September 14, 2025 • 50 mins
What if bringing in the dough doesn’t always mean having the power?
In this episode, BBC journalist Melissa Hogenboom explores how breadwinning roles — in families and at work — are shaped by power dynamics, gender norms, and invisible expectations.
Whether you’re a leader, a parent, or both, this conversation will challenge how you think about success, status, and sharing the load.
Together, we discuss:
- Why power at home and power at work are more connected than we think
- How gender roles are evolving — and where they’re stuck
- Why some people feel pressure to perform, even when they don’t hold power
- What leaders and organisations can do to create more balanced dynamics
- How to open up space for empathy, equity, and trust
You'll also discover the Parenting Amplification Effect.
This episode provides a fresh take on power, ambition, and what it means to thrive — at work and at home.
Curious?
🎧 Join the conversation.
Connect with Melissa on LinkedIn
Check out Breadwinners
Read Melissa's Health Fix newsletter
Follow
Leading People on LinkedIn
Leading People on FaceBook
Connect with Gerry
Website
LinkedIn
Wide Circle
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to Leading People with me, gerry Marais.
This is the podcast for leadersand HR decision makers who want
to bring out the best inthemselves and others.
Every other week, I sit downwith leading authors,
researchers and practitionersfor deep dive conversations
(00:22):
about the strategies, insightsand tools that drive personal
and organizational success.
And in between, I bring you onesimple thing short episodes
that deliver practical insightsand tips for immediate use.
Whether you're here for usefultools or thought provoking ideas
, leading People is your guideto better leadership.
(00:44):
Thought-provoking ideas LeadingPeople is your guide to better
leadership.
What does power do to your brainand your relationships?
Why do so many women stillcarry the burden of unpaid work,
even when they out-earn theirpartners?
And what happens when men feeldisempowered but can't admit it?
In this episode of LeadingPeople, science journalist and
(01:18):
author Melissa Hogenboom joinsme to explore the hidden power
dynamics that shape how we live,lead and relate.
Science behind leadership andempathy, challenge outdated
gender norms and look at how ourbrains are wired to mirror and
reinforce systems of inequality.
Melissa's new book Breadwinnersoffers a bold, research-backed
view on what needs to change atwork, at home and in ourselves.
(01:43):
So let's hear what Melissa hasto say.
Melissa Hocheboom welcome toLeading People.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Thanks for having me, Gerry.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Okay, so you've just published a new book.
It hasn't just quite come outyet at the time of recording,
but it'll be out very soon andwe're going to get to that
shortly.
But first to kick things off somy listeners can get to know
you better how did you come towork as a science writer at the
BBC, and what people, places orevents stand out on your journey
(02:16):
, and were there any epiphanymoments that led you to write
this book?
Speaker 2 (02:21):
So I had a quite unconventional start.
I was the autocue person in thenewsroom.
So when you watch the news andthe presenter is, um, reading
the script, they're actuallyreading from an autocue.
So a black box with white textthat goes up and down, um, but
because the news changes all thetime, it's not automated
(02:42):
there's someone sitting in alittle corner of a dark room
with a manual knob scrolling it.
And I was 23, just out ofuniversity, a little bit naive
perhaps.
You know.
I was of the generation where Iwas told I could do anything.
I put my mind to it and I wouldsee these scripts and, you know
, the intros of the story wouldbe like 15 seconds long and I
(03:03):
was like I can do that, I couldwrite about.
You know, the intros of thestory would be like 15 seconds
long and I was like I can dothat.
I could write about, you know,the political story of the day
or the conflict of the day.
I'd always wanted to be a writer, ever since I was like 16.
And I hadn't considered goinginto journalism.
But I thought, oh, I'm here, Ican definitely write these kind
of scripts.
Let me talk to the people whodo this and see if there's any
opportunities the people who dothis and see if there's any
(03:27):
opportunities.
And so I started off just doinga trial shift, booking guests
to come onto the news, and ifyou book the guest you also have
to write the scripts and doevery aspect of that story as
the story moves on.
So you'd be working on storiesthat often change throughout the
day and it turns out it wasreally difficult.
But I'm glad I had that naive,slight arrogance, because that
(03:47):
kind of confidence actually mademe get that foot in the door in
the first place and then itmade me learn very quickly to
fill the gaps until I was up tospeed.
And then I was, you know, justas good as the other people in
the room, but had I interviewedfor the position, I don't think
I would have got it.
So a bit of luck, butdefinitely speaking to the right
people and kind of givingmyself the power and empowering
(04:11):
myself, which is interesting tolook back now.
I've been writing about it alot, um, and I think having that
kind of belief in myselfdefinitely empowered me to seek
those opportunities, um, andthen, yeah that that that was
the first year or two, in thatyou kind of go from job to job
at the BBC because you're onshort contracts and eventually I
was writing articles.
(04:31):
I got a trainee science reporterposition which meant I was
covering science stories of theday.
So I'd be interviewing leadingscientists, every day,
publishing a different story,and that led me to report for
radio, go on television to talkabout the stories and write
articles.
So very quickly you get a rangeof insights into all these
different fields, fromastrophysics to psychology to
(04:52):
neuroscience.
But I always came back tohealth and psychology and
well-being because that's whatI'd studied at university and
I'm just fascinated about howhumans tick.
What makes the mind work?
Why do we behave the way we do?
So that kind of common threadhas always been um part of my
journalism.
So the stories I pitch often goback to that.
(05:13):
But I also think my kind ofinterest and understanding of
people have always mentionedensured that when I do do the
writing I kind of get behind thestory and as I always had an
ambition to write a book, I wason maternity leave with my
second and I thought this isquite something.
Why is nobody writing about howdifficult this is and why a
(05:35):
mother's sense of self is sochallenged.
There must be some sciencebehind it.
So, to start off the writingjourney was really me trying to
figure out why your sense ofself changes from a biological
perspective and neuroscientificperspective.
And the irony of that was Ididn't want motherhood to define
me, and it's not because Ididn't love motherhood, it's
(06:06):
because outside expectationsinfluence who you are seen as
and who you become, especiallywork pressures and the fact that
you can't, you know, work aslate as other people.
And then you're seen as lessambitious.
And actually I became moreambitious to kind of try and
prove that I wasn't affected,which, looking back, wasn't
particularly healthy, but it's afunction of the society we live
(06:28):
in.
And after I wrote that book Ikind of got addicted and I
carried on, you know, leading ateam at the BBC, publishing
films, making documentaries, butI had a first taste of
leadership and management, andso when it came to the topic of
the next book, I was able tocombine kind of power imbalances
(06:48):
, how to avoid being overpowered, with, you know, a look at
equality and how society'schanging.
So it was a perfect blend ofall these topics that I'd kind
of subtly consumed throughout mycareer and, you know, able to
bring a new research insightsinto that.
So it wasn't a linear journey.
There was just there was somany influences along the way
that led to um where I am today.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Okay, so, um, I guess that's.
We're at the point now where wecan start talking about the new
book which you call just forour listeners.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
The book's called Bread Winners and Other Power
Dynamics influence your life.
So breadwinners is the titleand then the subtitle is and
other power imbalances thatinfluence your life, which is
quite clever because breadwinner, being the breadwinner, is the
ultimate power play oftenbecause, whether you know it or
not, if you are the mainbreadwinner because of your
(07:43):
financial status, it tends tomean that you have more
positional power in society.
Positional power is yoursocioeconomic status in your
society, how society views you,and what's interesting is that
kind of positional power outsidethe home often then influences
power inside the home.
So it's not as if the two areseparate spheres, because our
(08:05):
society is quite successorientated and interested in our
achievements.
Um, we really kind of look towho the successful person is in
terms of how much, who's makingthe money or how much money they
make.
So, um, it was just aninteresting way into kind of
these interesting dynamics.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Now, who's this book for and why did you feel now was
the right time to write thisbook?
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Well, I'll start with why it's the right time.
So in my book I start with thefact that power balance in
society is shifting because morewomen are becoming primary
breadwinners and this meanswe're kind of witnessing
traditional power dynamicschanging in real time because as
these female breadwinnersincrease it is becoming the
(08:50):
driving force for potentiallychanging household inequality.
And I'd say the book is for anyman or woman who has felt
either disempowered or has feltthat they have more power and
have realized that it'saffecting their relationship.
So for a woman, it's kind ofvery obviously geared towards
(09:12):
anyone who's realized that theyare doing more at home because
of their partner's financialstatus, which become which, by
the way, is one of the biggestdrivers for relationship
dissatisfaction and divorce.
Because even if you're, even ifthere's someone who's a teacher
and someone in the financialservices, they might be working
the same hours during the day.
But often you see the lowerearning women traditionally
(09:35):
still doing more at home in thehours where they both have free
time, because kind of women havebeen conditioned to do more.
But then this also happens whenwomen start to earn more money
than their male partners, theystill do more at home and that
causes relationshipdissatisfaction too, because men
start to feel disempoweredbecause of the expectation of
(09:57):
men to be primary breadwinners.
So, because of theseexpectations, their masculinity
is threatened, and so I reallywant this to be a book that men
can read to understand why weneed to disencouple this
breadwinner expectation withmasculinity, because it harms
men just as much as women and,if nothing else, it harms the
next generation.
Like, are we growing if we'reparents, or even if we're uncles
(10:21):
and aunts?
Are we telling our sons thatthey have to be the main earners
and our daughters that theyhave to, you know, to spend more
time during childcare?
Because that's not a sustainabledynamic in a society where we
do expect a dual earner incomebecause of, you know, most
people can't afford just to liveon one income.
But also, the more that womenstart earning in society, the
more financial power they have.
(10:42):
The more that women startearning in society, the more
financial power they have, themore empowered they feel and the
more kind of ambitious they'reable to become, which their
daughters and sons will grow upseeing.
So it's really kind of agenerational shift that we're
seeing, but the expectations inthe home haven't, which is why
this kind of power dynamic canbe so challenging for couples to
(11:04):
navigate, and then because it'schallenging at home.
This translates into you knowhow you can achieve at work,
because if you're spending a lotof your time at home thinking
about laundry and childcare, youhave less time to focus on CV.
So it kind of really harms thewhole family if power balance
isn't shared more equally.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
On Leading People.
The goal is to bring youcutting edge thought leadership
from many of the leadingthinkers and practitioners in
leadership today.
Each guest shares theirinsights, wisdom and practical
advice so we can all get betterat bringing out the best in
ourselves and others.
Please subscribe wherever youget your podcasts and share a
link with friends, family andcolleagues, and stay informed by
(11:55):
joining our Leading PeopleLinkedIn community of HR leaders
and talent professionals.
Okay, so, for the book, youinterviewed lots of people
heterosexual couples, youinterviewed couples in same-sex
relationships, you did a lot ofresearch and that and you now
you talk about this, thisdynamic that has persisted and I
(12:16):
guess it has been evolving.
If you go back to maybe the1950s, etc.
And look at where women's placetoday has probably evolved
quite a bit since then, and yet,at the same time, I'm hearing
that, um, these, thisbreadwinner dynamic is still
present.
And what?
What makes it so hard to breakthe?
(12:37):
This male, female, thebreadwinner, the woman having to
do more at home?
What makes it it so challengingto break this dynamic?
Speaker 2 (12:49):
There's a term sociologists use called
structural lag, and this simplymeans that when, even though
society's attitudes are changing, actual physical change lags
behind attitudes and it comesdown to kind of centuries of
expectations of the man beingthe breadwinner and it's really
tied into your sense of whatmasculinity means.
(13:12):
It's being kind of in charge ofyour family, having to have the
financial responsibility, andmen are judged for it.
So I think, even though we seea reality where women are
earning more and they'rebecoming more empowered, often
as soon as they have childrentheir earnings go down because
(13:34):
they're the ones that takematernity leave or parental
leave, more so than men, and sothey become kind of the project
managers of the household.
So even where expectations arechanging, the infrastructure by
society that puts women at homemore than men means that women
(13:54):
end up doing more.
Men's earnings could go up.
So it kind of cements the cycle.
And then there's the fact thatmen are judged for it if they're
staying at home or if they'retaking flexibility.
There's one researcher Iinterviewed who calls it the
fatherhood forfeit.
So when men ask for flexibility, they're judged for it.
The irony is, women are as well, but because they're expected
(14:16):
to and they're expecting theircareers to be kind of reduced or
their ambitions to be reducedsomewhat.
They just kind of take it on,whereas men um literally feel
emasculated, um, because ofthese expectations.
And then of course I talk aboutlots of people believing in
equality and wanting change.
But then we see a politicalinfrastructure in the united
(14:39):
states where governmentofficials are literally telling
the society that they want morewomen to stay at home, that they
want there to be like a mainhousehold income just by one
person, and so this is reallydamaging rhetoric, where you
kind of have this bombardment ofthese centuries of expectations
(14:59):
, the desire for change, but apolitical infrastructure that
doesn't allow this change tohappen.
I mean, you can see, in the ukat least, paternity leave is two
weeks at statutory, statutorypay, so not even full pay.
Companies don't have to do it.
Some companies willinglyincrease it, um, but often men
don't take what they're givenbecause if they're the higher
(15:19):
earners it might impact thefamily um, or they worried that
if they're out of the workplaceyou know they won't get a
promotion, and so unless societychanges that kind of level of
paternity leave available,things on a daily basis won't
change.
And you do see places whereit's improved.
(15:40):
So in some of the Nordiccountries, when they introduced
generous paternity leavepolicies where it's paid, it's
now become unacceptable for mennot to take in Sweden at least
for men not to take the leaveallocated to them, because all
the dads do it.
And then you see interestingpatterns in the workplace.
So when dads take morepaternity leave you can
(16:04):
literally see women's earningsgo up I think it was like 7% or
something Whereas in the rest ofsociety there is known to be a
motherhood penalty of about 4%pay reduction per child she has.
And so you can see that theworkplace and societal
expectations literally impact onearning potential throughout
(16:26):
your life.
Speaker 1 (16:28):
I was going to ask you about the Nordic countries.
I have lots of friends up thereand I visit Sweden from time to
time and I'm curious about yourstatistic about the 4% increase
in women's earnings.
The question that comes to mymind is do men's earnings suffer
in reverse to in Sweden?
Is there any research to saythat men are actually penalized,
(16:50):
or is this just a notion thatexists in our heads that a man's
earning potential capacity canbe affected by taking parenting?
Speaker 2 (17:00):
leave.
I haven't seen this, any statsaround that but probably because
generally men's earnings go upand women's earnings don't.
If you look at gender pay gapstatistics, I think the last
time I looked, all but onecountry had a gender pay gap.
So there's a term called thefatherhood bonus.
So when men become fathers theyactually tend to see their
(17:24):
earnings go up, but in terms ofthe figure.
So I'm just looking at the datanow.
So for every month of leave adad took in Sweden, earnings
increased for women by about 7%,which shows that fathers taking
time off can erode themotherhood penalties.
The motherhood penalty is the4% decrease in earnings that
motherhoods typically have whenthey become, when they have
(17:47):
children.
Speaker 1 (17:48):
Okay, so, so there are two kind of topics that come
into my mind and I might keepone of them now for a little bit
later.
Let's get to how organizationsbecause you're talking about the
political environment in placeslike the United States at the
moment, which is probably notgoing to help the situation in
(18:10):
the short term.
Anyway, over the next couple ofyears, what can organizations
start to do, or what are theydoing to address this imbalance?
Speaker 2 (18:19):
Well, I think in terms of the workplace, we need
to understand that earnings areclosely tied to how powerful you
feel, and power literallychanges the brain.
So those in power have adifferent profile in the brain's
mirroring system.
The brain's mirroring system isthe part of you.
If you see someone sitting likethis I'm for listeners I'm
(18:42):
sitting with my um head and myhands.
You tend to mimic them and thesame neurons fire.
But when you're in power youhave less of this Um and this
kind of suggests you're, you're,you're above the other person.
You don't need to kind of feelattuned to them as much, and
this can be useful because ifyou're in a position of power,
you don't have the time andenergy to be concerned with
(19:05):
everybody that you'reoverpowering, like if you need
to make decisions.
If you're in a position ofleadership, you can negotiate
with everyone because nothingwill ever get done.
But this means socialhierarchies can be extremely
difficult to navigate,especially because feeling
superior can be addictive.
So I found this reallyinteresting research that
literally when you're in aposition of power, you release
(19:29):
more chemical messengers thataffect your mood, including
serotonin, and so once you getthat kind of addictive notion of
you're in power, you kind ofcontinue to seek the reward and
at the same time, when you're ina position of power, your
empathy is reduced.
So you start feeling lessempathy with other people.
And this has been found in kindof a range of experiments and
(19:53):
scientists have even done.
There's one scientist calleddecker keltner who did a lots of
interesting studies like thisand he found that um bosses are
most likely to, or the person ofpowers is most likely to, eat
the last cookie.
If there is a room of fourpeople and five cookies and
there's one left, the person inposition of power is most likely
to eat the last one becausethey don't worry or care as much
(20:13):
about what other people arethinking.
You can see this have hasbenefits.
But the flip side is, if youare disempowered and feel
powerless, you show more stress,lower cognitive function,
you're less likely to think ofthe bigger picture, and when
you're stressed, of course it'sdifficult to regulate other
emotions and if you'rechronically stressed you find it
(20:34):
harder to seek out help.
But you can kind of see thatthis happens in the workplace,
right, but that kind ofaddictive feeling of power and
lack of empathy can translateinto the home sphere as well.
And so if you have higherstatus and higher social support
, you don't feel the effect ofum you know any stressors as
(20:57):
much as if you have lower, lowerstatus and lower social support
so that's really interesting.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
What you just said, melissa, and what comes into my
head when you talk about themirror neurons and the, the
power and how it's the empathything is.
There's so much talked aboutout there on emotional
intelligence in leaders, andI've done some neuroscience
studies myself and you know someof the kind of models and
(21:26):
things that are promoted outthere don't stand up very well
when it comes to the underlyingneuroscience behind how we
actually operate, how our brainsfunction and how we operate.
So, given that people whobecome more powerful may be
experiencing a reduction inempathy and they make decisions
(21:48):
about these kinds of things,what can be done or what are
organizations doing today toaddress that?
Speaker 2 (21:55):
So there's I'll take you back a few steps.
There's an interestingphenomenon called the power
paradox, which kind of explainswhat we need to do in real time.
So in order to become powerful,you need to use your empathy
skills to get there.
So we use kindness, compassion,empathy, but once we're in a
position of power, these verytraits start to diminish and to
(22:19):
exacerbate that.
Individuals with dominant andself-serving and even
narcissistic personality traitsare actually more likely to seek
positions of power.
And once they're in a positionof power, these traits are
amplified, because power kind ofdisinhibits your natural
tendency to feel empathy.
And if, if a group lacks aleader this is another
(22:41):
experiment I've found quiteamusing so if a group lacks a
leader, it's the narcissist inthe group who's more likely to
step in and take charge, and soyou can see all kinds of real
world examples of that.
But there are ways to get toyour question.
There's ways that we canovercome this power paradox.
So I interviewed some reallyinteresting scientists.
(23:02):
There's one psychologist whostudies power called Deborah
Greenfeld, and she says we needto see power as a sense of
responsibility over others.
So if you're a leader and it'slike an us-them environment, you
kind of are accentuating yourpower over it.
But if you see yourself as acollective group and we, you're
(23:24):
more likely to feel responsible.
Even face-to-face interactionsmake you feel more responsible
than others and alsounderstanding kind of the
stressors that someone has.
And there's another term that Ilove, which was originated by a
scientist called Adam Galinsky,and he calls it the leadership
amplification effect.
(23:44):
So when you're and that soundsvery wordy, but when you're in a
position of power and you saysomething, those more junior to
you take every word of whatyou're saying, so it kind of
amplifies it.
And he uses the example where,if your boss sends you an email
saying can we have a quickcatch-up, that catch-up is
amplified in your mind and itcould be anything.
You could be like oh mygoodness, I'm getting fired.
(24:05):
Or oh my god, especially if youfeel disempowered, you might
think, oh, am I being calledupon for, um, some poor reward?
And if the, if the call is in afew days' time, you kind of are
ruminating about what that callmight be.
So a very simple tweak a leadercan do is oh, can we have a
quick catch-up to talk about thefigures from last week?
Then that kind of takes anystress away.
(24:27):
And the same goes for adeadline.
If you give someone a deadlineand you're in a position of
power, they won't question it.
But a way to kind of overcomethat, if you're the person who's
less powerful, is to explainexactly what you have on.
Yes, I can absolutely hit thatdeadline.
First, I um, I'll put I'll pushthis one back and I won't do
(24:48):
that.
But the problem is because ofleader amplification effect,
you're less likely to speak upbecause you're worried about
what they think.
But kind of that two-waydialogue, seeing power as a
responsibility and people beingpart of a team, can kind of make
that go away a little bit.
And then, interestingly, thebest leadership traits, when you
(25:08):
do look at what people value,are actually enthusiasm,
kindness, focus, calmness andopenness.
So even though a lot of leadershave a lot of negative traits,
that's often because of thatstudy I mentioned, where those
who are dominant and slightlynarcissistic are even more
likely to put themselves in aposition of power.
But when you look at goodleaders, they do tend to have
(25:32):
some of these more positivetraits.
So it's kind of a good and badpicture here.
But if you have an organizationwhere you prioritize kindness
and you realize that kindnesselevates, you'll kind of have a
much less toxic organization.
Speaker 1 (25:47):
And I'm really pleased you mentioned Adam
because he was a guest on thepodcast a few episodes back, so
anybody who wants to hear moreabout leadership amplification
can tune into that episode thatwas released a little while ago,
so you can actually hear Adamtalk about it.
And I'm really curious becauseyou talk about how this paradox,
(26:12):
this power paradox, can besomewhat modified through a more
collective approach to things.
What's happening in thegenerations?
You know, a lot of youngerpeople today are well.
A lot is written about theirmore collaborative nature and
I'm wondering if that is true inthe research you've done and
(26:34):
whether or not it's having anyimpact on this power paradox you
mean the younger generation iskind of.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
They're more likely to shun that traditional power
structure.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
Well, I mean, I'm just going by the types of
things I read and and this, thisidea that there's a more social
aspect to the way youngerpeople, let's say in their 20s
and early 30s, like to worktoday.
Is that true?
In your research, did you findthat there's any generational
impact?
Do generations have any impacton this power paradox phenomenon
(27:12):
or is it just automatically theway we we're programmed?
At a certain point we're givensome extra responsibilities and
we just it just clicks in likeit's a switch that just clicks
on and we all go to that default, which is, you know, to, to
reduce the empathy, etc.
You're listening to leadingpeople, people with me, gerry
(27:38):
Murray.
My guest this week is MelissaHogenboom, bbc science
journalist and author ofBreadwinners, coming up.
We explore how earlysocialisation shapes who feels
entitled to lead, how leaderscan model equality in action and
why being a good role model athome might just make you a
(28:00):
better leader at work.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
I think.
So what I have uncovered isthat, you for sure, the younger
generation is less keen onoverwork and presenteeism and
demands, you know, theflexibility to work from home
more.
But I think that is alsoshifting because we're seeing
more and more businesses calltheir workers back in, we're
(28:25):
seeing more presenteeism, and soI think, until those who are
the power holders at the topmake company-wide policies that
have this more kind ofhorizontal approach instead of
hierarchical.
So if you literally think abouta horizontal line instead of a
hierarchy where everything'svery top down, I think it will
(28:48):
be slow to change.
But there is hope, because Ilooked at cross-cultural
differences and in theNetherlands, for instance, it's
quite a horizontal culture.
It's still individualistic.
Individualistic literally meansyou're putting yourself first
and there's a focus on successin many Western countries, but
it's much more horizontal.
So a psychologist I interviewedsaid if you walk into a
(29:13):
business room in the Netherlandsyou won't know who the boss is
because everybody's able tospeak up.
And I think leaders canencourage a horizontal culture
within their own organization.
So you have culture-wide, likeculturally and country level,
you have these differences, butcompanies can also create this
(29:33):
kind of culture and again itties back into that sense of
responsibility I mentioned.
So responsible leaders tend tobe more empathetic, ask for more
honest feedback and actuallylisten to their employers.
They ask, like, what they'redoing, what they can do
differently.
And in my last appraisal, mymanager and he's clearly been on
some leadership trainer, but he, he's a brilliant manager,
(29:55):
brilliant boss and his questionto me was what?
What am I doing well or not sowell?
What can I do differently?
And actually that is a verysmall um, you know it takes very
little time to ask that, but Idon't think in my career I've
ever been asked that, or notoften.
And so that kind of ability tocreate a two-way dialogue and it
has to be safe, you can't justsay what you want him to hear,
(30:17):
which often happens because ofthe leadership amplification
effect.
But creating a safe dialoguewhere you're able to share this
kind of dual feedback is goingto create a much better
manager-employee relationship.
And when, as I mentioned about,if you you lack power, you
become disempowered, if you, asa leader, know that and you
(30:37):
realize that giving your staff asense of autonomy and giving
them, letting them give honestfeedback, they're going to feel
more empowered.
And when you're more empowered,you're more creative, um,
you're harder working, you'rethinking bigger picture.
So actually it doesn't justbenefit you as an organization,
it will benefit teams and yourcreativity, um.
And you know, like, if, if, ifyou have a dominant person at
(31:00):
the top and you realize thatthat's affecting everyone
underneath you, you can shiftthat there is a way to create
kinder organizations, um, and itwill benefit your, your whole
team, in terms of work-lifebalance as well as kind of just
happiness at work your position.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
Power can stay intact by just adopting that.
Your boss hasn't become less ofa boss in in his, in the
organizational structures,because he's asking you what he
could do better or improve.
But what it does is it soundslike it connects you to him, you
feel you know, more supported,you feel like it's a very fair
(31:38):
question to be asked and youobviously say he's a brilliant
boss, so it's working for him,right in that respect and well.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
So, absolutely, it does work.
And there's one study I have tomention, um, that I came across
.
That kind of shows how this canplay out in real time, um, and
so when you're lacking in aposition of power, you're less
likely to speak up, right?
And there's this really funexperiment where they put
participants in a room um, theyprimed some of them to feel
(32:09):
position of power, so by gettingthem to write about a time when
they felt powerful, and thenthey put a really noisy, cold
fan right next to them and thenthey witnessed what happened.
So those who felt that they hadmore power and had been primed
to feel more powerful were morelikely to move the fan, even
though that wasn't aninstruction, whereas those who
(32:32):
had felt disempowered weren'tlikely to move the fan.
And this came out of a real-lifeexample where Deborah Grunfeld
was sitting next to someone whoseemed like a very top-level
senior executive.
They just seemed like a verycompetent business person.
I don't know how she cameacross that, but she was sitting
(32:52):
in a very under a very coldairplane fan and she felt
disempowered by his status, andit took her half an hour to ask
to if he could turn the fan downbecause it was literally on her
, and then she's like, oh, whydid I feel like that, why did I
feel that way?
Can actually shifting our senseof how much power we have make
us speak up?
And it can, um, and then, sothat it can have a real positive
(33:15):
change, um, and on the flipside, there's another experiment
I really want to highlight.
Um, there was an experimentwhere participants weren't told
what the experiment was about,but they were again, um, asked
to, you know, talk about theirfinancial status and finance
being a proxy for power.
And those who had the highestkind of power were more likely
(33:35):
to take two sweets on the wayout, when they didn't realize
they were being watched, thanthe people who are disempowered,
showing that those in power aremore likely to cheat and take
what's not theirs.
And you can see how that canhave like a positive and a
negative thing.
And that that ties into thisfact that when you are in a
position of power, it because ofthis disinhibiting effect, it
(33:59):
can make you more likely tocheat and steal, and there's
this effect called hubrissyndrome, so you feel like
you're above others, but usuallyand it takes a lot of time
those power holders that usepower for ill good, do kind of
have a downfall eventually,because it's only so long you
can kind of hold on to thatpower before you know those
(34:21):
underneath.
You kind of don't put up withit anymore.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
You mentioned the horizontal aspect, and I have
worked with Dutch companies andI can say the ones I've been
involved with do have a lot ofemphasis on consensus and
sometimes they complain that ittakes them too long to get to
the decision point.
And yet they, when they do getto the decision, they all feel
(34:47):
reasonably good about it becausethey've all felt that their
voice has been heard in theprocess.
So, for those who justexperienced the Dutch as direct,
there's also this consensusaspect to Dutch society, which
is a very impressive way they goabout this.
And you're part Dutch, right,so you grew up in the UK but
(35:08):
you're part Dutch.
Can you give us an example of avertical society and vertical
society that you know has, andhow that impacts this, this
power imbalance?
Speaker 2 (35:20):
yeah, there's um a really fun study where they
compared um.
The so vertical societies areoften um.
So japan's quite a verticalsociety.
China's known as a verticalsociety and also more
collectivist, right.
So there is a study that wherethey got American students and
(35:45):
Chinese students to do a test,and the American students were
more likely to want to do wellif they knew there was a reward
at the end, but the Chinesestudents didn't have that same
incentive.
For them it was more about thegroup, and this again is how it
shows you how group norms canreally influence you.
So if you see yourself as partof a group, then you're less
(36:06):
likely to focus on theindividual, the individual
pursuit of success.
So there's no right or wrongway to think about it.
But in vertical societies youcan have someone who's a
powerful position at the top andeveryone else makes sure that
they do what that person says,whereas horizontal culture, like
(36:26):
you said, it's more consensusand everybody has a say.
So it's no surprise that inhorizontal cultures there's a
greater emphasis on equality andthere tends to be less
financial inequality in thegeneral population, whereas in
vertical countries there's oftenmuch more financial inequality
(36:50):
back to the, the breadwinnerconcept and and how did?
Speaker 1 (36:54):
how do these different cultures?
What sort of impact are theyhaving?
The vertical versus horizontalcultures on the?
You know the evolution of, youknow the breadwinner concept and
the role of the woman, both atwork and at home this is quite
challenging and that kind ofties back to one of your first
questions about who the book'sfor.
Speaker 2 (37:15):
So most have this conversations in countries where
women aren't like there aren'tmany women in the workplace, um,
(37:42):
so I I think we're, we'realready seeing a challenge in
like the uk and the us, wherethere are more female
breadwinners.
So power imbalance, powerbalances are shifting, but so
some countries, countries wherethey are even more patriarchal
in terms of the fact that somewomen don't work at all, I think
there's not going to be ared-winner shift when women
(38:04):
aren't even expected to work.
So it's challenging and itmeans that this book definitely
is for those where it's possible, because it must be very
frustrating to read this book ifyou're in a culture or country
where you're expected to stopwork or not work at all to look
after the children.
