AN INTER-GENDER DIALOGUE REGARDING INTER-GENDER RELATIONSHIP DEVELOPMENT IN ORGANIZATIONS Journal of Organizational Change Management, Volume 10 Number 4, 1997 pp 308-330 Terence C.Krell Associate Professor of Management Western Illinois University 6502 34th Avenue Moline, IL 61265 309 793-1998 FAX 309 793-4540 and Joan Winn Assistant Professor of Management University of Denver University Park Denver, CO 80208 303 871-2192 Overview Terence Krell and Joan Winn met for the first time at the Western Academy of Management Meeting in San Jose March 24-27, 1993. Over the course of the conference, they conversed two or three times for a total of less than one hour in each other's presence, but it was enough to stimulate on the last day of the conference a desire to explore the dynamics of men and women forming professional relationships while forming such a relationship, and to do so using internet correspondence. At their final meeting in San Jose, notes about issues were taken. Terence took the first stab at writing up the notes and the following dialogue begins with his initial letter to Joan, the day after the San Jose Meeting. In the course of this dialogue are references to children, vacations, stories heard and told, material read, papers submitted and accepted and dinner plans. The dialogue ends with some conclusions about how a list of issues generated in the discussion can be used for helping organizations to facilitate the appropriate development of inter-gender working relationships. The Dialogue From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: 29 Mar 93 19:05 GMT Subject: HOPE THIS WORKS Dear Joan: I very much enjoyed our conversations at the Western Academy of Management meeting. I regret we were unable to talk more, and look forward to more conversations in the future. You may recall our brief discussion of "inter-gender relationship building" and my wish to work together on writing the stuff up. The more I thought about it after you left, the better developed the notion became for me, and I just sat down and started writing. I've enclosed a couple of pages of rough theory and notes for your consideration. I hope you can share my excitement. With minimal work, this could become an essay. With references and lengthened almost any conference would accept it, and by bringing in and integrating all the relevant literature who knows what the limits are. My strengths in co-authoring are topic selection, integration, theory and model construction, and rapid writing and editing. My weaknesses are that I rarely remember who said what, where, or when (even when I have cited them in my own work) and I hate libraries and literature reviews. (Oh yeah, I am also persistent to the point of stubborn about not giving up on getting something I've written published eventually). You can make your own judgment of my writing style from the enclosed pages. So the first question is, are you still interested in working together on this stuff? From my perspective, conversation with you was crucial to what I've written and I would like to keep you involved, but it's your call as I don't want to push you into something you don't wish to do. Second, if you are interested, how do you want to proceed? We can discuss what I've done so far and you can tell me where I'm full of something; you can rewrite and add to it; you can add literature; we can start over; or whatever. Please let me know soon because I'm excited about the potential and would like to move ahead quickly. Sincerely, Terence <> From: Joan Winn To: Terence C. Krell Date: 30 Mar 93 Subject: We are connected Dear Terence, I received your note: Yes, I am interested in working with you on this stuff. And don't worry, I don't get pushed into things I don't want to do (or, at least, I usually don't!) You've obviously taken the lead in organizing the stuff we talked about, but, as you said, your strengths include rapid writing! Unlike you, I like libraries and literature reviews, probably because I like the investigation part more than the write-up part, although I, like you, don't mind the editing part, except when it boils down to splitting hairs! Since you've taken the lead, I'll dig up some references. Surely there's been research done on this before, even if we're not aware of it. Sincerely, JWinn From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: 30 Mar 93 17:17 GMT Subject: Attached Proposal sent A of M Hi Joan: As per our phone call, the following is the title page and text of the Symposium Proposal sent today to the Association of Management. Not too different from what I sent you previously except missing some things and an added paragraph describing a symposium. I put the authors in alphabetical order. I like your plan to go check literature. I will continue to refine and add to what I have so far until you have something. Then we can start haggling and wordsmithing. Regards, Terence From: Joan Winn To: Terence C. Krell Date: Wed, 31 Mar 93 11:31:01 CST Sub: References Dear Terence, You were right. There's not much out there re inter-gender relationships at work. This is what I've come up with so far. I will attempt to get copies of these and I can send them to you. (I just got the Fisher book; I hope to get some time next week to look at it--after my case-research proposal is done.) Here are some other references that I'll send to you: <> Well, that's a start. I'll have to send for most of these through inter-library loan, so it may take a few weeks to get them. jw From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: 04 Apr 93 18:21 GMT Subject: Re: references-Good Job! Hi Joan: Regarding the three dimensional model, I think the presentation of such a model and a description with examples is of itself a significant contribution. It can be used to develop categories, representing placement on the model. Also discrepancies between individual perceptions can be mapped highlighting potential difficulties in relationships. I have a diagram, but I think you can visualize it from the description you have. I would like to develop the description of the evolution of individual relationships more, and I am missing the female side. Issues that come to mind, about which I have (I am happy to say) no experience are such things as women's intentionality of clothing selection, perception of or response to admiring glances/stares, and how women perceive/determine the boundaries of intimacy in a relationship. (Come to think of it, I don't think any man has EVER understood the last one.) I think there is some stuff in the psych literature about mating/sex rituals dating back to the 50's. I remember reading a study of US GI's in England and a comparison of nonverbal cues regarding order of cues in developing intimacy immediately post WWII. In brief, cultural differences led to some major misunderstandings. Also there is a literature on friendships/development of friends from the late 60's. I suspect most of the recent stuff (post 1975) is going to be more prescriptive than descriptive. The research from that period has tended to conceal rather than explain gender differences that may be relevant for our stuff. However, I admit that is a possibly sexist, male comment, and I could be wrong. Good work. That was a faster turnaround than I expected. I'll be interested to see if what the others have to say is near or supports our thesis. The Devine article looks the closest to what we are proposing. Regards, Terence From: Joan Winn To: Terence C. Krell Date: 4 Apr 93 21:31:01 CST Subject: turning around Helen Fisher's book deals with mating/bonding rituals in an anthropological framework, but I don't think that applies to what we're trying to get at in a modern work context. I also (I'll speak for myself, not all women) differentiate between work behavior and social/sexual relationship-building. The context here is critical to our thesis. Re: women's intentionality of clothing selection: I will ask around, but, speaking for myself, I never thought of opposite-sex attraction in selecting clothing for work. What about men? Re: responses to admiring glances/stares: at the workplace, this is intimidating, not flattering. Re: the boundaries of intimacy in a relationship: a work relationship? or a personal relationship? Do men look for intimate relationships at work? (Keep in mind, our original discussion concerned the problems of establishing a work relationship, without the "courtship" or "intimacy" issues polluting the work relationship. In a work relationship these may be difficult to keep at bay, but the nature of the workplace dictates norms and boundaries--even if they are broken on occasion.) In our 3x3 matrix (intimacy, trust, and valence), intimacy is probably defined differently for men and women, especially depending upon the nature of what you call valence, or what I might call "attraction." We established early in our first meeting that we were both married, thus the level of "intimacy" had obvious boundaries. In terms of "valence", as a married person, "positive" has a different meaning than for a single person, especially if the "intimacy" potential is being assessed. In a business setting, the context moderates these factors (or should) depending upon the nature of the "task" or role; in a "dating" or social situation there is no task to build trust, but rather the relationship itself is focused on--perhaps the valence first, with trust being assessed in the context of the potential for intimacy. I'll work on getting the articles (it may be a few weeks, I'm fear). I'm teaching a "women's issues" class which discusses sexual harassment in two weeks. I'll see what these (working) women say. jw -- From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: 05 Apr 93 17:06 GMT Subject: relationships Hi Joan: On clothing selection: Yeah, men will infer things about women based on the clothing they wear. I think most men assume women wear clothing with intentionality. If you don't think about attraction in clothing selection, do you think about avoiding attraction? Two notes on that: A friend of mine (we did our MBA's together in 1976) in Chicago is a VP for Kraft Foodservices in her mid 40's, divorced for a long time, no kids. She claims to wear dresses made of prints similar to those on men's ties as a way of fitting in (or not standing out). Second, there was an article (I don't have the reference, but Susan Winter pointed this out at the Westerns) that claimed that the circumstances of contact affected the perception of men regarding women: cocktail waitresses were seen as more available for intimacy than doctors for example. Partially related to clothing, partly to circumstance, partly to status of the woman. On the admiring glances thing: What, if anything, makes this different at work than at, say, the mall or a party? I don't think men do it to be intimidating. For men I'm not even sure this is conscious. It's more a hunter/gatherer checking the immediate surroundings and observing. Re: Men and intimate relationships, yeah, sorry to say it is the nature of men to look for (that is to say, be aware of the possibility of) intimate relationships at all times (not defending this, you understand, just remarking on a fact. That's what makes this an issue). I think with regard to other men, there are no governors on the possibilities of the highest degree of intimacy (because in that regard, the highest level is close friend, buddy, etc.), and the cues that set the level are well known and understood by both parties. So in approaching a new relationship with other men professionally, the limits are the same as with other men met socially. I would guess that men approach new relationships with women professionally in the same way, with the initial limits the same as the social limits, that is to say, with the potential for a higher degree of intimacy than they would expect from men. Also, the cues are different than with men. This is where the habits from courtship behavior come in. (I am going to completely ignore the homosexual issue. I know little about it and it just complicates matters no end.) Many men have become more cautious about what they say or do because of the legal issues, but the thought process probably remains. What you have highlighted for me here is a difference in the way men and women approach the relationship thing. I think there is a significant difference here. Have I got this right? By the way, you didn't answer my question about women and how they determine the boundaries on intimacy. But then, I figured that would happen. Thanks for your help on the articles. Take the time you need. Terence From: Joan Winn To: Terence C. Krell Date: 5 Apr 1993 Sub: Re: relationships Yes. I think most women want to look "professional" (which means "respected") and either try to look like the wallpaper or to look conspicuously competent. I don't know of any women (past the age of 20-something) who look for romance in the workplace. My guess is that when romance happens, the initial response is one of "uneasiness" and fear of jeopardizing their employment or position or credibility. > Re: Men and intimate relationships, So I've been told. (which is why women are extra cautious and conscious of what they say and how they act. With the threat of harassment suits, men now have to be extra cautious. On the one hand, I think that's a good thing. On the other, it creates a barrier to (what I call) intimacy at work, making sure that the personal boundaries are not inadvertently breached. Why do you think men approach women with potential for a higher degree of intimacy than they would expect from men? I hear complaints from women that men do not perceive them as "co-workers" in the "equal" sense, but as either "underlings" (i.e. maids, slaves, children, etc) or potential dates. I understand that men--and women--learn how to interact with women (men) from how their father interacted with their mother, or how they interacted with sisters (brothers). Maybe there is a problem with women deferring to men as they deferred to their father, but I don't believe that women are looking at the men they work with in the same way that they are looking for a social relationship. At least at the professional level, I don't see women "flirting", but I do see men "cruising." I don't know how to answer your question about how women determine the boundaries on intimacy. For me, being married, the boundaries are easy. I haven't been working single in 20 years. And even when I was (divorced), I was not looking (in fact, quite the reverse). My single and divorced friends claim to shun workplace relationships for obvious reasons. So I either don't know how to answer your question or I don't understand the question that you are asking. jw -- From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: 06 Apr 93 04:53 GMT Subject: Re2: relationships Hi Joans: Boy, talk about fast turn around. Here goes the answers. I hope you're actually reading this stuff. I don't have good answers. There are really two issues here: first is why do men consider the possibility of more intimacy with women than men in a professional context? Answer, because of a history of dealing with women in courtships, the social relationship carries the potential for more intimacy than with men. There is also a physiological response that the medical profession admits is largely involuntary. I think it's biological and a function of courtship behavior. Also, men are really dumb (inexperienced) when it comes to dealing with women professionally. Moreover, women do not present a common "face", each one requires unique (non)handling, as each has different expectations. Men look for cues to tell them what kind of relationship they can expect. Extended eye contact, suggestions about getting together for lunch, (or, for that matter, writing a paper together, no offense) can be misinterpreted by the unsophisticated, or simply provoke wishful thinking. "Flirting" is in the eye of the beholder. Second, why do men not perceive women as equals. I'm not sure I accept that men don't perceive women as co workers in an equal sense. For one thing, I'm not sure most men accept other men as equals. As I think about my relationships with male co-workers and the way other men talk about their relationships, there are times one person is in