine communication behavior (Bradley, 1981). Professional women are seen as less powerful in terms of communication. When they exhibit assertive language in the workplace, their image is transformed to one who is more aggressive or “out-of-role” and if this may jeopardize their effectiveness especially when they manifest their assertiveness above accepted levels (Kennedy & Camden, 1983). There are also gender differences in non-verbal communication. Johnson (1994) studied males and females in various groupings and found out that men in same-sex groups have significantly lower rates of both smiling and laughing than women in same-sex groups. In terms of leader-subordinate conversations, female managers and subordinates have the highest rates of laughing in same and mixed sex groups. This supports the subcultural approach that women communicate in ways to preserve harmonious relationships. However, male managers and subordinates have higher rates of smiling and laughing in mixed than same-sex groups. And female subordinates have lower rates of smiling with male than female managers, while male subordinates with female managers have the highest rate of smiling. Obviously, the gender composition of a group clearly has an effect on nonverbal behaviors. One thing is confirmed, though. Women discriminate less between men and women in their expressions of smiling and laughing than men. It is inevitable to associate flirtatious behavior in inter-gender interactions. Abrahams (1994) defined flirtatious communications as “messages and behaviors perceived by a recipient as purposefully attempting to gain his or her attention and stimulate his or her interest in the sender, while simultaneously being perceived as intentionally revealing an affiliative desire” (p. 283). If the issue of flirtation in communication patterns were considered, Koeppel, Montagne-Miller, O’Hair and Cody (1993) found that men and women differed in their perceptions of flirtatiousness. Men’s perception of flirtatious and seductive behavior is strongly related to who initiated the interaction, while for women attribute flirtation to nonverbal displays. The phrase popularized by John Gray’s (1992) book, “Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus” aptly describes how the two genders are often off-tangent in understanding each other’s communication patterns. Although they share the same human characteristics, society, history and even biology, may be responsible in wiring them differently due to the varied roles expected of them. As men are expected to be the dominant gender, they are wired to communicate in ways that show that they are in control, devoid of emotional hang ups, and goes direct to the point. Women, on the other hand, expected to be nurturers, buffer their language with long-winded, emotionally stimulating phraseology to land a soft impact on their listeners. Difference in Leadership Eagly (2007) has differentiated leadership of men and women under two major characteristics. Communal traits such as kindness, concern for others, warmth and gentleness are associated more with women while agentic traits such as confidence, aggressiveness and self-direction are associated more with men. Stereotypically, leadership is ascribed more with agentic traits, which means men are seen as more natural leaders, leaving women leaders at a disadvantage. This implies that women leaders face a double bind (Eagly & Carli, 2004) because they are expected to be both: communal leaders due to traits believed to be inherent in the female gender role as well as agentic leaders due to traits believed to be inherent in a leader. Balancing such traits may be a challenge for women leaders since these traits can counter each other. It is commonly believed that women lack the stereotypical agentic qualities of a good leader because they are not tough enough and do not take charge. However, if a woman leader displays agentic characteristics such as being directive and assertive, she is viewed as being unfeminine. Such a situation leaves women leaders with difficulties in finding an appropriate and effective leadership style (Eagly, 2007). Yoder (2001) suggested that an effective middle ground leadership for women is the coach/ teacher style, which epitomizes transformational leadership. This style has culturally feminine aspects such as “individualized consideration” behaviors (Hackman, Furniss, Hills, & Patterson, 1992), while being androgynous in nature. Hyde (2005) contends that female leaders are more transformational than male leaders. They exceeded men on individualized consideration, an aspect that encompasses supportive, encouraging treatment of subordinates. Further, Yoder (2001) reports certain behaviors that are gender appropriately effective. For example, for men leaders, sitting at the head of the table surrounded by a mixed-gender group would gain them the perception that they are leading the group. This only works for women if they are surrounded by an all-woman group and not by a