Morons Earn Less
Life was simpler in Victorian London, where all business offices were headed by Mr. Scrooge, for whom toiled one or more Bob Cratchits, hunched over a high desk, scratching away with quill pens recording long columns of figures. So long as Bob worked his half-day on Christmas, all would be well. Alas, times change.
The Tulane University business school has released the results of survey of female MBAs, aged 25 through 60. Pay close attention: We are not talking about some long-ago secretarial pool, but modern women with business degrees. Tulane asked their 164 respondents to answer "yes" or "no" to the following statements:
- I wear a skirt or something more revealing than usual around clients or supervisors to get attention.
- I flirt with people at work.
- I draw attention to my legs by crossing them provocatively when in meetings or sitting with a group of men at work.
- I hint or imply that I am attracted to a man (men) at work even if I am not.
- I purposely let men sneak a look down my shirt when I lean over a table.
- I massage a man's shoulders or back while at work.
- I sent flirty or risqué e-mails to male co-workers.
- I tell male co-workers or clients they look sexy or "hot."
- I allow men to linger at certain places of my body while hugging them.
- I emphasize my sexuality while at work by the way I dress, speak, and act.
Could we make this stuff up? We could not. (We particularly like the questions about hugging, "lingering," and massaging. Where are these offices?)
Amazingly, half of the women surveyed said that they had done at least one of these things in order to advance their careers.
Tulane then asked that the respondents provide information on their pay level and promotion history, and found that, in addition to receiving more promotions:
Those who said they never used sexuality were, on average, in the $75,000-$100,000 income range; the others fell, on average, in the next-lowest range, $50,000 to $75,000.
The perpetrators of the study conclude that this means that such provocative behavior is ineffective in getting ahead.
It seems to us that there is a far simpler explanation. First, the study has divided these professional women into two groups: One group not only thinks this sort of thing is necessary or appropriate, but is willing to admit it to someone taking a survey. Let's call this group "idiots."
The second group behaves like intelligent grownups. We'll call this group "not idiots."
We think the study suggests that -- on average -- people who are not idiots get paid more than people who are idiots. And we're willing to go out on a limb and extend this hypothesis to men, as well.
Reported in USA Today.
[UPDATE - 8/8] Welcome relapsed Catholics (well, you know what I mean). You might be interested in THIS post while you're stopping by.
Presented for your delectation by the Gentleman Farmer at 5:59 PM
Comments on "Morons Earn Less"
-
Anonymous said ... (5:22 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (11:37 AM) :
-
Sigivald said ... (1:07 PM) :
post a commentYou say, "The second group behaves like intelligent grownups. We'll call this group 'not idiots.'"
Not to put too fine a point on this, but you're not quite precise. The second group (those who answered "no"), are those who don't admit to the identified behaviors. It's still fair to call them the "not idiots", but let's be clear that we still don't know what these people actually DO.
Actually, if some non-admitters do flirt at work (or whatnot), it is reasonable to assume that the group that was willing to admit it was simply more aggressive about it.
While this may help them latch onto one person in the company, most people I know view it as flaky behavior, and would put little trust in someone who acts that way. Which may explain why their careers were less productive.
Equally, the "flirters" may resort to such behaviour because they aren't as competent already, and thus it could be a result of their lower competence, rather than a causal factor.
And at any rate, "Almost all the women in the Tulane study who said they used sexual behavior said they did so infrequently.", so I'm not sure how much of an effect that is likely to have on their careers in a causal sense. It seems more and more likely to me that flirting at work is a secondary signal of the cause, rather than the cause, of that group's average lower ranking.
(For that matter, it may be that some women, in the younger age rangers in the study, are looking for mates in the office, and flirting to attempt to find one; if they're doing that rather than in the office to build a super-career, lower earnings are likewise no surprise, and the entire affair both rational and intelligent, economically speaking. After all, having an MBA doesn't mean you can't have decided to give up on trying to become CEO five years later.)
Me, I'm kinda dubious of a study with only 164 respondents anyway.