charge, and times the other is. There are things I'm better at and things others are better at than I am. The relationship is based on sometimes being the underling and sometimes not. Team members value each other's uniqueness; equalness is not a subject that arises. In the evolution of these relationships there is a melding of knowledge of each other's strengths and weaknesses and a willingness to give and take. I suspect (admitting it's a male perspective) that the women making such complaints are sensitive about the times they are expected to let the other person be in charge; especially since the new person in the organization is always considered junior until they have proved their worth and become a known quantity. There may also be an element of self-doubt in these complaints, that is, the women may have the habit of being subservient or presenting such an aspect, and then suddenly realizing that they don't like the response they are getting (the expectation that they will continue to be subservient). My question to them: How do you distinguish between the responses you get from your behavior and the responses you get because you are a woman? The answer I often get is that there is no difference. Also, recently, the rules changed, and men do not perceive women as wanting to be treated as equals. Here the problem is that most men see "equal" as being like men. Yet I hear story after story of men believing they are dealing with a woman as "one of the guys" and they get hit with a sexual harassment complaint. If I understand your answer, you set the boundaries on the level of intimacy you are open to based on (a) your personal situation, and (b) you consciously put limits on workplace connections. I suspect most women do the same. I was always told not to fool around where I worked, and have passed up some wonderful opportunities because I wouldn't. Yet I know two executives who married women they met while both were working for the same company, and I have three women students (22, 24, 25), good students, who are dating men they work with. There is something going on here that we don't have a good handle on. Regards, T From: Joan Winn To: Terence C. Krell Date: 6-Apr-93 05:07 Subject: Re: Re2: relationships I've sent you some articles. One of them contains a four stage model of relationship building that corresponds to the three-stage one you proposed for our paper. Another, "The female system and the white male system..." addresses the issue of equality in relationships. There's also an excerpt from the organization handbook on stages in relationship building gives us someone else's model that supports what we are saying. jw From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: Tue, 27 Apr 93 04:58:51 CST Subject: Haven't Forgotten I got the papers you sent. I also found a chapter in a book written in 1981 that talks about men expecting one-up, one-down relationships and women expecting equal relationships. More later. T. From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: Mon, 10 May 93 17:01:49 CST Subject: Re[2]: Haven't Forgotten Got the acceptance from the Association of Management for a symposium on Inter- gender Relationship Building for the Atlanta Meetings. Tentative plan for symposium, (1) we present the concept from the abstract (2) we raise the issues we have discussed: potential for intimacy, social vs work relationships, equality, etc., as issues, maybe each with its own flipchart page (just titles) (3) you present female perspective on each (4) I present male perspective (5) audience participates and we moderate and post notes on flip charts and try can keep the shouting and screaming down (6) we summarize, and announce that these are key issues, difficult to resolve and perhaps fundamental to gender differences; calling for better understanding of and acceptance of difference (7) we use notes to write next paper. Should make for an interesting session. We can discuss making contact in Atlanta as it gets closer. Later. Terence From: Joan Winn To: Terence C. Krell Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 23:31:07 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Women compete more with women I'm reading about women and competition. Women, although they say they compete with themselves--striving for personal bests--view other women as rivals. Men view the world of competition as less finite, so although they are in competition with other men, don't take it as personally. Also, men have been taught to compete at an early age; women taught to encourage or facilitate others. Which translates to work interaction differences between women-women and women-men which make women more wary of other women and more solicitous of men. Do you buy this? jw From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: 21 Jul 93 09:16:03 EDT Subject: Re: Women compete more with women Hi: The women's lit has been full of the "men are trained early on to work as teams while women haven't" since the early 70's. I never bought this argument because of my personal experience, not being involved in sports etc. Also, today, there are lots of women who have participated in sports activities as team members, and nothing seems to indicate any particular "masculinity" in their interaction. There is a literature that says that women are more likely to be "feeling" oriented and men more likely to be "thinking" oriented. (The Jungian, Meyers-Briggs personality literature) Feeling types take things more personally than thinking types (example, feeling types often cannot discern between a criticism of behavior and a criticism of self), which supports your statement. But the argument then is in two parts: more women tend to be of a personality that takes things personally, therefore women are more likely to take competition personally. That I buy. Women in my experience are more aware of relationship dynamics then most men of the same age. Therefore, another woman, being more aware of these dynamics than comparable men competes in a different way and is more of a threat. Also, if there are few women at a certain level, or in a small organization, they will compete for the social role of "woman in the company of mostly men" in addition to the normal competition of work. There is also a dynamic among men in competition at work involving a refusal to compete. That is, removing oneself from the competition with the "pack leader." This is somehow communicated to all concerned, and such men become part of the "scenery". Also, many men prefer to work with women than other men. I think this is similar to women preferring men and I think it is related to a comfort dynamic related to courtship behavior. Regards, T From: Joan Winn To: Terence C. Krell Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 16:11:15 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: Women compete more with women I haven't thought about the feeling/thinking dichotomy. Mostly I have read (and observed) that women tend to be more relationship and process oriented; men more task and results oriented. Ironically, in my department, the reverse is true. But, although I am the get-it-done person at home, I also keep the relationships going more than my spouse, who feels awkward inquiring about one's personal life (even VERY close friends--he'll quiz me for the details!) Yes, I've run across some stuff that suggests that the ratio of men to women plays a large role here. Also, there is education literature that shows that women behave differently (more boldly) in the company of all women than when men are present. Is a refusal to compete a male thing? Some people obviously choose to withdraw from competition, or even from the social/political work atmosphere, but is there a gender component here? I've read some stuff that suggests that women relate to men at work like they do to their father (authority, approval, etc.). Mothers are more accepting (or so the literature says anyway) and don't carry status. So women (and men) look to men as leaders and look to women as caretakers. Some men see themselves in the role of protector of women, especially if they are an older brother of younger sister(s). The earliest "modeling" of inter-gender relationships is by one's parents. And, if you believe what you read, the typical home situation has the father as authority, so the sons and daughters alike are taught to defer to him. If the mother also defers to him, both sons and daughters learn that as appropriate female-male behavior. Translate that to a work situation where the "stated" roles are "co"-workers, but neither knows how to relate in a gender-neutral way. I think that's one reason that it's so hard for companies to establish work- group norms. And maybe why men are so "touchy" about "dominance" or assertiveness in women. keep in touch, jw From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: 22 Jul 93 20:42:05 EDT Subject: Re: Women compete more with women The notion that men withdrawing from competition may be a gender issue is a possibility. I'm not sure that women do in the same way. However, historically women chose not to compete, and then, in recent times do. There are definitely men who at one time were "competitors" who now are not: they stay off the playing field. It is possible that the number of women "players" is still so small relative to men that few have withdrawn. I think the parent child thing may apply in the case of much older men to younger women, but definitely not in near or marriageable age differences (within 25 years). Perhaps there are some who say they are feeling/acting like older brother/father but I believe the possibility of an alternative relationship is still there. However, you do raise the issue that being an older brother or father does give another role or model than courtship behavior for relating to opposite gender. That's an important observation, although Freud would say that all men want to have intimacy with their mothers and sisters. Terence From: Joan Winn To: Terence C. Krell Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1993 15:50:38 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: Women compete more with women Keep in mind, Freud's sample were Viennese schizophrenic "housewives". (He also believed--or at least publicly stated--that all reportings of abuse were imagined.) Take him with a (large) grain of salt. Looking forward to seeing you in Atlanta. Just thought I'd share my latest Atlanta fantasy with you: We bring with us a video-camera (camcorder). Put the people who come to our presentation in a group (or two, if more than a handful show up). Give them a project or exercise to do. Record their interactions (and we take careful notes as to process, facial and voice expressions, etc) and play select parts back (quick-turnaround with a VCR) with discussion and fit to our "theory." And then we use this group as one of several data sources. (My fly-on-the-wall fantasy still has some feasibility problems.) We could use a role-play scenario for a short group exercise, and then de-brief by talking about the differences in interactions with people (1) who share our views [is this a "measure' of valence?], (2) people who we have met before [level of trust?], and (3) people of the same/different gender. We could talk about the verbal and non-verbal interactions in this "opening" stage of relationship building and the different approaches that different people take (and perhaps discuss the context-specific aspects of relationship building also). [we would be active process-observers; if the group was large, others could act in such a capacity also.] comments? jw -- From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: 28 Jul 93 12:28:10 EDT Subject: Re: musings/exercise Hi: Suppose we do a cocktail/party exercise; to wit: everybody stands up, moves around and finds a person of opposite gender to talk to. If uneven numbers, go ahead and join a group, but try to talk mostly to opposite gender. Switch several times under leader direction. Then sit down and discuss. Other things to do includes asking participants about other issues they think are important as well as their opinions on the issues we raised. Do we do the exercise/discussion after or before (or both) we introduce the theory? All of this assumes a mixed gender audience for a session in the Women in Management category. Terence From: Joan Winn To: Terence C. Krell Subject: Re: musings/exercise Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1993 14:49:04 -0600 (MDT) IF we do an exercise, I'd want to do something that simulates a work situation, NOT a cocktail party. And, IF we do an exercise, I think it would work better as the lead-in to our discussion/observations. If we just do a "straight" presentation, then we probably can do about 5-min of general theory/observations, and use the remaining time for participant discussion. jw -- From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: 28 Jul 93 19:44:37 EDT Subject: Re: musings/exercise Okay, I buy keeping the exercise work-related, but relationship building for me takes place in the non-task-oriented part of interaction and that was just a suggestion for a way of getting at that part of it: simulating the breaks between work periods. In theory, an exercise would be better before the theory intro. We say, "Our plan for this symposium is in three parts. First, we would like you to participate in a brief exercise to give you some context for what we're going to talk about. Second we will present some issues, and what we think may be an explanation of some of the areas of differences in perspective between genders, and third, we'll throw it open for discussion with the experience of the exercise in mind." Then some exercise. I would like one that has people trying to find out about people in a brief period of time. Perhaps we could have them get to know one another for self-selected discussion groups (that we don't really plan on putting them in). I want them to come in contact with lots of members of other gender, focussing on what went through their own mind in the initial contact/conversation stage. Next the presentation, (I still think we have 15 minutes worth between us), then discussion. Then thanks and goodbye. I haven't rejected your exercise completely. How does that sound for a type of thing, and what are your thoughts? Terence From: Joan Winn To: Terence C. Krell Subject: Re: musings/exercise Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1993 13:34:23 -0600 (MDT) Yes, that sounds good, but I don't think we'll have 20 people. And, they'll probably be mostly women. But, what the hey! My original conceptualization of our stuff was the interactions that take place in work settings; i.e. work groups that are now include both genders. The socialization that takes place during breaks involves non-work related tasks and (I think) is similar to "dating behavior." Typically, people segregate themselves by gender, although that may now be changing as work group composition changes. But the interactions that I'm most interested in occur during work, spilling over to social/break periods. Allegedly, in a work setting, romance is verboten, thereby changing the traditional male/female rituals. I think it's hard for most people to relate to people of the opposite gender in the same way they are used to relating to same-gender workmates. Despite the fact that the workplace imposes structure, I think there is an implicit relationship ambiguity that gets in the way. That's why I'd like to see a "business-setting" role-play, to see how people attempt to eliminate the gender issue from the task. jw -- From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: 29 Jul 93 18:30:23 EDT Subject: Re: musings/exercise again Hi: This may be another gender difference. I don't develop relationships with male co-workers through tasks, but rather through the interactions between and after tasks (lunch, breaks, mutterings in the hall, over a beer after work) which might very well include discussion of the task and task interaction just concluded. I would build my relationships with opposite gender in same way, (although very carefully given the environment and the potential for misunderstanding). I also believe that developing relationships with co-workers is an important part of accomplishing