mixed gender group. Men are considered “in character” when they exhibit competent assertiveness, meaning they ask for what they want, refuse what they don’t and express both positive and negative messages to others. It is more common for men to interrupt others, avoid tentative speech patterns with hedging (ex. “sort of”), disclaimers (e.g. “I may be wrong but…”), tag questions (… isn’t it?) and empty intensifiers (“so”, “really”), (Carli, 1990). Being dominant, autocratic or directive, self-promoting and creating a structure to guide group interaction give credence to male leadership but not women’s (Yoder, 2001). On the other hand, focusing on status-enhancement combined with status leveling as a way to balance power is associated more with female leadership (Yoder, 2001). Professionals are traditionally considered to exhibit masculine communication behavior such as rationality, power, decisiveness, and objectivity rather than so called feminine communication behavior (Bradley, 1981). Professional women are seen as less powerful in terms of communication. When they exhibit assertive language in the workplace, their image is transformed to one who is more aggressive or “out-of-role” and if this may jeopardize their effectiveness especially when they manifest their assertiveness above accepted levels (Kennedy & Camden, 1983). Wahrman and Pugh (1974) agree and found that women who displayed nonconforminst behavior early on were more disliked and deemed less desirable as a coworker by male group members. This implies that women leaders should bide their time and ensure their position in the group before attempting to execute innovative changes in the organization. It remains that female leaders encounter difficulties in masculine settings (Eagly, 2007). They find it a challenge to embody authority since they have to contend with expectations and criticisms that they lack the toughness and competitiveness necessary to succeed as a leader. Under these circumstances, women find difficulty in building helpful relationships and gaining acceptance in influential networks (Timberlake, 2005). Such hurdles make it doubly challenging for women to advance up in a highly male-dominated hierarchy and would take an especially strong, skillful and persistent woman who can maintain her confidence and ignore threats to her self-esteem and doubts and criticisms as to her abilities to lead successfully. Women who exhibited superior competence on a task as compared to the skills of the group earned more influence than women who were less competent. Those who demonstrated skills equivalent to that of a male partner are sure to gain the respect they expect and rightfully deserve (Pugh & Wahrman, 1983). Gender inequality in the workplace Nowadays, women are able to penetrate into jobs that are traditionally considered male-dominated. Research has shown that women are more responsible and hard-working and can be more efficient than their male counterparts. However, it is still apparent that men dominate the social, political and professional (Taylor, Kemeny, Reed, Bower, & Grunewald, 2000). Many women claim that they have fewer opportunities to succeed in their work than men do and have to exert greater effort in order to be promoted in their jobs. Men are more readily employed and more supported by their employers than women (Bergman, 2003). The Career Development Group maintains that there is social disadvantage due to the fact that there exist particular social roles which influence the public lives of both genders. These roles were established in patriarchal societies and are therefore strongly influenced by social power, which usually belong to men. Being influenced by the rules of society conduct people yield to these stereotypes (Equal Opportunities Policy and Statements). With the growing number of women joining the workforce, only a few are selected to occupy executive positions. They encounter more barriers to their career growth because frequently, they are excluded from social and professional networking. They are aware that they need to exert greater effort than men to prove their worth in the organization. This leads to negative self-evaluation of their own supervisory abilities and since they set low performance expectations, they harshly criticize themselves when performance appraisals are done. Women experience more motivational challenges and career uncertainties and this could be attributed to their negative work feedback (Valentine, 2001). On the other hand, men perceived their abilities, contributions and successes higher than they rate women’s characteristics. Sex stereotypes may also afford men many employment advantages. White males are perceived to be the most efficient supervisors and skilled workers, and quite often are the highest compensated demographic group in many industries. Previous research indicates that employees often treat men and women supervisors differently. Some studies have shown that subordinates show a preference for male leadership. Some