What is Women-Centred Coaching and why do we need it?

Conventional coaching is ideal where success, and therefore goals can be clearly  seen, and enunciated.  Goals are clear, and can be broken down into a pathway of steps, resources gathered and then the plan executed to reach a successful outcome. This approach is perfect for creating anything that it predictable, or controllable.

However, Zammit (2017, PhD thesis here) demonstrated that conventional coaching is failing many women, particularly at the self-actualisation level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.  This is because goals at this level, and the pathways to get there, are outside the lived experience of many. How for example, can a woman know what the most that she can be looks like, or feels like, or what behaviours are needed to get her there? Despite all the progress that has been made, there are still to few role models, and likely her version of all that she can be differs from someone else's anyway!  She probably knows that she wishes to make a meaningful difference to the world, but if she's a researcher, or involved in some other form of creativity, or innovation, her meaningful difference to the world hasn't likely been seen before; how could anyone know what that looks like, or what the pathway to get there is? Maybe she wants to be more confident, or build a bigger network, or feel more aligned with what her soul is calling her to do (if she can hear it).  Many women have got to "the top of the ladder and found that it's against the wrong wall" Campbell (2014).

Compounding the issue of conventional coaching not being well suited to self actualisation related endeavours, studies (such as Zammit, 2017) have shown that, on average (we're all individuals!) women both vastly under estimate what's possible for them, but simultaneously overestimate their current capabilities in terms of the skills and experiences needed to get there (due to so few role models i.e. they don't know what isn't known).  This situation is derived from a life time of cultural messaging, leading to many women concluding that they simply aren't trying hard enough, or a lofty goal isn't for them, or they just aren't good enough. But, although we all make mistakes, most of the time it isn't them! It's systematic cultural biases causing them to experience different treatment by the world at large (everyone in the world, i.e. a very large proportion of all men and women carry around conscious, and unconscious biases based on stereotypical tropes).

The deeper truth is that vision of the future, and so much more, could be theirs, but it won't happen without learning, practicing and implementing higher level structures (childcare/eldercare/domestic equality to name just a few structures!), skills and capabilities. 

"It's like running a race where the women have to wear snow boots and the men have got the fancy, expensive... Nikes that Usain Bolt wears. You can't wag your finger at the woman and say 'Gosh, you don't run as fast as the men, you're clearly not a good athlete.'" Margaret C. Watson, Women in Academia, p18.

What are these cultural norms?

Warning: you might find this infuriating, I know I do, hence the Artemis Project was born!

Often those structures, skills and capabilities will be different, or far greater than needed by those not subject to the same bias.  For example, such skills might include networking, or the ability to presence oneself and one's work in conversation, or to an audience. Or speaking up in meetings within the known context of studies demonstrating that when equal numbers of men and women are present in meetings the women are perceived as dominating the conversation if they speak any more than 30% of the time (Spender, 1980), and without realising, men interrupt twice as often as women, are more likely to interrupt women than other men (Snyder, 2014) and often just plain ignore female colleagues. Although there is some evidence on this latter point that explains why those that exhibit such behaviours, and let's be clear, the vast majority of those interrupting, talking over and ignoring have no idea that they're doing it! In Bohannon (2023) the author explains that “men’s and women’s ears respond differently to pitches … [G]enerally speaking, men’s ears seem to be better tuned to lower pitches, while women’s are more sensitive to higher pitches...” in other words in mixed meetings men are better attuned to hearing male voices, and it gets worse with age: “men are also far more likely to suffer common types of hearing loss than women, with those higher pitches the first to go … Middle-aged and older men also have more trouble following a conversation in a crowded soundscape especially if it involves a lot of higher-pitched sibilants. That also means they have difficulty hearing women’s voices, with their characteristic high pitches, but retain the ability to hear men’s voices... Because social power is typically assigned to men as they age, women’s voices are literally not being heard by men in power”.