tasks at work. Thus I am disagreeing with you about the interactions during breaks not being work related; I think they are. I agree that the interaction during breaks is similar to dating behavior (partly because many people lack an alternative). I note that I am part of a mixed gender group of 4 (the others are staff and administrative) academics working on a technology transfer grant with local business. I think most of our getting to know each other (relationship building) is taking place over meals and in the car driving between businesses, rather than when we are working at a meeting. I don't disagree about this taking place in work settings, but I do think the complications come between tasks, rather than during. (again, this may be part of our gender differences.) It seems then that we have identified two different settings for interaction around relationship building in organizations (consistent with the leadership style Blake - Mouton stuff "concern for people vs. concern for task"). Those settings which are directly related to task completion and those which are indirectly related to task completion in that they are directed toward people "getting the other's measure". I agree entirely with your last paragraph that people have trouble treating opposite gender same as same gender. I propose a two part exercise. Part one deals with my last note regarding self selecting groups (giving me the data I want) followed by discussion of the interaction involved in the selection process. Then we go into the exercise, perhaps using the memo you recommended (giving the data you seem to want). All is grist for the mill. I'm pleased to see us disagreeing; it means we are thinking critically and may be therefore developing something truly worthwhile. Terence From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: 02 Aug 93 17:57:53 EDT Subject: First 3-4 pages Hi JW: Here is my rewrite with references of the first 3-4 (double spaced) pages of our article. This includes sections on Introduction, and Relationship-building. Still to come are Inter-gender relationships, Gender differences, and then I'm not sure. I guess we'll watch it evolve. Please let me know what you think of this so far. I will start working on next sections tonight, but may not get anything done. Oh yeah, one of the reasons I'm running behind on this is that I found out Friday that what I though was a sprained thumb when it happened in March is in fact broken, and I go in tomorrow for a cast and other unknown treatment. That explains all of the pain, I guess. I may not (therefore) get much more done. (right thumb, but I'm left handed, thank god. T <> From: Joan Winn To: Terence C. Krell Subject: Re: First 3-4 pages Date: Mon, 2 Aug 1993 17:34:53 -0600 (MDT) Ouch, sorry to hear about your thumb. Four months is a long time to dangle a broken thumb. Hope you heal quickly. Re the paper: Except for minor stylistic/grammatical comments, the intro sounds fine. I would add, however, that in a work context, people seldom can choose to "break contact" and a "stable relationship", though not necessarily a positive stable relationship, will develop. In order to be productive/functional at work, people are forced into contact and some sort of "stability"--expectations, boundaries--must be established. And, while the work setting defines the relationship, sometimes the relationship directs the work. I suspect that there are many instances of low-valence (dislike) interactions where people (especially supervisor/subordinate) are forced to work through (lots of testing!) to stability (especially in a tight job market, especially with more and more work-group team-work situations--even in traditionally autonomous professions). See you soon. j From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: Wed, Aug 11, 1993, 9:22 PM Subject: Please Clarify I'm still reflecting on some of our conversations in Atlanta. We spoke of the undercurrent of sexual tensions in inter-gender relationships, but I'm not sure if this is taking place in your mind or you believe it is created in the male mind, but you say you noticed it when you and I were together. Can you say more? From: Joan Winn To: Terence C. Krell Date: Thu, Aug 11, 1993, 7:52 PM Subject: Re: Please Clarify I think I'm starting to understand something, partly from re-reading your early stuff and partly from "close encounters" with you and others. You (men) say that there is always a sexual tension in inter-gender relationships. I now understand that my real working relationships have not involved close contact with men. I see my male colleagues often, but my work is autonomous. Working closely with you this week revealed that there is definite sexual tension when there's only two--one male, one female--people working in close contact. I do great e-mail. But I think the way I handle the male/female thing is to keep a certain amount of distance. If I worked in a different setting I might not be able to do that so successfully. So now I'm re-evaluating some of the things I said to you about the "psychological" boundaries that women set up. We set up physical boundaries too, as a protection probably, but also as an "intimacy-avoidance" if you will. I might add that I hug few of the men I work with. I am most affectionate with a lawyer who shares the management suite--he's in his late sixties. His wife is a retired librarian who used to work at my daughter's middle school. She runs the school-district spelling bees that my daughter has competed in the last two years (she won last year and went to the state finals); he always clips out school-district articles with my daughter's name on them. In this instance, as most of my work situations, the relationship parameters are clear (and public!). I trust that women interact differently with men than they do with women, not just in the "initiation" phase when they need to set boundaries and assess safety/trust issues, but also throughout the "maintenance" of the relationship. I am probably less guarded with my women colleagues. jw From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: Fri, Aug 13, 1993, 9:56 AM Subject: Re2: Please Clarify Okay, I'm on firmer ground then. I didn't really notice much sexual tension because I had accepted that (short of an outright proposition) you had labelled the cues/behaviors as playful and safe and were not suggesting sexual interest. So I discounted what I might otherwise have taken as cues of sexual interest. This transition took place our first afternoon at Atlanta. I can see where another man might be even more confused. I can also see that Bill the waiter might have surmised that you and I were married but never thought we were on a date. The mutual comfort level was high and the liking and care-taking apparent, without the focus on the other that dating newness requires. I still don't understand if the sexual tension you speak of is taking place in your (female) mind or you believe it is created in the male mind, but you said you noticed it when you and I were together. Can you say more? T From: Joan Winn To: Terence C. Krell Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1993 14:46:01 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: Re2: Please Clarify I think I said this before, but I believe that companies unwittingly set up situations that create stressful, conflict-provoking interactions that interfere with workgroup effectiveness and cross-gender coworker relationships. In addition, some individuals have no frame of reference for dealing with members of the opposite sex in a co-worker "equal status" situation. Individual skill/experience and expectations are also problematic, especially when they are inconsistent with those of (1) each other, (2) the work group norms or goals, (3) the manager/supervisor's assumptions/beliefs, and (4) the company (or division) 's expectations.Compounding work-group goals of coworker cohesiveness is sensitivity to harassment issues. This can prolong the "relationship-building" stage because it ads a dimension of suspicion and caution. Got to run. But I hope to have some stuff for you in the mail by Monday. jw