Given the election night coup of a certain blustering, overly confident egomaniac, it might seem like channeling a very masculine idea of success is a good way to get ahead. After all, Donald Trump lurked menacingly over Hillary Clinton on the debate stage, blustered and bragged, and he triumphed. It seems a smart strategy to emulate aggressive masculine behavior if planning a power grab.
But writing in the journal Hormones and Behavior, two researchers undermined previous findings that standing in a “power pose” – that is “broad posture, hands on hips, shoulders high and pushed back”, or what I would describe as “in the manner of a blustering, bigoted kleptocrat” – has no measurable effect on feelings of emotional or physical strength.
Previous studies, like one published in 2010, concluded that a person changing his or her natural posture to one more redolent of a proud peacock would raise cortisol and testosterone levels, resulting in dominance over other people.
It was a study that shored up these boring and old assumptions about the nature of power: that it’s rooted in shows of aggression and masculinity. That it’s easier for men to be powerful than women. That women who wish to be in positions in power must downplay their gender, whether they’re running for president or working in tech.
These assumptions are why many women I know have been told that their chances for success or progress in their careers will be enhanced by working on what’s called “executive presence”, which seems to be a euphemism to “be more like a man”. Something that can be achieved by the way we stand and sit, the way we dress – why not wear a suit? – and even the tones of our voices.
Taking this deep-seated assumption that “male” behaviors equate with success farther could lead us to a place, say, that tells us we should regard “locker room talk” not as a sign of an execrable and unacceptable disregard for the rights of women, but as normal and acceptable – just another understandable side effect of testosterone.
In an ideal world (which I acknowledge is the one we’re not living in), the result of the University of Pennsylvania study would prompt us us to reconsider two things: first, that the importance of recognizing that power and influence can – or should – take many different forms that go far beyond the alpha-male stereotypes. Second, perhaps it’s a reminder of the limitations of research that seeks to shore up those stereotypes.
Instead of seeking scientific confirmation for our sexist assumptions about human behavior, we should use research to seek ways to change our culture – to make a wider array of behaviors acceptable examples of leadership and power. After all, that’s good for business.
