Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    
    I have to agree wholeheartedly!  "Men often interrupt outright,
    and they do it far more frequently than women."  I have seen this
    happen in our office many many times.  (since I work mostly with
    men, I have become somewhat used to it!) but it *is* annoying.
    It seems that they *do* tend to think women's conversations (be
    it with another woman or a man) are just not as vital as *their*
    conversations.  I admire a certain manager in this office who
    I have noticed consistently *does not* have this bad habit and
    does not interrupt my conversations!  Hurray for him!  
    
    Myra

    The one thing that struck me the most about the article was how
    often wowen speak in a tentative or questioning fashion. If we
    don't wish to be interupted we should work on eliminating the
    tentativeness from our speech. When I started listening to my
    self I was surprised how often I caught myself and other women
    speaking in that fashion.
    
    Bonnie J.

    The one _I_ like (:-{) is when you (a woman) are talking with a
    man about a subject (usually work-related, but doesn't have to be)
    and a second man joins in or is invited in the converstion. Pretty
    soon, they're talking solely to *each other* and you're out of it
    altogether, even if *you're* the one who started it/needs the info/has
    the info to offer!!! 
    
    Having taught phys.ed., I  must admit (blush) that I've whistled
    thru my teeth and signalled the "time out" sign to get their attention
    again. Seems to work only temporarily, tho'....*sigh*

    My favorite(!?) is the men I know who make requests sound like orders
    and the women I know who make orders sound like requests.
    
    I tend to do the "tentative" thing and my SO often reminds me not
    to say "Would you like to do this tonight?" but "I would like to
    do this tonight".  Definitely a learned behavior pattern I want
    to change.

    Re:  .4  (tentative)
    
    I read the article too.  What the author meant by "tentative speech"
    is the tendency of (some) women to speak questioningly.  For example,
    "I was walking by this construction site?"  rather than "I was walking
    by this construction site."  Also, the researchers found that more
    women than men use a lot of qualifiers like "kinda" and "really",
    and more women than men start out a conversation with a question
    like "you know what?".  The reason, according to the article, is
    that women need to gain approval to begin talking and/or to make
    sure that the other person is listening.
    
    Along with words like "kinda" and "really", the article says more
    women than men use extra emphasis in words "aMAZing" because women
    have found that just the words (spoken by a woman) don't make a strong
    enought point!
                                    
    Kathy

    (Interesting -- this is OLD research.  Every two or three years
    somebody rediscovers it.)

    After I first read this research back in '78 when I was still in
    college, a group of us took a tape recorder to our senior English
    seminar to monitor the discussions.  Afterwards the class as a whole
    listened to and analyzed the tape, and we found that most of the women,
    with one or two exceptions, really were presenting their ideas in ways
    that conveyed the impression that they didn't believe their own words.
    
    We found that it took only a very little practice to quit sounding
    like wimps and start sounding like we thought what we were saying
    was interesting.  And when we started believing in our own
    conversational worth, the men started listening, too -- even in
    other classes that hadn't particpated in evaluating the tape.
    
    In a business situation, when you are often trying to persuade others
    to do something your way, nothing is more fatal to your credibility
    than coming across as wishy-washy.  Why should I listen to you if
    you don't even believe in what you're saying?    

    I suppose there are some men who can't handle this, but I've never
    run into the 'damned if she does, damned if she doesn't' situation
    the researchers describe.  There are people here and there who don't
    like my occasionally abrasive conversational style, but there are
    people who don't like anything you care to name.  

    --bonnie

    Does anyone have a hard copy of the article?   I would like to get
    a xerox copy.  I am very interested in speech patterns and how they
    relate to one's presenation of oneself.
    
