“Machiavelli for Women”: A Playbook I Wish I'd Had Earlier
This book made me feel so seen.
Stacey Vanek Smith has all the right things to say. (And she sounds like bestie I could call up anytime!) She highlights so much of my lived experience as a woman in the workplace—things that I've gotten so used to and forgotten that I used to be annoyed at, things that I've forgotten aren't fair, things that still irk me but I’ve become resigned at my lot as a woman. She strings together studies and statistics (some new, some that I've heard about), and reminds me that this is truly (still!) a real thing that I am experiencing and not just part of my imagination.
But the best part — and what I like most about this book — is that it’s eminently practical. Yes, Vanek Smith includes all kinds of suggested strategies to navigate all kinds of situations, and she even admits:
Caveat: some of these tips may seem…not awesome. Pandery. Cringey. Aren’t-we-past-this-y? Stone Agey.
But this is perhaps precisely why she decided that Machiavelli was the person to draw on for this advice.
Vanek Smith notes that:
Machiavelli was a big advocate for compromising to get what you want: “The manner in which we live, and that in which we ought to live. are things so wide asunder,” he writes. “It is essential, therefore, for a Prince who desires to maintain his position, to have learned how to be other than good…”
Hear, hear. In this imperfect world with all its double, triple binds…different strokes for different folks, I’m here for it, as long as it gets me to that finish line, preferably as fast as (if not faster than) the swimmers with the least burdens to drag behind them. We have to navigate the reality we're in, with all its unfairness and randomness and at-times ugliness, not the one we wish existed. (And yes, I believe the strategies in this book can be adopted by and adapted for anyone who feels they lack automatically conferred power, whatever the reason.)
Early on in my career, I didn’t even always notice when my gender would influence the way I was being treated. I remember a partner at the time pointing it out to me when I got asked to redo the department bulletin board by the Director. “You know he asked you to do it because you’re the girl, right?” There were two supervisors under this Director, me and another guy. At first I was disbelieving: no, I was asked because that guy is less reliable; it’s actually a compliment that I got entrusted with this extra task. But…how important is the aesthetics of the bulletin board in the first place? Hm. I started having my doubts. Here’s the thing: other people don’t need to be conscious of the biases they’re acting upon for it to be unfair to you. And this bulletin board request? Vanek Smith addresses it directly:
Office Housework is a term coined by legal scholar and gender research Joan C. Williams, and she defines it as a necessary task that will drain your time and life force and will not help you get where you want to go.
Yeah…bulletin board revamp fits the bill!
Joan says men will often naturally stop getting asked to do office housework when they reach a certain level. Women will typically continue to get assigned these tasks and end up in the tricky situation of figuring out how to deal with it.
I’ve heard about this in podcasts: minority professors who are invited to be on too many committees, to be faculty advisors to student groups and other activities, etc. I’ve seen this in the workplace: women whose job descriptions do not include “cleaning up the kitchen area after communal lunches” pack food away, wipe down surfaces, load the dishwasher…heck even I can’t stop myself from doing it!
Office housework usually falls into one of four categories:
Social coordination/hostessy-type stuff.
Administrative-type work.
Emotional labor.
Drudge work.
(Vanek Smith elaborates more on each in the book.) Who knew Machiavelli had words of wisdom against this type of work?
He says being known as the person who will do thankless work for the team will actually make people resent you and, ironically enough, end up thinking you’re selfish. The reason? If you are doing lots of grunt work, everyone will identify you as the person they can give their grunt work to. You will either exhaust yourself doing this work or, if you ever try to draw a boundary and say no, the person asking will get angry. Like, “Hey! Why won’t you do this for me? You did it for Ralph last week!”
And yes, of course Vanek Smith follows this section with eight different approaches to avoiding housework. Try ALL of them.
The Double Standard
This book is meant to be a playbook for women in the workplace — a guide to help you find ways to succeed inside of a structure that has been built to thwart you. I want the workplace to be a space where women can thrive and find meaning, joy, and inspiration. (Shatter that glass ceiling, baby!)
Vanek Smith concludes that there are two main barriers that women face: “The Cinderella Syndrome” and “The Hotbox.” (And that’s before other factors like race and LGBTQ+ identity.) “The Cinderella Syndrome” boils down to:
Women in the workplace get put in this position all the time. Whereas men are typically promoted based on what people perceive their potential to be, women are typically promoted based on actual work they've done (usually again and again and again).
I only wish I could say I have no idea what this looks like in real life. In fact, what I want to add is that it gets worse — mostly because a lot of smaller organizations do not have clear promotion guidelines. If you work for a place that will “promote you when you’re ready” — and of course, they will present this to you as a sign of how flexible they are about career growth and how much they care about personalizing your career path — you’ll find that “ready” is an ambiguous, inconsistent and often moving target.
Compounding this situation is the research-backed reality that women are less likely to ask for a promotion (because patriarchal cultures don’t appreciate women “rocking the boat” or sticking out by being assertive). Good little girls do hard work and keep their heads down, waiting to be noticed, and what good little girls get is a whole lot of nothing for as long as someone else can get away with it. If you’re lucky to have someone champion for you, you might get fairer treatment. Otherwise, how presumptuous of you to speak up — that in itself is a sign you’re not “ready!”
Vanek Smith explains that when women display leadership qualities or do exceptional work, people often don't register it fully. They see it as good work, but not quite enough to justify a promotion, requiring women to demonstrate these qualities repeatedly.
Culturally-reinforced prejudices also play a heavy role in perpetuating strong preconceived notions of what makes a good leader — spoiler alert, they’re all considered masculine traits.
The takeaway: being a good man and a good leader are one and the same.
I’m pretty sure this isn’t a surprise to any woman, because little girls start picking up on this very early on in life. (And after two women presidential candidates not making it to the White House in the last decade, plenty of commentary has gone around on the subject of perceptions of women’s capabilities as leaders.) Simply said, damned if you do, damned if you don’t — whatever you do or don’t do, there’s a reason to consider a women “not fit” as a leader. Too feminine? Too soft. Assertive (read: aggressive)? Unladylike, and who likes that?
And that leads us to “The Hotbox,” which is a familiar paradox for women:
If a woman displays a lot of qualities people associate with femininity — is empathetic, kind, helpful, compassionate, modest, and agreeable — she will be highly thought of and well-liked, but she will be not seen as leadership material. If a woman displays "leadership” qualities — is aggressive, outspoken, assertive, demanding and independent — she might be seen as a serious contender for leadership roles, but she will not be well-liked. People will likely think of her as difficult, abrasive, and hard to get along with. They will often feel animosity and hostility toward her.
Alison Fragale describes this in her book Likeable Badass more visually in (a consultant’s) 2x2: on one axis is warmth, on the other assertiveness. High warmth and high assertion? Likeable badass. It’s a hard balance to strike, so more people may find themselves to be:
high on warmth and low on assertion: well-liked because they’re perceived as supportive and caring, but “not leadership material” because, well, low on assertion
high on assertion and low on warmth: hey I know this one! I believe this is the category where you might be perceived as a “cold hard bitch” — competent and unlikeable; funny how a lot of women in politics seem to get labeled some unflattering variant of that term
low on warmth and low on assertion: unlikeable doormat? Background character no one cares for? Ouch — definitely not in a position to get much positive attention, that’s for sure
Fragale’s book is all about delving into the strategies to help you boost either warmth or assertion (or both!) based on your innate strengths so you can attain more power and status in your career. Most people make the mistake of throttling what they’re high on to compensate for what they’re low on, but the trick is actually to amp up what you’re perceived to be lacking. It’s not a trade-off! (Pour it all on, instead of holding back!) For example, I am outspoken enough that most people have no problem reading my high assertion. But instead of speaking up less to appear “nicer” or “friendlier,” I should make sure to signal my care and compassion in other ways to signal more warmth. (Yes, I recommend checking out Likeable Badass if you’re interested in the specific tactics Fragale lays out — some are really creative!)
Back to Machiavelli for Women. What Vanek Smith dubs the “Hotbox” is this catch-22 women face with how to present themselves. Not only is it a difficult balancing act to achieve, it’s something that sucks up energy at the back of your mind in almost every interaction, dragging you further and further back from an even playing field.
What’s in the book?
The book is organized in chapters that really address key workplace-related issues. Each chapter is also centered around a specific person’s experience to illustrate the research findings and suggested tactics as solutions. I found the range of recommended remedies to be practical and actionable.
The chapters are:
Money
Confidence
Respect
Support
Title
The Parent Trap
…and then there's this wonderful chapter which absolutely convinced me I needed my own copy of the book — the chapter titled "Women and the Dark Arts."
This chapter delves into how to deal with women who are not supportive of women — women who might even go out of their way to sabotage other women. It’s both frustrating and disheartening that this is as real and as frequent an occurrence in life as it is, but alas, what can you do what get armed with some advice for the inevitable next time you find yourself in this situation?
Vanek Smith’s approachable tone and sense of humor shines brilliantly in this chapter, where she classifies unsupportive women into different personas: the Highlander, the Queen of Hearts, the “Machiavelliannes”, and the Darth Mentor/Darth Manager. Of course she has tips on how to cope, set boundaries and protect yourself as much as possible when dealing with any of these personas, and they’re enjoyable to read as well!
While that chapter contains a full guide to dealing with unsupportive women, the subsequent two chapters are also guides: one on striking out and forging your own path in your career, and one that packages all the advice she has to walk through a full negotiation process.
Did I mention practicality?
This is not a book of theory; this is a handbook that I feel like anyone who’s a minority in the workplace should have — not just women! I certainly wish I had a copy when I graduated from college. I had attended as many events as I could to try to prepare for the realities of gender inequality in the workplace, but considering the strategies in this book far outweighs listening to other women’s experiences on panels. Plus it’s just handy to have a copy for reference because this is advice you’ll need to come back to: it’s not enough to know a possible solution, you have to practice it, adapt it and adopt it!
I’ll close out with two examples of strategies included in the book.
First, on “softeners” — no, not the stuff for your laundry:
The technical term for all the extra words and qualifiers and smiley faces and apologies women tend to use when communicating is softeners.
Maybe you’ve been told using softeners diminishes your credibility. Maybe you’ve heard that you should try to talk and write like your “inner Steve.” It comes as no surprise that usage of softeners is another catch-22: softeners work to make others listen to what you have to say, but they can also undermine your message.
The fix? Try “pairing softeners with confidence” — combinations like:
“This might sound crazy, but what if we tried X?” or “I totally get why everyone is wanting to change directions, but I really do think we should stick with what we’re doing.”
Second, on “he-peat” — “for when a woman suggests an idea and it’s ignored, but then a guy says the same thing and everyone loves it.”
Aside from the fascinating anecdote Vanek Smith includes about two business partners that switched emails for a couple of weeks (anyone taking bets on what happens?), she includes various suggested strategies, including:
Let’s say you offer up an idea and Steve he-peats it, and everyone starts freaking out about how brilliant Steve has done it again! Try saying something to add to your original idea and slip in that was your idea. For instance, “I love this idea, Steve. I was thinking this over last night and I got worried because I wasn’t sure what to do if X happened. What you’re saying is the perfect solution!” If that sounds awkward, cringey, and hard to pull off, it is!
So… you convinced yet?