The Paradox of Equivocation: Women in Health IT Leadership

The health IT industry is never without patterns of speech. From posturing phrases to overconfident meandering, we’re talkers. Women in the industry are no different. However, a subtle yet prevalent trend emerges amongst many women leaders: the frequent use of qualifiers such as:

- “I’m sorry, but…”
- “I might be wrong, but…”
- “Just thinking out loud here…”
- “It’s just a thought, but…”

These seemingly diminutive phrases prompted me to query whether they signal a genuine uncertainty, a strategic approach, or perhaps an unintended consequence of cultural conditioning. Let’s unpack this phenomenon.

Why do women use equivocating language?

1. Cultural Conditioning: **Cultural Conditioning and the COO’s Dilemma**

One of the most ingrained challenges many women leaders face is navigating the tightrope between assertiveness and the cultural expectation of agreeableness. I remember a period in my life when I served as the COO of an organization. Despite the authority and responsibilities that came with the role, I often found myself battling an internal conflict. On one hand, I had a duty to be decisive, to direct staff, and to lead. Conversely, there was an omnipresent fear of coming across as ‘too much’ — too aggressive, too emotional, or just too assertive. A fear that I’d be labeled — perhaps as “bossy,” “bitchy,” or any of the myriad labels that seem reserved for assertive women.

This is a sentiment that resonates with countless women in leadership roles. It’s not just about one’s leadership style but the broader societal expectations that dictate how women “should” behave. The fear of labels and the consequent need to be non-confrontational isn’t just about conforming to these stereotypes. Still, it’s often rooted in a genuine concern for workplace harmony and team dynamics. No one wants to be the cause of tension or discord, especially when harmony is viewed as a leadership asset.

Yet, the constant dance between our true leadership style and societal expectations can be exhausting. It can lead to moments of self-doubt, where you question your decisions and your right to make those decisions. And this dance isn’t exclusive to the corporate world. From politics to academia, women leaders often face this duality. They are expected to lead but within the confines of acceptability set by societal standards.

What’s essential is recognizing that these feelings aren’t anomalies. They are shared by a vast majority of women leaders who find themselves in the shadow of age-old stereotypes despite their competence and capabilities. By acknowledging and discussing these challenges openly, we can begin to reshape the narrative and redefine what leadership looks like, irrespective of gender.

2. Navigating Male-Dominated Fields: Like many tech fields, health IT remains male-dominated at its upper echelons. Women might employ equivocating language as a way to soften their approach, ensuring their ideas are heard without coming across as aggressive or domineering.

3. Creating Open Dialogue: These qualifiers can invite open discussions. Starting a statement with “I might be wrong” can lead to a more collaborative conversation, inviting others to share their perspectives. This isn’t the most confident qualifier, but it serves a good purpose: "I come in peace; let’s discuss this.” Another qualifying statement I use to further a discussion is, “I may be misunderstanding your point; can you clarify?” Usually, this leads to a deeper conversation, resulting in the best possible decision instead of staying passive in the conversation.

4. Strategic Understatement: Some leaders (myself included) use equivocation to strategically understate their position, only to follow with a robust and well-supported point. This can draw listeners in and then surprise and persuade them with a compelling argument. Here’s an example based on an actual conversation with a client:

In a meeting where leaders were discussing the future infrastructure of their organization, a project on which I’m working. I offered “ I might be missing something here, and I understand there’s a lot of buzz around the solution your considering. However, based on your organization’s needs and the direction the industry is heading, I believe that investing in a data fabric architecture could be our best move.”

With this gentle opener, I allowed room for other opinions and didn’t shut down the conversation. But then, I firmly pivoted to my well-informed point.

“Data fabric allows for a seamless and integrated environment. It’s not just about connecting data sources but making them interoperable. This would mean improved patient care, streamlined operations, and a future-proofed IT infrastructure. Given the growing volume of data you’re handling and the need for real-time analytics, you must consider an agile, scalable, and comprehensive framework.”

By first acknowledging the broader conversation, not insulting the intelligence of my client, and then zeroing in on my point, I achieved a balance between being collaborative and authoritative.

The Impacts on Leadership Effectiveness

The Positive

1. Inclusive Leadership: Using equivocating language can make leaders seem more approachable, promoting an inclusive environment where team members feel their input is valued.

2. Facilitating Collaboration: Such language promotes a culture of collaboration and collective brainstorming, which can lead to more innovative solutions.

3. Building Trust: Leaders who express vulnerability or admit they might not have all the answers can foster deeper trust with their teams.

The Negative

1. Perceived Lack of Confidence: Overuse of equivocating language can make a leader appear uncertain or lacking in confidence, even if that’s not the case.

2. Undermining Authority: Constantly qualifying statements can weaken a leader’s position, making it easier for others to dismiss their input or ideas.

3. Confusion: Too much equivocation can lead to confusion, making it unclear what a leader truly believes or desires.

The use of equivocating language by women in Health IT leadership roles is a nuanced issue. While there can be strategic advantages to employing such language, striking a balance is essential. Recognizing the line between fostering open dialogue and undermining one’s authority is vital.

Every leader has a unique style and approach. Understanding the implications of our words can help craft a leadership voice that is both impactful and inclusive.

Let us know how you feel about equivocating language. Tell us: Have you used this as a strategy? Drop us a comment here or across social media @hitlikeagirpod.