    Holly

    Perhaps (only perhaps, I have no evidence) this problem stems from
    the oldern days ideas that
    
    1. Men in an office/business situation were the descision makers,
       bosses etc., whose time was important and so should be listened to
       immediately (if not sooner) 
     
    2. Women in an office were the secretaries and helpers, whose converstions 
       were not so important, so they could be interrupted and could finish
       up later on 
       
    Today of course we realise that this is old fashioned, and downright
    sexist, and not at all true, or do we?  Subconsiously these concepts
    may still lurk, and affect the way we hold, carry out or barge into
    conversations, depending on our sex!
    
    What do you think?
    
    Andy.

    Absolutely, Andy, our old speech patterns carry over.  I AM a
    secretary, and I find that in conversations (on the phone or in
    person), if I neglect to tell someone that I'm Mr. X's secretary,
    and just say I work for Mr. X, they are must more likely to listen
    to what I say, not interrupt me and not try to verbally intimidate
    me.  
    
    The majority of people let their perception of a person's status 
    influence how they speak to them. That's why women get interrupted
    more often -- an assumption by some people that they don't have
    equal status to the men in the conversation.
     

    I have run into both situation, where I have been wishy-washy and
    where I have been "authoritative", yet I am not aware of the difference
    in my behavior.
    
    I have been called rude and uncaring, because I dare to interrupt
    two males who are speaking to each other.  I am not pleased with
    having to do this but it is usually the only way I can get my 
    questions answered and I really do not have time to wait for them
    to acknowledge my existence.
    
    Does the article talk about ways of changing from a wishy-washy
    to  something else without taking on the bad behavior exhibited
    by some males?
    
    _peggy
    
    

    Good note!
    
    This common phenomena of interrupting has ALWAYS irritated me! 
    I don't care which sex is doing it;  it's plain rude.  I have to
    agree with the article, tho--I have found in my life that men DO
    interrupt much more than women do.  I wonder if most of them actually
    realize it.  (Believe me--I am trying very hard not to make this
    appear sexist, but I know what I hear)
    
    In business, my way of dealing with it has had to change over the
    years.  I have been a teacher at nights now for 3 years, and I noticed
    my attitude and manner have improved by it.  Now when I get interrupted
    in mid-conversation with another person, I smile at the offender
    and ask them please to wait until I am through.  Usually the person
    will apologize, and wait.  If not, they go off in a huff, which
    still leaves me free to finish.  I have also learned (thru teaching)
    to direct my remarks in a firm manner--authorative without being
    too pushy.  I try to avoid the questioning tone of voice and the
    "you know's" (a constant bad habit of mine) when I can.  It also
    helps when I look at people directly--this works in a crowd, too.
    I pick out one person at a time, and speak to them;  then move on
    to another person, and speak to them.  So far, I've felt a lot better
    about myself.
    
    Re: the person who said she was told she was "rude and uncaring"
    about daring to interrupt two males talking--good for you!  No more
    will I stand on one foot, and then the other, waiting for one of
    them to notice me (and that I may have a BUSINESS question) while
    they hash over basketball scores.
    
    Keep working at it--we all are!
    
    Jane

	There are two types of interruption: which are we discussing? If
        two people are talking and a third interrupts, then it is difficult
        for the third person to do so without appearing to be ill-mannered,
        if not worse.
        
        If two people are talking and one interrupts the other then perhaps
        that is different. Language is a learned art (having started life
        with one language and learned another later I am perhaps more acutely
        aware of that). Perhaps the differences between male and female
        speech patterns are inherent in our academic system? I have noticed,
        interestingly enough (to me) that interruptions appear more common
        in America than I recall them in Britain. Could this be because
        Britons of my generation learned in a much more structured academic
        environment than is common in America (children were required to
        ask for permission to speak in class, and were always heard out in full 
        before a response was offered)?
        
        I have noticed that it is very unusual for Germans to interrupt...
        and I have been told that this is because with the normal sentence
        construction, with the verb at the end of the sentence, you have
        to wait till the speaker finishes before you know what they are
        going to say.
        