have concluded that female subordinates trust male supervisors more than they trust female supervisors and others show that subordinates are more likely to blame female managers for negative work outcomes. Manager's perceptions of their own supervisor responsibility also positively affected job satisfaction and employee monitoring, which implies that empowered managers, both male and female, tend to be more satisfied with their current employment situation and are more likely to direct their employees' activities. Monitoring typically involves assessing employee performance, providing employee feedback, and implementing control mechanisms that enable employees to succeed in their jobs. Monitoring can therefore be considered a critical aspect of supervision because it enhances employee performance and productivity. In this regard, women perceived less supervisory responsibility in their jobs than did men. This finding is not unusual considering women's negative work experiences. (Valentine, 2001). Conclusion and Recommendations Gender inequality in the workplace puts women in a position where they may keep complaining about their situation or do something positive about it. Proving to the world that they are worthy of being treated equally, paid equally and regarded with the same respect as men will not only benefit them but the whole company as well. Women can be great, if not better, assets to the company they belong to, if only their motivations, talents and potentials are optimized. It is inspiring to know that in spite of prevailing gender inequality in favor of men in employment situations, there are still women who prove to be survivors. On top of management being more supportive of women workers, women themselves should be empowered to assert themselves to attain their rightful positions as equals of men. According to those that have already climbed high on the ladder, the outlook is promising for women who are willing to work hard and break down any barriers that may exist (Higgins, 2004). Learning to be more assertive in their communication would help a woman go further in her career. Confident that she is able to join the ranks of men leaders because of her skills, abilities and personality, effective communication skills would not be difficult to attain. A woman should learn to use a firm tone of voice when expressing strong convictions and sharing of brilliant ideas. She must also avoid language deficiencies such as stammering, stuttering, use of tag questions, disclaimers, qualifiers and other patterns that may make her verbal communication seem weaker than it is. Controlling extraneous movements in her non-verbal communication and maintaining good eye contact would help to command the attention and respect of her colleagues. The hard work of researchers on effective communication will only bear fruit if men and women follow their advise and learn ways to compromise on gender differences. It is in understanding where each other is coming from and acknowledging the fact that they are inherently different that true harmony will set in. Men and women may come from opposite poles, but when they come together and agree to be on the same side, even for just certain situations, then there is hope that gender differences in communication and leadership will eventually subside. References Abrahams, M.F. (1994) “Perceiving Flirtatious Communication: An Exploration of the Perceptual Dimensions Underlying Judgments of Flirtatiousness”, The Journal of Sex Research, vol. 31, No. 4, 283-292 Amason, P. and Allen, M.W. (1997) Intraorganizational Communication, Perceived Organizational Support, and Gender, Sex Rotes, VoL 37, Nos. 11/12, Aries, E. J. (1976). Interaction patterns and themes of male, female and mixed groups. Small Group Behavior, 7, 7–18. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence. Chicago: Rand McNally. Bergman, B. (2003) The validation of the women workplace culture questionnaire: gender-related stress and health for Swedish working women. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research Bradley, P.H. (1981). “The folk-linguistics of women's speech: An empirical Examination”, Communication Monographs, 48, 73-90. Carli, L. L. (1990). "Gender, Language, and Influence." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59:941-51 Chodorow, N. (1989). Feminism and psychoanalytic theory. New Haven, CT; Yale University Press. Eagly, A.H. (2007) Female Leadership Advantage And Disadvantage: Resolving The Contradictions, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31 (2007), 1–12. Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2004).Women and men as leaders. In J. Antonakis, A. T. Cianciolo, & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The nature of leadership (pp. 279– 301). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Eakins, B. and Eakins, G. (1977) "Verbal Turn-Taking and Exchanges in Faculty Dialogue." Pp. 53-62 in The Sociology of the Languages of American Women, edited by B. L. Dubois and I. Crouch. San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press. Equal Opportunities Policy and Statements (2006) Retrieved on June 20, 2011 from http://www.careerdevelopmentgroup.org.uk Fagot, B. I. (1985). Beyond the reinforcement principle; Another step towards Understanding sex role development. Developmental Psychology, 2, 1097-1104. Fitzpatrick, M.A., & Bochner, A. (1981). “Perspectives on self and others: Male-female differences in perceptions of communication behavior”. Sex Roles, 7, 523-534. Gray, J. (1992). Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus. New York: Harper Collins Hewitt, John P., and Randall Stokes. 1975. "Disclaimers." American Sociological Review 40: 1-11. Higgins, S. (2004),”Breaking down barriers.” Hotel & Motel Management,  August, 2004   Huston, A. G. (1983) “Sex-typing”, In E. M. Hetberington (Ed.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, Personality, and Social Development (pp. 387-467). New York: Wiley. Johnson, C. (1994) “Gender, Legitimate Authority, And Leader-Subordinate Conversations”, American Sociological Review, 1994, Vol. 59, 122-135 Kennedy, C.W., & Camden, C.T. (1983) “Interruptions and Nonverbal Gender Differences”, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 8, 91-108. Koblberg, L., & Zigler, E. (1967). “Tbe impact of cognitive maturity on tbe development of sex-role attitudes in the years 4 to 8.” Genetic Psychology Monographs, 75, 89-165. Koeppel, L.B., Montagne-Miller, Y., O’Hair, D., & Cody, M.J. (1993) “Friendly? Flirting? Wrong?” In P.J. Kalbfieisch (ed.) Interpersonal Communication: Evolving interpersonal relationships (pp. 13-32) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kollock, P., Blumstein, P. and Schwartz, P. (1985) "Sex and Power in Interaction: Conversational Privileges and Duties." American Sociological Review. 50: 34-46 Lakoff, R. (1978). Language and woman's place. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Lakoff, R. (1990) Talking Power: The Politics of Language in Our Lives. New York: Basic Books. Leaper, C. (1991) “Influence and Involvement in Children's Discourse: Age, Gender, and Partner Effects”, Child Development, 1991, 62, 797-811 Liska, J., Mechling, E.W., & Strathas, S. (1981) “Differences in subjects' perceptions of gender and believability between users of deferential and non-deferential language.”, Communication Quarterly, 29, 40-48. Maltz, D.N, and Borker, R.A. (1982) "A Cultural Approach to Male-Female Miscommunication."Pp. 196-216 in Language and Social Identity, edited by J. J. Gumperz. Cambridge,England: Cambridge University. Martin, G. L. (1989). “Children's use of gender-related information in making social judgments”, Developmental Psychology, 25, 80—88. Mason, E. S. (1994). Gender differences in job satisfaction. The Joumal of Social Psychology,135, 143-151. Monedas, M. (1992). Men communicating with women; Self-esteem and power. In L. A. M. Perry, Turner, L. H., & H. M. Sterk (Eds.), Constructing and reconstructing gender The links among communication, language, and gender. Albany; State University of New York Press. Pearson, J. C. (1985) Gender and Communication. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. Rasquinha, D. & Mouly, S. (2005) “When Women Talk: What Do Leaders Sound Like?”, Organisational Culture, June 2005. Richmond, V.P. & McCroskey, J.C. (2005) Organizational communication for survival: making work,work. Retrieved June 20, 2011 from http://www.ilstu.edu/~llipper/com329/mccroskey_chapter.pdf Smeltzer, L.R. & Watson, K.W. (1986) “Gender Differences In Verbal Communication During Negotiations”, Communication Research Reports Volume 3 Stake, J.E., & Stake, M.N. (1979). “Performance--Self-esteem and dominance in mixed sex dyads”, Journal of Personality, 47, 23-84. Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: Ballantine Books Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., Reed, G. M., Bower J. E., & Grunewald, T. L. (2000) Psychological resources, positive illusions, and health. American Psychologist Thome, B. and, Henley, N. (1975) "Difference and Dominance: An Overview of Language, Gender, and Society." Pp. 5-42 in Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance, edited by B. Thome and N. Henley. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Timberlake, S. (2005). Social capital and gender in the workplace.Journal of Management Development, 24, 34–44. Valentine, S., (2001) Men and Women Supervisors' Job Responsibility, Job Satisfaction and Employee Monitoring, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research. Plenum Publishing Corporation Yoder, J. D. (2001). Making leadership work more effectively for women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 815–828. Zimmerman, D H. and West, C. (1975), "Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation." Pp. 105-29 in Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance, edited by B. Thome and N. Henley. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Read More