I cannot find any proper scientific evidence to support the common perception that women will only speak up when they feel 100% sure of the answer, whereas men (on average, we're all individuals!) will raise their voice when 50% sure!  This isn't the fault of individuals, it's an inevitable consequence of culture. Study, after study has shown that women are judged more harshly (by both women & men) than men for the exact same behaviours:

• Galinsky and Schweitzer (2015): "women are expected to be communal, caring, and submission. These expectations produce the unfortunate double bind: When women do feel and project power, they are punished for it"
• Schuh et al (2014): "role incongruent behaviour often goes along with social sanctions and disapproval"
• Eagley and Karau (2002): "because women are expected to behave communicably, they are punished for not behaving in this manner, while men are rewarded for behaving communally, whereas women who helped were not."
• Miller (1986): "if a large part of your fate depends on accommodating to and pleasing the dominants, you concentrate on them."
• Bates (2022): "In Germany, despite Angela Merkel's long-term chancellorship, just 41% of people said they felt very comfortable with a woman as head of government", "recruiters are 13% less likely to click on a woman's Linked In profile", "when identical CVs are sent to recruiters with 'male-' or 'female-sounding' names recruiters rate the 'male' applicants as significantly more competent and hireable, offer them a higher starting salary, and extend more career mentoring opportunities to them". This has also been shown for white/non-white sounding names. These biases compound making intersectionality an even greater bias!

Therefore, this all leaves women in a double bind where winning seems to demand we behave in ways in that aren't appealing to many, and which we know cultural bias will punish us for. For example in Bates (2022): "a woman's perceived deserved compensation drops by 35%, twice as much as a man's when both are equally aggressive in workplace communications" and "high achieving women are far more likely to than their male peers to be described as 'abrasive' in their performance review" and Singer (1989): "contemporary women face a double bind in that we are trying both to fit into a mould and break out of it at the same time".

As a direct consequence, inner barriers in the form of mindsets and beliefs about ourselves and what we deserve, form very early in life.  Typically, we're not conscious of the vast majority of these, they operate outside of conscious awareness.  Everyone has beliefs about themselves, about others, and about the world in general. We can think of these as the lenses through which we experience and interpret reality.  We know from well established psychological principles that the way we experience the world is partly a function of our inner beliefs about ourselves and others.  For example, for many its a cultural norm that women are perceived as nurturing and caring; one of their great skills is looking after others, ensuring cohesion in a group. This is a magnificent and necessary skill for the well being of a population. However, the flip side, which tends to harm female academics careers, is that they bear a greater burden of "service" work.  As an anecdotal example, a number of clients have mentioned to me how other people's personal tutees will come to them with any wellbeing issues, rather than their own tutor because they perceive my female client as more caring, and more likely to help them, than their own male tutor!  A one off example would be just that, a one off, but when it happens again, and again, and again, this harms the ability of female colleagues to get on in their careers, and thus the leaky pipeline effects we see when we gather statistics for the sector as a whole!  Another example is grants panel service. This is of course a great learning opportunity for those involved, but it is also incredibly time consuming to do well.  When there is a mandate that X% of a grants panel must be female, and fewer females in a discipline than males, those females inevitably end up carrying a far higher load of this type of service work.  They carry it well, typically feeling honoured to be invited, honoured to be able to do their bit for increasing the visibility of female academics, and appreciate what they learn from the process, but factored up across a discipline it affords them far less time to build up their own research portfolios. It's not just anecdotal.  Santos (2019) showed that women spend disproportionately more time on teaching and teaching-related activities than their male counterparts.

 It's no longer overt structural inequalities (such as the inability to vote until 1928 in the UK, and still forbidden in some parts of the world!) holding women back it's every day culture, behaviours and actions that hold many women back at an individual level, and amass at the population level.