        I have also noticed, amongst English speakers, a tendency to make
        a comment, and then without pausing move on to a second or subsequent
        comment. There is a natural tendency to wish to respond to each
        point as it is made, and not leaving pauses between topics makes
        it more prone to interruption. A book I was given on making the
        cultural adaptation to American culture pointed out that inter-topic
        gaps in American speech are frequently imperceptible, or absent,
        whilst in British speech (for example) a noticeable "breath taking"
        occurs between topics inviting a cordial response. I am certainly
        aware of having heard several long monologues whilst becoming
        increasingly impatient to join in the conversation, and sometimes
        failing to notice the interrogatory pause when it came. The same
        book also pointed out that when a speaker finishes there is a period
        of time that they will wait for a reply, after which they will feel
        so uncomfortable that they will continue to talk to "mask the silence",
        and that this time is very much a cultural variant. Many europeans
        will wait several seconds maybe even 10 for a reply, whilst apparently
        (and my observation seems to confirm it) Americans will wait a very
        short time. The consequence of this is that if you make points
        requiring considered reply and do not wait for the person you are
        speaking to to frame a reply then you may continue to speak, and
        in effect invite them to interrupt you continued monologue, when
        in fact by not allowing time for thought in reality you are
        interrupting their thoughtful reply.
        
        Again perhaps the education system creates a feeling in women that
        they need to do a "brain dump" on a subject rather than making points
        one at a time? (Something like "women are inherently unlikely to
        know anything about a topic" therefore they feel a need to establish
        the breadth of their knowledge at the outset?)
        
        Again in summary I believe part of this is cultural, and much may
        be laid at the door of an educational system that fails to teach
        the etiquette of inter-personal debate, and also conveys a subtle
        message of female inadequacy.
        
        /. Ian .\

    I'm a secretary myself and I notice that if one of my people is
    on the phone (personal/business) I will walk away from his/her office
    until I know they are off and not interrupt them because I feel
    that it is rude......BUT - if I'm on the phone (personal/business)
    people sit down on the chair waiting for me to finish so they can
    ask me questions.  1) If it's personal and I'm talking to my doctor,
    lawyer, teacher I don't feel free to discuss anything.  2) If it's
    business I feel rushed to hurry up the conversation so I can tend
    to the person in my office and thus forget questions I needed to
    ask that person.  Why do people do that?????  Am I *weird* or what?
    
    As far as conversations go - yes men interrupt me more than woman.
    I know if I'm talking to a woman manager or not - the man will think
    nothing of interrupting but I do realize sometimes you have to be
    interrupted because of a timeframe etc.......
    
    bs
    

    Ah yes... the "he/she is talking on the phone - I'll wait" syndrome.
    
    It happens to me frequently (I haven't noticed a statistically significant
    bias in the sex of the interruptions...)
    
    If I'm making a business call I put it on hold a second and explain
    how long I expect to be and if it's a while offer to come see the person.
    If its private I put it on hold and say something like "this is private,
    I'll be about 5 minutes can you come back". It seems to work....
                                      
    /. Ian .\
    

re people who hang out when you're on the phone:

It happens to everyone, not just secretaries.  It may just be more noticeable
since secretaries have to deal with a lot of people in the office, and are on
the phone a lot of the time.

The people who wait at your door, and especially those who come into your office
to wait, are just plain rude (unless of course you invite them to wait).  I'd
amend the previous reply, since it isn't their business who you're talking to,
and would tell them "I'll get back to you" (or whatever) no matter who you're
talking to.  If the problem persists, perhaps letting them know it's bothering
you would help them see your side.

Jill

        It is not uncommon for folk to queue up outside my office, and
        on the whole I don't blame them. Not only do I get lots of
        interupts but they come in clusters. The times when the project
        leading aspects of my job are in the forefront rather than the
        straight programming aspects tend to be times when I am
        constantly talking with people, and am often off to some meeting
        or another. When they find me in my office going away and
        letting me escape may not be wise. And so the queue develops. It
        isn't as bad as the one outside Mark Bramhall's (he's our local
        consulting engineer and senior resident guru), though. 
        