From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: Fri, Aug 13, 1993, 5:48 PM Subject: possible conference submission I got ambitious this morning. (Actually, I made a list of what needed doing and panicked. I start teaching a week from Monday and one of my classes I haven't even designed yet!) In the meantime I went through the calls for papers received at the academy. I'd like to shoot for the Oct 1 submission date for the Western academy meeting in March, but that would mean lots of work for us in a short time this fall. We'd need a complete paper of 16 pages by Sept 25 to allow receipt in Canada by Oct 1. Before I can get to it I need to complete a Magic paper by 9/1 for another conference, revise a proposal on regional diversity in management by 8/16 (which is going to be late) design my class by 8/23 finish editing a coauthors piece on doing business in russia by 9/20, and revise a paper for Journal of Change Management someday real soon now. And that's just the things that have deadlines in the next month or so. The last two are lower priority than Gender stuff, but the first 3 have to come first. I had forgotten I expected to have the first ten pages or so of our stuff done by the end of the academy. Rereading the above, it does read a little panicky, doesn't it. Hell, I think I'm going to read a novel to forget about how busy I am. What do you think? T From: Joan Winn To: Terence C. Krell Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1993 14:53:59 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Progress and Plans We can try for a submission to Western, but I'd like to write something up that is submittable to a journal. I would really like to do some empirical stuff with this gender-relationship thing, but I'm not sure how to do it. Student groups will probably suffice, but I don't want self-report measures because those will obviously be laden with p.c. stuff. Maybe some scenario/simulation stuff. I'm sending you a paper (written by some friends of mine) that fits in with some of our stuff. Their work shows that mixed groups, while as effective as single-gender groups, are typically rated lower initially (by participants) and take longer to set group norms. You are probably familiar with Kanter's work, but it's old (1977) and doesn't lend much to our study (or at least I don't think so), but I have the book. BTW, I just received one of the two articles on gender mis-cues: "Toward an Understanding of "The Sex Game": The Effects of Gender and Self-Monitoring on Perceptions of Sexuality and Likability in Initial Interactions" by Harish, Abbey, and DeBono (JASP 1990). The research stream that Abbey is involved with supports some of our surmises of difference. "The Sex Game" article gives some interesting citations that we should address. I'll fax them to you. Well, here we go again. (Are we having fun yet?) j From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: Mon, Aug 16, 1993, 2:48 PM Subject: Abbey articles That stuff really supports our thesis, and best of all, is centered in a social context. That means (a) our organizational professional context is additive and therefore publishable in the same Soc Psych lit, and (b) we can replicate Abbey's experiment in the alternative context without having to reinvent the wheel. If I'm right, we are in fat city for a research stream. Terence From: Joan Winn To: Terence C. Krell Subject: Re: Research stream Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1993 15:27:34 -0600 (MDT) Ah, such good news is music to my ears. j From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: Wed, Aug 18, 1993, 12:47 PM Subject: Re: Abbey stuff/etc Hi. I read both Abbey articles for detail. Once again the lit review sections are far more interesting than the experimental portions. But. It seems from the studies that (1) men are more sexually aware and interested than women under the same circumstances (2) men are more likely to read friendly interaction as sexual interest than women and (3) women often do not recognize sexual interest from men as sexual. (All generalizable only to college students in social settings, yet we have already established the impact of courtship behavior)). And yet, everything I am finding on sexual harassment seems addressed to the notion that women are accusing men of sexual "something" when the men had not intended or even thought they were doing anything. How can we account for that? Keep reading. Commentary: the research studies support both my experience and our discussions that men will perceive women desiring to build a professional relationship as desiring a more intimate relationship and crossing signals. (This is also consistent with John Bunch's stuff distinguishing between intimacy and sexuality, which by the way, I think is personality rather than gender based). Awareness of this dynamic is a major step in avoiding the miscommunication, and of itself may be sufficient to prevent a lot of misunderstanding. In fact, to the extent that we can make this case in a positive supporting way it may be our major contribution. On the harassment issue, it occurs to me that the premise that women do not really understand what behaviors are sexually oriented (from the male perspective) may have resulted in going overboard in the other direction (from not recognizing to becoming suspicious of anything that could even remotely be interpreted). This reaction comes from still not really recognizing the real cues of sexual interest. If true, this is a real breakthrough in understanding. Most men do not really understand the SH phenomena when it is not related to specific behaviors. You know, the more we get into this, the more complicated it is. Replication of the studies would really be easy (although time consuming) if we could get a hold of the instruments used. The experimental changes would be (1) from social chat to task accomplishment. (2) Limit to business undergrads (or traditional MBA's) (3) expand design to allow mixed marital status controls (SM-SF,SM-MF,MM-SF,MM-MF) and if we really want to be sneaky, have observers also be mixed. Major changes then are only two: professional rather than social setting, and control of marital status as a variable. We might have to account for changes in time period (original studies were done in 1981) by replicating the original study as a control group, but if we draw that from the same population we only need one more group of SM-SF in a social setting to isolate changes from original study. Limit age range and race to keep from complicating things. Okay. I need to get back to my other deadline stuff. What do you think? T From: Joan Winn To: Terence C. Krell Subject: Re: Abbey stuff/etc Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 14:57:37 -0600 (MDT) The Abbey sruff doesn't tell us anything that we don't already know, but it does give some validation. I do believe that there are three critical variables here: age, marital status, and context. I think that college in itself is viewed as a social setting. I agree with you that there is a backlash here. But I still observe "men" whose behaviors go beyond cute and innocent to degrading and harassing. I think the old culture norms are hard to get beyond. Teenagers get "on-the-street" training from their peers which, since it comes at a very impressionable time, transfers into on-the-job adulthood, even when it's objectively inappropriate. I think we have something here if we look at social vs work contexts and married vs single. The original studies used college kids, but I think that builds in un-generalizability. MBAs would work if they have some real work experience. Fresh-out-of-undergrad students are really only seniors once removed. I think we're on to something here. The real problem is setting up the right group in the right setting. jw From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: Thu, Aug 19, 1993, 5:57 PM Subject: Re: Abbey stuff/etc I agree the variables are context and marital status and age. The design and population I suggested are designed to explore context as an independent variable and use marital status as a dependent variable, while holding age consistent