Therefore, within every highly capable woman with goals for her life, there are probably much larger goals that she's capable of accomplishing, but that may be hidden from her current view of what's possible for her, and are probably so creative the world hasn't seen her way of achieving them yet!  However, to unlock that next level in her life, and the capabilities and skills needed to get there, first she needs to recognise and unlock how any of the culture/societal underpinned limiting patterns could be holding her back. These sorts of patterns can show up in every day life as the sensation of hitting the same barrier again, and again, and again. For example how many times have you known that you are exactly the person to take on a new role, or an exciting opportunity, but been overlooked... again, and again, and again... Or had a useful and valid opinion to share, and had people ignore you, or react badly when you shared it, leaving you feeling that you're invisible, or too much, or not enough... again, and again, and again!

The IWCC model therefore uses much deeper interaction and structured conversation to create transformative long-term change not transient support for a one off goal. IWCC is about moving to the next level.  With it's future focus it helps to uncover those patterns that have us stuck, or again, and again coming up against the same barrier, so many times that something is there, but we can't see it.  Yes it's probably systematic but are you going to let that stop you, or are you going to find a way over it!?!  

The Women Centred Coaching model uses a 4 phase approach, including setting a vision and mapping out a growth pathway; rather like conventional coaching.

However, unlike conventional coaching models, underpinning the phases of the WCC model is the idea that within the vision there are likely to be deeper inner barriers, developed as a direct result of socialisation & culture, which have thus far held us back. Or that the vision initially enunciated is what we think we're supposed to say e.g. I want to be promoted, rather than what we truly want at a deeper, more meaningful level. These deeper more meaningful yearnings might be for a professional life that is better aligned with our core values e.g. that permits BOTH professional and family success, or feeling more confident whilst moving through life with more grace and less stress. Or it might be raising the profile of our work, thereby increasing the difference we're making. Therefore, before rushing to implement growth pathways (which often fail, at least in the long-term, if we don't truly believe it's what we want...) the WCC model supports those being coached to connect with their deeper values and yearnings/callings. Our own inner voice, and intuition are given space alongside our logical, mind driven thoughts...

References:

Fix the system, Not the women, Laura Bates.

Margaret C. Watson, Women in Academia. 

Santos G & Dang Van Phu S. Gender and Academic Rank in the UK. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3171.

Zammit, CA. PhD thesis. Feminine Power as a Tripartite System of Relatedness: A Theoretical Exploration. 

Campbell, J. (2014). The hero's Journey: Joseph Campbell on his Life and Work (P. Cousineau, Ed., Centennial ed.) Novata , CA: New World Library.

Spender, D., (1980) Man Made Language, Rivers Oram Press

Snyder, K., (2014) How to get Ahead as a Woman in Tech: Interrupt Men

Galinsky and Schweitzer (2015)

Schuh et al (2014)

Eagley and Karau (2002)

Miller (1986)

Further reading:

Dupas P, Modes, Niderle M, Wolfers J, and the Seminar Dynamics Collective. Gender and the Dynamics of Economics Seminars. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Papers, May 2021. DOI 10.3386/w28494.  This work demonstrated that during economics seminars female presenters were treated differently from their male counterparts. These differences included more questions, including a larger % of patronising and/or hostile questions compared with those directed at male counterparts.  The underpinning data covered 32 institutions, and 460 presentations.  The authors note "at virtually every margin that has been studied, women economics are treated differently than similarly situated men - tenure, promotion, publication success (including longer turnaround times!) citations, and so on".

Join our newsletter to get tips and tricks to level up your success. 

Your details are safe! We'll NEVER EVER pass them on and we won't bombard you with messages. That just isn't our style!. Please check your email and click the finalise sign up link as we insist on confirmation; if you don't confirm you WON'T hear from us.

Our newsletter is published approx. 10 times per year and includes the latest funding calls we're supporting, tips for strengthening your proposals, and updates on the support available from us including Critical Friend reviews of written proposals, support for responses to reviewers, online courses and individual/team coaching and workshops. 

Where next?