ILNews

DTCI: 'Queen bee syndrome' in the workplace – true or false?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

dtci-thompson-stacyAnyone who has watched “The Devil Wears Prada,” “Working Girl,” or “Melrose Place” has seen the female boss who has worked her way to the top while undermining other women who can only wish they were that boss. This type of woman now even has her own name: the queen bee. Backed by years of research, the “queen bee syndrome,” which suggests women in positions of authority will treat female subordinates more critically than the male, has long held prominence in society.

If you are a woman trying to make it to the top of a law firm, can you expect a higher-ranking female attorney to take you under her wing? Do you need to undermine other women in order to advance or treat other women as threats?

Some studies have found that women often fail to help other women break the glass ceiling. These studies have suggested that female executives may fear that another woman with lesser qualifications could reinforce negative stereotypes about women. The studies have also suggested that a woman may feel threatened by highly qualified women and worry that they may be more qualified, competent or popular with co-workers. These studies have also found some female executives wanted to avoid appearing biased toward other women, so they did not advocate for them.

In an essay titled, “Why I’d Rather Work for a Man than a Woman,” Forbes contributor Susannah Breslin suggested that women should avoid other women in the workplace altogether. Breslin wrote:

“Tired of women-on-women jealousy at work? Nip that in the bud by eliminating women from the equation. Most women have had an experience with a female superior who wouldn’t let her advance because the woman in power was threatened. You might be insulted men see you as less of a threat, but that may be what enables you to climb up the ladder.”

However, a recent study found that the queen bee stereotype is not as prevalent as some think it is. This study showed that women are actually more likely than other men to help female coworkers advance their careers. It suggested that women do not view female subordinates as competition to be cut down. Rather, women view less-experienced female coworkers as potential talent and are more likely than men to develop that talent through mentorship. The study also showed that women who received career support went on to return the favor to the next generation.

Do women help or hinder each other in the workplace? Are female attorneys mentoring and developing the next generation of female attorneys? Are female attorneys helping other female attorneys advance? Whatever your opinion regarding the queen bee syndrome, law firms should consider these studies when it comes to attracting and holding on to a diverse group of attorneys. Attorneys should be taking an active interest in developing new talent. Almost all of the studies show that when men and women take an active interest in developing both male and female talent, everyone benefits. Of interest to most, some studies have even shown that both men and women who developed protégés actually earned more money than those who did not.•

__________

Ms. Thompson is a partner in the Bloomington firm of Clendening Johnson & Bohrer and is a member of the DTCI board of directors. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT