9 to 5 book review

• ADMIN AREA MY BOOKSHELF MY DASHBOARD MY PROFILE SIGN OUT SIGN IN

TALKING FROM 9 TO 5

How women's and men's conversational styles affect who gets heard, who gets credit, and what gets done at work.

by Deborah Tannen ‧ RELEASE DATE: Oct. 19, 1994

The workplace (primarily the office) is the setting for this third volume of Tannen's Linguistics Lite trilogy. Tannen (Sociolinguistics/Georgetown) sticks close to the main idea she popularized almost a decade ago in That's Not What I Meant (1985): Men and women have different conversational styles that are equally valid (though unequally valued). Here, she describes women's disadvantages in the workplace: They are paid less than men for the same work and face ``sexism'' (a term Tannen keeps dubiously between quotation marks), a glass ceiling, and sexual harassment. Why do such problems persist? Tannen considers the difference in male and female conversational style as a primary cause. Women are likely to have an indirect manner, to apologize more, and to offer softer criticism; they're problem preventers instead of heroic crisis solvers; they generally strive for the appearance of equality with, not superiority to, their co-workers. Many (male) bosses overlook the value of this style. Tannen concludes that women should go with their own approach, but they should also try to be assertive and worry less about being liked than about being competent. Yet in the next breath, she acknowledges that women who act assertive may bring unpleasant consequences on themselves. In the end, she reaches for platitudes, blithely recommending that workers adopt a mix of styles and that managers learn to recognize and appreciate quality in diverse forms. She says ``on that happy day, the glass ceiling will become a looking glass through which a fair percentage of Alices will be able to step.'' Readers of her earlier books will find much that is familiar, from the research to the conclusions. Women facing a hostile work environment and seeking substantive improvements in their situation are likely to find that Tannen's recourse to ``stylistic differences'' ultimately offers little help. (First printing of 200,000; first serial to New York Times Magazine and Redbook; Book-of-the-Month Club alternate selection; Quality Paperback Book Club main selection; Fortune Book Club main selection; author tour)

Pub Date: Oct. 19, 1994

ISBN: 0-688-11243-9

Page Count: 320

Publisher: Morrow/HarperCollins

Review Posted Online: May 19, 2010

Kirkus Reviews Issue: Aug. 1, 1994

CURRENT EVENTS & SOCIAL ISSUES | BUSINESS | LEADERSHIP, MANAGEMENT & COMMUNICATION | GENERAL BUSINESS | GENERAL CURRENT EVENTS & SOCIAL ISSUES

Share your opinion of this book

More by Deborah Tannen

BOOK REVIEW

by Deborah Tannen

A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

by Howard Zinn ‧ RELEASE DATE: Jan. 1, 1979

For Howard Zinn, long-time civil rights and anti-war activist, history and ideology have a lot in common. Since he thinks that everything is in someone's interest, the historian—Zinn posits—has to figure out whose interests he or she is defining/defending/reconstructing (hence one of his previous books, The Politics of History ). Zinn has no doubts about where he stands in this "people's history": "it is a history disrespectful of governments and respectful of people's movements of resistance." So what we get here, instead of the usual survey of wars, presidents, and institutions, is a survey of the usual rebellions, strikes, and protest movements. Zinn starts out by depicting the arrival of Columbus in North America from the standpoint of the Indians (which amounts to their standpoint as constructed from the observations of the Europeans); and, after easily establishing the cultural disharmony that ensued, he goes on to the importation of slaves into the colonies. Add the laborers and indentured servants that followed, plus women and later immigrants, and you have Zinn's amorphous constituency. To hear Zinn tell it, all anyone did in America at any time was to oppress or be oppressed; and so he obscures as much as his hated mainstream historical foes do—only in Zinn's case there is that absurd presumption that virtually everything that came to pass was the work of ruling-class planning: this amounts to one great indictment for conspiracy. Despite surface similarities, this is not a social history, since we get no sense of the fabric of life. Instead of negating the one-sided histories he detests, Zinn has merely reversed the image; the distortion remains.

Pub Date: Jan. 1, 1979

ISBN: 0061965588

Page Count: 772

Publisher: Harper & Row

Review Posted Online: May 26, 2012

Kirkus Reviews Issue: Jan. 1, 1979

GENERAL HISTORY | GENERAL CURRENT EVENTS & SOCIAL ISSUES | CURRENT EVENTS & SOCIAL ISSUES | UNITED STATES | POLITICS | HISTORY

More by Rebecca Stefoff

by Howard Zinn ; adapted by Rebecca Stefoff with by Ed Morales

by Howard Zinn with Ray Suarez

by Howard Zinn

Awards & Accolades

Our Verdict

Kirkus Reviews' Best Books Of 2015

Kirkus Prize winner

New York Times Bestseller

IndieBound Bestseller

National Book Award Winner

Pulitzer Prize Finalist

BETWEEN THE WORLD AND ME

Notes on the first 150 years in america.

by Ta-Nehisi Coates ‧ RELEASE DATE: July 8, 2015

This moving, potent testament might have been titled “Black Lives Matter.” Or: “An American Tragedy.”

The powerful story of a father’s past and a son’s future.

Atlantic senior writer Coates ( The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood , 2008) offers this eloquent memoir as a letter to his teenage son, bearing witness to his own experiences and conveying passionate hopes for his son’s life. “I am wounded,” he writes. “I am marked by old codes, which shielded me in one world and then chained me in the next.” Coates grew up in the tough neighborhood of West Baltimore, beaten into obedience by his father. “I was a capable boy, intelligent and well-liked,” he remembers, “but powerfully afraid.” His life changed dramatically at Howard University, where his father taught and from which several siblings graduated. Howard, he writes, “had always been one of the most critical gathering posts for black people.” He calls it The Mecca, and its faculty and his fellow students expanded his horizons, helping him to understand “that the black world was its own thing, more than a photo-negative of the people who believe they are white.” Coates refers repeatedly to whites’ insistence on their exclusive racial identity; he realizes now “that nothing so essentialist as race” divides people, but rather “the actual injury done by people intent on naming us, intent on believing that what they have named matters more than anything we could ever actually do.” After he married, the author’s world widened again in New York, and later in Paris, where he finally felt extricated from white America’s exploitative, consumerist dreams. He came to understand that “race” does not fully explain “the breach between the world and me,” yet race exerts a crucial force, and young blacks like his son are vulnerable and endangered by “majoritarian bandits.” Coates desperately wants his son to be able to live “apart from fear—even apart from me.”

Pub Date: July 8, 2015

ISBN: 978-0-8129-9354-7

Page Count: 176

Publisher: Spiegel & Grau

Review Posted Online: May 5, 2015

Kirkus Reviews Issue: July 1, 2015

BIOGRAPHY & MEMOIR | UNITED STATES | HISTORY | CURRENT EVENTS & SOCIAL ISSUES | ETHNICITY & RACE

More by Ta-Nehisi Coates

by Ta-Nehisi Coates

by Ta-Nehisi Coates ; illustrated by Jackie Aher

More About This Book

SEEN & HEARD

BOOK TO SCREEN

• Discover Books Fiction Thriller & Suspense Mystery & Detective Romance Science Fiction & Fantasy Nonfiction Biography & Memoir Teens & Young Adult Children's
• News & Features Bestsellers Book Lists Profiles Perspectives Awards Seen & Heard Book to Screen Kirkus TV videos In the News
• Kirkus Prize Winners & Finalists About the Kirkus Prize Kirkus Prize Judges
• Magazine Current Issue All Issues Manage My Subscription Subscribe
• Writers’ Center Hire a Professional Book Editor Get Your Book Reviewed Advertise Your Book Launch a Pro Connect Author Page Learn About The Book Industry
• More Kirkus Diversity Collections Kirkus Pro Connect My Account/Login
• About Kirkus History Our Team Contest FAQ Press Center Info For Publishers
• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Reprints, Permission & Excerpting Policy

© Copyright 2024 Kirkus Media LLC.   All Rights Reserved.

Popular in this Genre

Hey there, book lover.

We’re glad you found a book that interests you!

Please select an existing bookshelf

Create a new bookshelf.

We can’t wait for you to join Kirkus!

Please sign up to continue.

It’s free and takes less than 10 seconds!

Already have an account? Log in.

Trouble signing in? Retrieve credentials.

Almost there!

• Industry Professional

Welcome Back!

Sign in using your Kirkus account

Contact us: 1-800-316-9361 or email [email protected].

Don’t fret. We’ll find you.

Magazine Subscribers ( How to Find Your Reader Number )

If You’ve Purchased Author Services

Don’t have an account yet? Sign Up.

Talking from 9 to 5: Summary & Review

In Talking from 9 to 5 (1994), author Deborah Tannen examines the role of communication in the workplace. Ranging from communication rituals, and power dynamics , she focuses on how the two genders’ communication style impact their career success.

• More Wisdom

About the Author : Deborah Tannen is an American linguist professor and researcher and she also writes for a general audience at her blog .

Women Speak to Maintain Appearances of Equality

Women tend to speak to each other in a way that maximizes harmony. It downplays the speaker’s authority and takes into account the effect that the speaker’s words will have on the receiver.

Men instead use language that often involves opposition.  They banter, tease, and put each other down in an effort to avoid the one-down position.

Women Using Women-Style in a Man’s World Can Be Seen As Weak

Men using their typical oppositional style can be seen as confrontational and arrogant by women, even when they’re actually not.

And women’s typical style to avoid looking like boasting at all costs can be seen by a man as lacking confidence and competence.

• The woman’s field guide to winning in business

The Businesswoman Guide to Win in Male Organizations

Workplace With Men on Top Use Male-Style Communication

Women who move within male organizations can start off at a disadvantage if they don’t learn to function within the male’s rules.

Says Deborah Tannen:

Workplaces that have previously had men in positions of power have already established male-style interaction as the norm. In that sense, women, and others whose styles are different, are not starting out equal, but are at a disadvantage .

And a little later:

Ways of talking typically associated with men are more likely to impress many job interviewers as well as those making decisions about promotions to managerial levels.

The female style can be equally effective. But when there are also men around, then the male style leads them to talk more. And, being judged on the male scale, they tend to be seen as more competent and confident.

In Negotiations, People Seem to Prefer Those of Their Same Sex

Research by Nadler showed that the highest final offers in negotiating salaries were made when the negotiators were of the same sex.

And, worryingly for women, the lowest raises happened when women playing the subordinate role negotiated with men playing the boss’ role.

Ritual Apologies: Make Sure Your Speaking Partner Speaks the Ritual (Or Take Too Much Blame)

Some people engage in what Tannen calls “ritual apologies”.

Such as, they say “sorry” a lot, as a ritual, not because they’re really sorry. Within that ritual, one person says “I’m sorry”, while the other person takes the blame for himself.

When both people use the ritual, then the ritual works and the conversation is both polite and constructive. The problem arises when one person uses “I’m sorry” as a ritual, but the other does not. When that happens, the person who says “I’m sorry” might come across as being at fault, or as being the “one-down”.

When a person who uses “sorry a lot” does not see any concessions from the other side, they might also feel resentful. So the smart, emotionally-intelligent player, will say sorry back when they meet someone who says sorry when there is no real reason for it.

My Note: “I’m sorry” can also be a power move. Also read here:

• When “I’m sorry” is a power move

6 Covert Power Moves to Control Frames

“Thank you” As A Ritual: Play the Same Game, or You Make Others Resentful

Thanking people can also be a ritual, and some people thank others, even when they are simply doing their job.

When both players play the ritual, then a boss might say “thank you for running this by me” and the subordinate is expected to thank the boss back: “no, thank you for checking this”.

The problem, again, can arise when one party uses the ritual and the other does not. Imagine if the subordinate were to reply to the boss “you’re welcome”. In that case, the boss would become the “one down”, and likely resent the subordinate.

My Note: Forcing people to say “thank you” is can also be a social strategy for power. Read here:

• Social scalpers

Asking For Help To Make a Decision Can Make You Look Weak

Asking for opinions before making a decision might lead to better decisions, but if you do it too often, people might take it a signal of either weakness, or lack of competence.

I agree with Tannen here that a good way of avoiding that while still getting valid inputs is to say something like this:

I’m going to make this decision ultimately, but I’d like to know your opinion.

Men Are More Guarded Against Being Put in The One-Down Position (& Ask Less Feedback)

Men are less likely to ask for candid feedback on their performance because that might invite criticism that would put them in the one-down position.

Women are more likely to ask for feedback, but some men might take advantage of it and deliver criticism from a position of superiority.

Indirect Or Direct Talk Is A Matter of Preferences & Culture, Not Power

There is this wrong assumption in many people’s minds:

Being direct is powerful, while being indirect is weak.

Deborah Tannen explains why that’s not true.

While sometimes giving direct orders is the prerogative of those with power and official authority, being indirect while giving orders is also the prerogative of those in power and authority.

And the direct/indirect is heavily influenced by personality and culture. Both methods can work great in the right context and both methods can rub people the wrong way when used out of place and with people who prefer the opposite style.

Deborah Tannen expands plenty on it.  But if you’re a person high in power, you know how annoying it is when a boss tells you what to very directly “because he’s the boss”.

On the other hand, if you’re talking indirectly to someone who likes direct directives, you can come across as wishy-washy and, at the extreme, also manipulative .

I like this example from Kobe Bryant:

Kobe Bryan was clearly annoyed by Phil Jackson’s indirect style, something that Jackson failed to understand in his own book “ Eleven Rings “.

Indirect talk can be more easily missed -or purposefully ignored by superiors-. And that’s how some famous airline crashes happened. But albeit one might think that direct-speaking crews are more effective, Linde’s research found out that crews using the most indirect speech were the best ones.

Read more on the power dynamics of giving orders and executing orders :

• How to execute orders and maintain power

10 Ways to Maintain Power When Executing Orders

Expectations Change Reality

A clever Rubin’s experiment found out that when students were lead to believe their teachers was a foreigner, they literally understood him less well.

The study was based on a German man in Japan: when the German spoke Japanese on the phone, people could understand him well. But when speaking in person, the Japanese struggled more to understand him. The Japanese simply did not expect they could communicate in Japanese with a foreigner.

Do Men Refer to Women More With Their First Name Because of Power.. Or Because of Friendliness?

Deborah Tannen says that it’s both.  While it might be true that women are referred with their first name more than men, it’s not necessarily because men want to assert power, or because they don’t respect women nearly as much. 

It can also be, Debor… Tannen says :), that it’s also because of friendliness. Or because of both. Men might expect women to be lower in power, and higher in friendliness.

Switching from names to surnames can also be used to create distance or warmth. Calling 

The same duality applies to topics such as generosity, and asking “where are you from”.  Both can be read in terms of power dynamics, or in terms of friendliness. And both apply, says Tannen.

Compliments and Judging: The “Judger Power”

Reading “Talking from 9 to 5” I knew Tannen was a competent, well-read, and intelligent woman.

But when I read this part, I also thought “wow, think similarly and reached the same conclusions!”.

Tannen says that compliments usually flow from more powerful, to less powerful .  I quote her:

Those who offer compliments can seem to be setting themselves up as in a position to judge, so someone of lower rank who compliments someone of higher rank can appear to be cheeky

This is exactly what I talk about in “ soft power “, and I indeed call the power position as “ the judge “.

The Judge Role: A Tool For Power & Control

Interrupting Is Either A Power Move, or A Way of Bonding

Says Tannen:

Deborah James and Sandra Clarke reviewed all the research they could find on gender and interruption and did not find a clear pattern of males interrupting females.

On the other hand, a bit later, Tannen cites research proving that boys truly pay less attention to what women say. And, she says, that stays the same later in life.

What’s most interesting though is that in all-female groups, women interrupt more than men do in all-male groups. That’s because women often talk over each other to voice agreement and understanding, and it’s a way of bonding.

Tannen calls it “enthusiastic listening”. And that’s why “overlapping”, as Tannen calls it, must be considered within the environment within which it takes place. In some cases, it can be a way of bonding, while in some others, it can be a power play and a sign of status.

My Note: At work, interruptions are about power, not bonding Tannen is right. But since work functions more with the male style, and the efficient “we talk to understand each other and to make business”, than interruptions are more commonly about status than bonding.

Styles of Speaking Impact How Much You Talk (& How Powerful You’re Perceived to Be)

It’s not true that powerful people always talk more.  They can talk more if they want, but some powerful people prefer to talk less, instead.

Furthermore, how much you talk also depends a lot on your style of speaking. If someone with a slower rate of speech moves into an area where people talk more lively and quickly, he will find it difficult to get a word in, because he is waiting for some silences that never happen. And people will interrupt him more, because he takes longer pauses between sentences.

Tannen says that’s the case for Brits -speaking more slowly- moving in the US -speaking more quickly-.

However, an impression of dominance, or having more things to say, can result from a difference of style , instead of a difference in either power or amount of wisdom to share.

Some Men Hate Attractive Women Because of The Power They Wield

This observation was very deep.

Some men resent attractive or sexually liberated women for the power they wield over them.  And their way of handling that threat to their ego and their perceived “one-down” position is to attack her. Take her down a peg, “put her back in her place” or, in extreme cases, violate her.

This is all the truer for successful women, who make average men feel even worse.  Says Tannen:

The hovering awareness of violence against women has particular relevance when a woman has risen beyond the level expected of women, reinforcing the point that physical attack, or the threat of it, is a show of anger (or fear) against a woman who is perceived as trying to get power over men

Genius insight. I agree that the patriarchy is real, and much of it is fueled by that darker motive that most men would never admit.

The Relevance for Dating

This great insight is what some women don’t understand when they follow the “ make him chase mantra “.

Some men don’t chase because they like the woman or because they want a relationship. Some men will chase because they resent her power, and want to have her just to get even.

Also read more in “ nasty dating power moves that backfire “.

Men Don’t Understand Women’s Constant Fear of Violence

Tannen says that sexual harassment can happen because men and women don’t understand each other.

Men think that sexual harassment only happens when there is a physical move, while women also include verbal harassment.

Whether or not it is associated with sex, women often perceive the specter of violence lurking when they are in the company of men, however vague and in the background it may be

Some men respond with indignation, because not all men are aggressive or rapists. But that doesn’t change the fact that some are. And women’s fears and perceptions are based on the real threat of that minority.

Also keep in mind that as Evolutionary Psychology researcher Geoffrey Miler says, sociopaths are a minority, but women experience them 10x more often and more frequently than other men do.

More  Wisdom

• Women are more likely to downplay their certainty, men more likely to downplay their doubts.
• The “tail of the curves” shows up with far more women who are considered as underconfident and disproportionately far more men who are considered arrogant
• Women want bosses who care personally : everyone prefers a boss who cares about them personally, and women are more likely to demand it and appreciate it. Especially by other female bosses
• Women give more compliments, especially to other women
• Some women complain to bond, but some men might take it literally
• Expectations are lower for wome n: Well-qualified managers are evaluated more highly if qualified as men, but they are also more criticized if performing poorly
• Verbal aggression can be a way of bonding : many cultures trade barbs with each other as a way of bonding. Tannen, for example, was uncomfortable in Greece, where people spoke to each other with a more confrontative style
• Good stories sometimes feel like anecdotal evidence

Just to be clear, the book is very well-researched, which is one of the things I appreciated the most.

And there are also stories and, sometimes, analyses of plays or myths.  Sometimes they served to reinforce the analysis and provide examples.  But some other times, I would have preferred more evidence from bigger studies.

• Level-headed approach to gender issues : if everyone could approach gender issues and differences like Tannen does, we wouldn’t have feminists and The Red Pill
• A treasure trove of power dynamics wisdom : Tannen understands social and power dynamics so deeply that this book was enlightening even for a more advanced student like myself

“Talking from 9 to 5” is a true gem of a book for a social scientist like myself.

It contains more psychology and power dynamics wisdom than ten normal books put together. On the other hand, if you are looking for a more practical manual, this might not be your thing since it’s more academic-oriented.

If you’re looking for ready-to-apply strategies and tips, you will get something here, but it will require you to wade through some theory.  If on the other hand, you are looking for high-quality information, then this is your book.

I learned a lot from Debora Tannen and I am grateful for her work.

Check the best business books for women , the best career strategy books , or get the book on Amazon

About The Author

Lucio Buffalmano

Related posts.

The Art of Seduction: Summary & Review

The Oxford Handbook of Accurate Personality Judgment: Summary & Review

The Gift of Fear: Summary & Review

Username or Email Address

Remember Me

before I read the middle

Review: Talking from 9 to 5, Deborah Tannen

Because the cover image icons on my library ebook wish lists are rather wee, I was not able to see that there is a subtitle to this book, and it explains that the book is about gendered differences in conversational styles in the workplace and how it can affect people’s professional lives. Most of my notes for this review were about my sadness that the book focused so closely on gender to the exclusion of other interesting aspects of how people talk at work (when acronyms/jargon get used, what kind of conversational accommodations are made in various settings to visitors, trainees, etc.; specifically different conversation styles with different coworkers).

Not having read You Just Don’t Understand, Tannen’s book about gendered conversational styles, I am not sure how much ground is retread in Talking from 9 to 5 (affiliate links: Amazon , B&N , Book Depository ). At times Tannen seemed to be assuming some level of reader familiarity with her work, which is fine for me because my mother has read and talked about Deborah Tannen’s work before, but I can imagine it being problematic for readers whose first encounter with her is this book.

Tannen is careful to avoid the whiff of gender essentialism that can hover around a book dealing with gender. Throughout the book, she emphasizes repeatedly that the typically “female” and “male” conversational patterns she describes among mostly middle-class working people are not due to any inherent difference between women and men, and are far from universal. Rather, she argues that the genders are socialized differently and rewarded by their peers for different speech patterns and behaviors. These behaviors are not “correct” except in their own context; they are rituals that work as long as everybody present recognizes and follows the rituals.

(Workplace conversational rituals, by the way, could have been the entire book as far as I am concerned. Like everyone at meetings thanking everyone else at meetings, and people bitching about the coffee no matter what the coffee is like.)

Here is a point Tannen made that I love (forgive the long quotation):

The term “marked” is a staple of linguistic theory. It refers to the way language alters the base meaning of a word by adding something — a little linguistic addition that has no meaning on its own. The unmarked form of a word carries the meaning that goes without saying, what you think of when you’re not thinking anything special…   I was able to identify the styles and types of the women at the conference because each of us had to make decisions about hair, clothing, makeup and accessories, and each of those decisions carried meaning. Every style available to us is marked. Of course, the men in our group had to make decisions too, but their choices carried far less meaning. The men could have chosen styles that were marked, but they didn’t have to, and in this group, none did. Unlike the women, they had the option of being unmarked…   I asked myself what style we women could have adopted that would have been unmarked, like the men’s. The answer was: none. There is no unmarked woman. There is no woman’s hairstyle that could be called “standard,” that says nothing about her. The range of women’s hair-styles is staggering, but if a woman’s hair has no particular style, this in itself is taken as a statement that she doesn’t care how she looks — an eloquent message that can disqualify a woman for many positions.

And you know, I love my clothes. I love all the different types of outfits I can do, and how you can dress outfits up or casual them down depending on what you’re in the mood for that day or what kinds of meetings you’re going to be attending. I like having the freedom to do that. I would also like to be able to choose freedom from doing that. There are days when I would like to have that option. (NB: Freedom to/freedom from distinction is stolen from Margaret Atwood.)

As insightful as she can be, Tannen occasionally crosses over the line that divides description from prescription, and when that happens, it tends to be aimed at women, not at men. Women could be more outspoken in meetings; women could stop hedging their ideas with disclaimers; etc. Of course this is true. But if, as Tannen has repeatedly said, the problem is not one style being more correct than another style, but rather a clash among differing styles each of equal value, then men could adapt to more typically female conversational styles as well as the other way around.

It’s a minor nitpick in an interesting book. As ever, I’m fascinated by analyses of conversation, and I’m glad to have encountered this book and reminded myself of the existence of Deborah Tannen.

Cover report: American cover wins! I do not feel the British cover is making an effort.

Share this:

Published in 3 Stars

• American cover wins
• British cover seems not to be trying very hard
• Deborah Tannen
• linguists <3
• my family interrupt each other constantly and while I know I should not be so interrupty in life it's been a habit that serves me brilliantly in work meetings
• oh dear I do hedge my sentences about with disclaimers
• some of my coworkers and I have developed a game of "office lingo bingo"
• Talking from 9 to 5

• Search Please fill out this field.
• Newsletters
• Sweepstakes

Book Review: 'Talking From 9 to 5'

Now, I have to warn you that I don’t know if this is really going to work, because, um, I usually don’t write book reviews. So I’m sorry if this, uh, turns out to be a waste of your time, but I’m wondering if sometime you could just give this a quick skim. Like maybe after you’ve read all the other really important stuff in the magazine. Would that be okay?

Okay? Are you kidding? Anybody who talks or writes like that (and it’s more likely to be a woman than a man) ought to be taken outside and de-wimped immediately, no questions asked. Right? Not necessarily, says linguist Deborah Tannen in her fascinating new book, TALKING FROM 9 TO 5 (Morrow, $23) , a dissection of how men and women talk at work and how it affects their status. What may be perceived as insecure, apologetic, or even manipulative to some can just be an indirect way of getting what you want. For instance, looking at the way I began this review, Tannen would call my apparent dithering a self- protective opener or, more simply, a ”butterfinger but,” an analogy to the way girls use the word butterfingers in hopscotch games. (If you drop your token by accident, you won’t get penalized if you shout ”butterfingers” in time.)

Lowering expectations is just part of a pattern that Tannen says many women engage in at work. Cultural conditioning from childhood means they rarely boast, they don’t try to cover their mistakes, and they’re too quick to pleasantly take the blame, even when they’re not at fault. And, she says, that kind of self-effacement (or disingenuity, depending on your point of view) can be effective — up to a point. Women, in particular, may accomplish their immediate goal but be less respected because of the way they attain it. It’s not always the wrong way to behave — who wouldn’t want a boss like the one Tannen describes who gently ”suggests” that her male subordinate make changes in a report rather than demand it. But indirectness can be misinterpreted as weakness — especially by men, who hold the most power in the workplace. So women shouldn’t be surprised, Tannen says, when they suddenly find themselves bumping up against a glass ceiling.

Fresh from the success of her best-selling You Just Don’t Understand , in which she explained things like why men refuse to ask for directions and why that drives women crazy, Tannen has clearly positioned herself as the Cool Hand Luke of the Information Age, telling us not so much that one gender is right and the other is wrong but that what we have here is a failure to communicate. In Talking From 9 to 5 , Tannen takes on male-female differences in the tricky arena of work, and it’s a tough assignment. While she is scrupulous about not telling women to talk more like men or vice versa, she has trouble coming up with concrete solutions for how both sexes can learn to share power at work. As a result, the book resorts to fuzzy homilies at the end of each chapter: ”Understanding what goes on when people talk to each other is the best way to improve communication”; ”Comprehensive training and awareness are needed.”

Tannen goes to great pains to avoid oversimplification and points out that plenty of women are aggressive and direct at work, while lots of men can be maddeningly obtuse. She’s best when analyzing what kinds of language get people ahead and the kinds that keep them back. But the book is heavy on explanation and lacks what some readers might want most: a linguistic battering ram to crack that glass ceiling. Every now and then a jarring, Helen Gurley Brown-like sentiment creeps in. At one point Tannen suggests that a ”woman who works with men might find it useful to learn something about sports to take part in those conversations.” Presumably, she isn’t talking about hopscotch. B+

Related Articles