        In partial defence against all of this, I've developed a long
        "interupt latency" as more than one of the engineers in my area
        has commented. If I'm writing, coding or talking on the phone
        when someone comes by, I acknowledge their pressence (with a nod
        or other simple gesture) in a summary manner, and then get to a
        decent stopping point. After all, while I'm talking to this
        person there's a good chance that another interupt will happen,
        and Lord only know when I'll get back to what I put down. 
        
        In a way then, my own style of dealing with interuptions tends
        to reinforce the behavior (waiting outside your office) that
        some of you object to. It works for me, but clearly not for you.
        As is often the case, different things work for different
        people. That being the case, you want to be sure that people
        understand what bothers you, and how you like to do things.
        People will often be accomodating if you let them know what you
        want or need.
        
        JimB. 

    When I want to see someone, and they're on the phone, I leave the
    office and wait down the corridor a bit, out of earshot - or I'll
    check back in a few minutes.  It doesn't matter who it is I want
    to see - secretary, developer or manager - I prefer privacy (or
    at least as much privacy as I can manage in a cubicle) for my
    phone calls, and accord others the same privilege.
    
    However, if I go too far away, I sometimes find that when I
    check again, the person is gone, or there is someone else talking
    to them; I've "lost my place".  I can understand why some people,
    worrying about getting ahold of a possibly elusive person, might
    decide to play it safe and not let the other out of sight.  But
    it probably doesn't occur to these people that they can wait
    unintrusively.
    
    One thing I do if I'm on the phone and someone stops by, I'll
    acknowledge them and say that I'll stop by their office when I'm
    off the phone.  I think this is the most elegant and fair solution.
    
    					Steve

    Steve has brought up a good point here. I used to have a suptervisor
    who would always come by my office as soon as he was free if I looked
    in on him when he was talking to someone or on the phone. The people
    I currently work for do no do that. As a result I am more apt to
    hover just out of earshot until they are off the phone or interupt
    their conversation with another long enough to acknowledge me. If
    you are going to confront people on their sitting and waiting or
    hovering outside behavior you should be prepared to be sure you
    are able to find time to talk to everyone who needs to see you.
    This could be as simple as acknowledging a person with a nod when
    you are busy and then calling or going to them as soon as you are
    free, or there could be other solutions - such as posting a message
    board outside of your office. But if you tell people that you will
    make every effort to get back to them and follow through on it
    you will cut down on your undesired waitees.
    
    Bonnie J

    I have seen particularly abusive behavior directed at secretaries.
    For example, someone will come in, sit down, pull up a chair, and
    look expectantly at the secretary who is on the phone.  I don't
    think most people pull up a chair if the person is a peer or manager!
    If the secretary is speaking with a doctor or lawyer, that's pretty
    hard on her.  The other thing I have seen people do to secretaries
    is when standing near the secretary's desk, and receiving a call,
    taking it there and tying up the phone (offensive if it lasts more 
    than 1 minute in my book!).                                        
    
    What I like is when someone looks in enough to see that I have seen
    them, and I can beckon with a finger, cover the phone and say, "I'll
    come see you when I'm done", or "Wait just a sec and I'll be off".
    They can then choose what to do, and unless I have beckoned them
    in, I much prefer they wait in the hall.
                                   

    
    re:22
    	how about this....
    	2 techs (male, in this case) work for some engineers and
    find that 35% of the time they have nothing to do cuz no one
    has given them anything to do.
    	this is considered, by the boss, not their fault and they
    recieve a nice review and raise because they did everything they
    were asked to do quite nicely.
    	the fact that 35% of the time they were idle is ignored....
    
    	a secretary working for the same boss and finding similiar
    bundles of idle time for the same reason.....there was nothing
    to do....will find this has been noticed and included on her
    review and in her raise....
    	reasoning: she should have found something to do....