with previous studies (if I remember my variables correctly.) By using the same or similar population changing only context, but gathering additional data on marital status we isolate age as constant. Then in the second round we go after the age and experience issues. Remember the early experiments were done in 1981 and it is a different population. Can't use too many variables at a time or your validity goes to hell. Another point about using people with work experience at this point is you can't control for history, education or type of experience. Moreover, we then run into regional cultural differences. Patience, patience, let's be scientific. Yeah I know generalizability stinks with college sophomores, but if we use seniors or traditional first year MBA's and control for the social setting with a group of SM-SF having social chit chat as in the original. That control gives a baseline difference from the original study and any significant differences from that baseline difference is attributable to context change. If we want to get cute, we record and content analyze all the sessions. Unfortunately we are talking major bucks here to pay subjects. I have to reread Abbey's stuff for sample size. John Bunch's stuff distinguishes between intimacy and sexuality in relationships, a distinction you made and I didn't when we discussed it in Atlanta. I have been exploring this distinction in an informal survey. When applied to intergender relationships, 65% of men and 45% of the women (n=75) I discussed the concept with did not believe that an intimate intergender relationship without sexual attraction (expressed or unexpressed) was possible. I therefore don't think this is only a gender thing, but may be related to the self monitoring phenomena Abbey's later paper explored without concrete results. In any event, that's my reason for thinking it's personality related. Yeah, there are a lot of crude men out there, but I see a lot of guys who believe they are doing their best and are astounded at what women are complaining about. Good stuff. T From: Joan Winn To: Terence C. Krell Subject: Good stuff Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 21:34:05 -0600 (MDT) Just a thought, I know there may be regional differences, but I have access to a much more "traditional" student population than you do. We might get some interesting stuff just comparing these two groups as a start. I think age is a big factor, but maybe I'm really observing single vs married. Either that or I'm getting old--I certainly feel that way when I observe some of my students! j From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: Fri, Aug 20, 1993, 10:56 PM Subject: Re: Good stuff We start with finishing up the theoretical grounding of our paper and the paper itself to get us established. Then we contact Abbey about doing stuff together exploring the variables we have isolated and maybe offer to get her involved. Right now we need to structure a paper for the Westerns: how much do we include and how far do we go? (I can probably figure this out, but I'm tired and our e-mail conversations always get the brain cells working.) Bear in mind that some of where we have gone in the last few weeks is beyond the scope of the original paper and may be meat for a second, followup piece. Give this some thought. Crossed five things off my to-do list and to eliminate the mess, created a new list. Now it looks like I've done nothing, but have everything yet to do. This was a mistake! Oh well, back to the novel for a couple of hours to lower the panic level. I start teaching Monday 8/23. What about you? T. From: Joan Winn To: Terence C. Krell Subject: keeping up Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1993 14:46:01 -0600 (MDT) I am almost finished with my case revisions; hope to send it out next week. And then I have several piles books, articles, and papers surrounding my desk that I have avoided looking at--they have been piling up all year. Kids start school on Monday. This signals the official end of summer. But it does give me two weeks to myself before my classes start. (I have not yet started compiling syllabi or class notes, and I will probably procrastinate until the very last.) I know that the WAM deadline is not until Oct 1, but we should probably start thinking seriously about (1) what we want to include in the paper, (2) what further info we need, and (3) how we want to organize it. among other things. So, when you have time, let me know your "vision" of all of this and where we stand, progress-wise and how we need to proceed. Right now my brain is fried, but I intend to relax tonight and tomorrow in preparation for head-work and alertness on Monday. (I may have to up the caffeine intake for a jump-start.) cheers! jw From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: Sun, Aug 22, 1993, 11:00 AM Subject: Re: keeping up Hi: My list of professional things to do (which excludes such things as taking kids to a fireworks display last night and getting vinyl siding put on the garage) is down to only one thing in front of the Intergender paper: I have my round of contribution on the Magic in the Classroom paper that needs to be done by Friday (and won't) for a 9/1 submission deadline, and then it's on to Intergender. Of course, later this afternoon a grad student is coming by to work on a paper we are trying to do for the MBAA (10/1 deadline) about opportunities for western business in Russia, then Monday I start teaching. What happened to my summer vacation? The outline in my mind goes like this: 1.Introduction 2.Relationship-building 3.Inter-Gender Relationships 4.Gender Differences 5.Issues 6.Discussion 7.Conclusion. 1 & 2 are done (but not polished) 3 is half done, but lacks the logic to misunderstanding of cues and a discussion on the complication of people who really are looking for sex/marriage at work. 4 comes from our dialogue and a couple of articles. 5 is a logical outgrowth of what we say in 1-4 and 6 and 7 are what we think and how readers should look at things respectively. 6 & 7 could be made one section. At this point I am short of articles for 4 & 5, although I think you sent a couple that work (haven't looked since before the Academy). It would help if you could make a list of issues for 5 and a list of gender differences for 4. If so, do 5 first because I would like to pick up writing in 3 where I left off and I may get to 4 first. (I will use our dialogue as a source for 4.) If you can make such a list, we can argue and discuss, and I think previous dialogue covers a pretty long list. I'm open to alternatives if you prefer something else Anyway, I expect to get started in section 3 late next week or early next. Cast comes off a week from Tuesday, but the arm still hurts 3 weeks in and I'm a little worried that more treatment will be required. It's raining again (still?). I hadn't realized I'd moved to a rain forest. Normal rainfall they tell me is 20 inches. We've had almost 50 this summer. Splash. Glub, glub. T From: Joan Winn To: Terence C. Krell Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 12:54:00 -0600 (MDT) Re #3 & #4: I'll spend some time getting those in shape. I have some literature about biological and stereotypical gender differences that I am still compiling. Most of this is courtship behavior, of course. I would also include in this section, the gender-related expectations stuff, e.g. goals and success factors related to work and to relationships. Re #5: The issues that I had focused on are basically, getting beyond "sex" or gender biases to form working (pun intended) relationships. In other words, I see the main issue of companies, departments, and individuals facilitating workgroup structures that minimize gender biases, stereotypes, and discomfort in order to achieve non-threatening, cohesive, productive coworker interactions. Here is the list: Issues for Discussion of Gender Differences 1. Non-Verbal Cues. (How) do men and women perceive non-verbal cues differently? Does eye contact, body language, stance, dress (etc) convey more than "co-worker" status or individual "style"? 