A MAN who gets angry at work may well be admired for it, but a women who shows anger in the workplace is liable to be seen as ‘out of control’ and incompetent, according to new studies.
What’s more, the finding may have implications for Hillary Clinton as she attempts to become the first female president, according to its author VICTORIA BRESCOLL, a post doctoral scholar atYale University
Her research paper“When can angry women get ahead?” noted that Clinton 
cribed last year by a leading Republican as “too angry to be elected president” .
Previous research has indicated that anger can communicate that an individual, feels entitled to dominate others, and therefore perhaps is. But in a paper to be delivered at a weekend conference, Brescoll said such studies focused on men.
“As senator Clinton’s experience suggests, however, for a professional women anger expression may lead to a decrease rather than an increase in her status”, Brescoll wrote.
She conducted three tests in which men and women recruited randomly watched videos of a job interview and were asked to rate the applicant’s status and assign them a salary.
In the first, the scripts were identical except where the candidate described feeling either angry or sad about losing an account due to a colleague’s late arrival at a meeting.
Participants conferred the most status on the man who said he was angry, the second most one the women who said she was sad, slightly less on the man who said he was sad, and least of all by a sizable margin on the women who said she was angry.
The average salary assigned to the angry man almost $38000 compared to about $23500 for the angry women and in the region of $30000 for the other two candidates.
In the second experiment, the script was similar except that the job applicant also described his/her current occupation as a trainee or a senior executive.
“Participants rated angry female CRO as significantly less competent than all of the other targets, including even the angry female trainee,”
Brescoll wrote >She said they viewed angry females as significantly more “out of control”.
That impacted salaries. Unemotional women were assigned on average $55384 compared to $32902 for the angry ones. Male executive candidates were assigned more than trainees, regardless of anger, with an average $73643.
A third experiment tested whether a good reason for anger made any difference. The script was changed so that some angry candidates explained that the co-worker who arrived late had lied beforehand, indicating he had directions to the meeting.
Sure enough, the angry women with a good reason to be angry were awarded much higher salary than the angry women who provided no excuse, though it was still less than the men.
“It’s an attitude that is no conscious,” Brescoll said.” People are hardly aware of it.”
Brescoll said the findings revealed a “difficult paradox” for professional women-while anger can serve as a powerful tool to achieve status at work, women may have to behave calmly in order to be seen as rational.
What’s more, the finding may have implications for Hillary Clinton as she attempts to become the first female president, according to its author VICTORIA BRESCOLL, a post doctoral scholar at
Her research paper
cribed last year by a leading Republican as “too angry to be elected president” .Previous research has indicated that anger can communicate that an individual, feels entitled to dominate others, and therefore perhaps is. But in a paper to be delivered at a weekend conference, Brescoll said such studies focused on men.
“As senator Clinton’s experience suggests, however, for a professional women anger expression may lead to a decrease rather than an increase in her status”, Brescoll wrote.
She conducted three tests in which men and women recruited randomly watched videos of a job interview and were asked to rate the applicant’s status and assign them a salary.
In the first, the scripts were identical except where the candidate described feeling either angry or sad about losing an account due to a colleague’s late arrival at a meeting.
Participants conferred the most status on the man who said he was angry, the second most one the women who said she was sad, slightly less on the man who said he was sad, and least of all by a sizable margin on the women who said she was angry.
The average salary assigned to the angry man almost $38000 compared to about $23500 for the angry women and in the region of $30000 for the other two candidates.
In the second experiment, the script was similar except that the job applicant also described his/her current occupation as a trainee or a senior executive.
“Participants rated angry female CRO as significantly less competent than all of the other targets, including even the angry female trainee,”
Brescoll wrote >She said they viewed angry females as significantly more “out of control”.
That impacted salaries. Unemotional women were assigned on average $55384 compared to $32902 for the angry ones. Male executive candidates were assigned more than trainees, regardless of anger, with an average $73643.
A third experiment tested whether a good reason for anger made any difference. The script was changed so that some angry candidates explained that the co-worker who arrived late had lied beforehand, indicating he had directions to the meeting.
Sure enough, the angry women with a good reason to be angry were awarded much higher salary than the angry women who provided no excuse, though it was still less than the men.
“It’s an attitude that is no conscious,” Brescoll said.” People are hardly aware of it.”
Brescoll said the findings revealed a “difficult paradox” for professional women-while anger can serve as a powerful tool to achieve status at work, women may have to behave calmly in order to be seen as rational.