2. Potential for Intimacy. Do men or women look for "intimacy" cues, despite the fact that many feel the work-setting precludes or mitigates "dating" behaviors? 3. Expectations. Do men and women have different expectations of roles, needs, "level" of the relationship at work? 4. "Liking". In a work setting, does competence replace "liking" in relationship-building? (Or does competence dictate liking?) 5. Roles. Do men compete more/less with women than with men? Do women compete more/less with men than with women? Do women assume care-taking roles with men, even if their work status is equal? 6. Professionalism vs Intimacy. Do women really want to be treated as "equals"? Do men/women resort to "dating" or "social" behaviors at work, thereby distorting the alleged desire for "equal" treatment? 7. Equality. What does "being treated as an equal" mean? What about when people aren't equal? 8. Fear/Trust. Has an increased awareness/sensitivity to sexual harassment issues distorted inter-gender relationship building in what should be a non-threatening, non-ambiguous work context? Have men/women become more distrustful of each other, fearing that their actions might be misunderstood? 9. Can Men/Women Maintain a "Co-Worker" Relationship? Must the relationship have sexual overtones? Is this the "nature" of men and women together, regardless of the desire to maintain professionalism and "equality"? 10. Nepotism Regulations. Does the imposition (on management's part) of nepotism regulations (those involving couples at work) help/hinder the relationship building process in inter-gender, professional interactions? From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: Tue, Sep 21, 1993, 10:57 AM Subject: Cast Off Well the good news is the cast is off and the fracture is healed, but the bad news is the same injury caused tendonitis which will probably become chronic. Wonderful. The stuff you sent looks great. I am starting work on Intergender stuff this afternoon. Keep in touch. T From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: Mon, Sep 27, 1993, 10:32 AM Subject: Re: IGR paper/issues I just got back from Los Angeles for Yom Kippur with my parents, and got your issues list and in the mail were the articles. I'm going to try to make the Oct 1 Deadline, but I fear it won't happen, as the thing really needs to be mailed today to be on time, and I haven't any time until Wed. Will you be very disappointed? We'll try. I won't detail my September but the pneumonia really cost me two weeks plus a lot of other time from needing extra sleep. Issues list looks great. I will inquire of you on issues individually as I address them in paper for further input/discussion. I found and skimmed John's paper. What they add for us in their model is some dimensions of intimacy (3), and a proposal of mismatches. What we add to theirs is a stage of relationship/time dimension. I will use their stuff in ours (cited). Let me know if you want me to really press on getting this stuff done for the Westerns, or shoot for the Nationals. It occurs to me as I'm writing this that I could propose a symposium for the Westerns using the first couple of pages we already have and the list of issues you gave me, with both of us on a panel, and it would probably fly, but not as likely as a paper because there are fewer symposium slots. I could fed ex it thursday. Got the cast off last tues, but there is tendon damage (chronic tendonitis) and I am still in almost as much pain as before the cast was put on. Appointment today for a cortisone shot to promote healing, but I also have a reaction to such shots that puts me in tremendous pain for about 8 hours. The possibility of a painful hand with limited thumb mobility forever or corrective surgery that will reduce the strength of the hand by 50% and has only a 50% chance of making the pain go away and a 25% chance of making the mobility worse is not a pleasant future. I have been very depressed about the whole thing, but part of that may be Yom Kippur. I'm very sorry I've been remiss in writing on the paper. There has been so much.... Let me know what you think. T From: Joan Winn To: Terence C. Krell Subject: Re: WAM Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1993 14:53:47 -0600 (MDT) Yes, Yom Kippur does put things into a different perspective--some good, some bad. My 7-year-old actually sat through the entire 3:30-7pm service on Saturday (in addition to Saturday morning and Friday evening). (Then we pigged out!) Actually, for me the weekend was good. I put my life on hold from 6pm Friday until 7pm (actually 9pm) Saturday, which was a necessary tuning-out-of-present-reality. Re our paper: I'd like to get something in to WAM. But if not, we can focus on getting a conceptual piece together that might actually be submittable to a journal and then think about where we want to take some empirical research. Sorry about the hand. How does this affect your magic? (not to mention your life.) I rely on my hands and my eyes so much that I can't imagine being without either (and both are decreasing in acuity, which is scary). Is there something non-surgical (i.e. physical therapy) that you can do to regain function? I don't think even chicken soup will help here. I'm back to grading papers. hugs-- jw <> From: Joan Winn Subject: Re: Round 3 Hungover To: Terence C. Krell Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 10:22:04 -0600 (MDT) Okay that's good enough for a symposium proposal. We'll need more time to work on a REAL paper and neither of us needs to make ourselves miserable today and tomorrow for this arbitrary deadline. Thanks for all your work. I think the symposium piece reads well. Not bad for a day's work! However, we are on a "roll" so we shouldn't drop this and pick it up next month. If possible, let's work continually to get something in good form. We may even target the Academy for its Jan 1st deadline, or even a journal before that. What do you think? One article is being faxed to you as I write this. I should have the other by late this afternoon. I hope you've gotten some sleep and are feeling a bit better. take care-- j From: Terence C. Krell To: Joan Winn Date: Thu, Sep 30, 1993, 11:33 AM Subject: Not so Hungover I'm printing it out now and off it goes at 4pm. Thanks for everything. Later.T In Conclusion What this dialogue did for the authors was develop a theory of the nature of inter-gender relationship development in organizations and identify issues that address systematic differences in how men and women generally approach relationships with people of the opposite sex in a work context. Some of these issues may result in simple misunderstandings and some have the potential for serious workplace conflict. Using existing literature and studies, but also the authors' own experience, perceptions, and perhaps most importantly, their questions, the authors focused on the potential for gender conflict in the initial stages of relationship development within an organizational context by exploring the development of their own relationship. In order to increase the awareness of inter-gender relationship issues, the authors recommend that organizations conduct mixed-gender discussion groups to raise awareness of issues of gender differences. By creating group sessions of mixed-gender composition and discussing issues of gender differences, organizations can provide an opportunity for people to explore areas of potential misunderstanding. An open discussion of these issues will heighten awareness of different perceptions in a non-judgmental, non-prescriptive, and non-personal way. Such discussions will enable participants to understand the difference in perspective others bring to situations they thought were harmless, but others might find offensive. As this experience is disseminated throughout the organization, the culture should become more aware of and accepting of the differences without people feeling castigated. A list of issues related to gender differences which are suitable for discussion in training sessions to help avoid future gender conflict is included in the body of the dialogue above. The final article which resulted from the dialogue may appear in a future issue of this journal.