Speaker 1 (38:20):
Okay, and now I want to go back to the question I
mentioned that I was going toask you later in the
conversation, and Some of whatyou spoke about early on is this
notion that a lot of thestereotypes are ingrained in our
society and men are expected todo this, etc.
Women, etc.
(38:41):
As a mother yourself, whatsteps are you taking to educate
your children in this world oftrying to achieve this balance
between the female and maleroles?
Speaker 2 (38:58):
yeah, it's definitely tricky because I definitely do
most of the cognitive and mentallabor at home.
So this is the planning, theanticipating, the needs, the
book, which is like not just thebooking, the child care options
, but the researching andresearching the camps.
But the crucial aspect in myrelationship is we talk about it
(39:19):
.
So we talk about the division,we recognize each person's
contribution and in my case, myjob has always been slightly
more flexible, which is anunfortunate common um.
It feels it's a common um.
It's not just a stereotype,because it's true in so many
cases women tend to have moreflexible jobs because they mold
(39:42):
flexibility into their career oras men's jobs are seen more
rigid.
But in my case, I do tend toalways finish earlier.
So I've been home to do the,the cooking more.
But in terms of hours spent onchild, my partner is the one
that plans the weekendactivities.
He was doing piano practicewith my daughter before school
today.
So we really try and make surethat, in terms of what they see
(40:04):
us doing, we do very similar,equitable things.
I talk about my work a lot.
You know, yesterday I was ontelevision, on BBC News, talking
about a health story, about whygardening improved your mental
health.
But I make sure to tell thekids and my daughter asked me
the other day she's like wow, soeverybody's going to see you.
So they have a realunderstanding that my role is
(40:27):
just as important as theirfather's role, that they're both
seeing us working.
We make sure that they see himcooking, that we both do the
laundry.
So it sounds small, but thesegender expectations are so
ingrained, especially when youconsider that studies show that
girls tend to do more choresthan boys, starting from a very
(40:49):
young age.
Fathers talk more aboutemotions to their daughters than
to their sons.
Fathers do more rough andtumble, play with their sons and
then you kind of see how littlegirls and boys grow up into
these very rigid gender roles.
So it has to start small, hasto start with the small things
in order for the next generationto understand that they can
(41:09):
make a change.
And also just talking aboutlike that, my daughter can be
whatever she wants.
She can be a doctor, she can bea pilot, she can be a nurse and
not have a judgment to that andsimilar with my son like he can.
You know, they don't have tofollow typical gender roles and
I think it's definitely easiersomewhere quite in our kind of
(41:31):
quite liberal London bubblebecause you see all sorts of
family setups kind of quiteliberal London bubble because
you see all sorts of familysetups.
My kids know that someone canhave two dads, someone can have
two moms, and so I think thereis hope for the next generation,
especially considering Iinterviewed quite a lot of
stay-at-home dads and theytalked about the struggles they
(41:51):
had, especially losing a senseof purpose or meaning, not
because they didn't feel lesspurpose in their role with their
children, but because they werejudged for it.
But they knew this was moreimportant or they were putting
their children first.
And the more dads we can seethe playground of pickup, the
more the next generation isgoing to expect this.
Speaker 1 (42:12):
And you have a boy and a girl, which gives you the
really opportunity to even getthem to see each other in
different ways.
Maybe inspired by AdamGalinsky's leadership
amplification effect.
Maybe we should invent a term,the parent amplification effect,
because it seems that that'swhat you're attempting to do
(42:35):
here is to amplify by rolemodeling and not just talking
about it.
But you and your partner areliving it out as best you can in
your circumstances.
So one last question for youCan this book make me happier?
Speaker 2 (42:53):
I think it depends on where you're coming from.
If you're the femalebreadwinner and you are doing
earning most of the money anddoing everything at home, I
think it's going to enrage yousomewhat, but I think it will
give you the tools to makechanges.
So I think when you're armedwith the knowledge of how these
(43:14):
power imbalances affect yououtside the home and inside the
home, and then you learn thatactually there are tools I can
use that aren't going to pointfingers, you can make change.
Stress and losing power reducesour self-esteem.
(43:39):
We can learn that we can feelempowered by kind of having
simple conversations, by feelingmore responsible, by simple
things just like sharing themental load, doing tasks end to
end.
But another going back toneuroscience because I love
writing and researching aboutneuroscience and I know you
spoke to David Robson, who oftentalks about the brain's
predictive machine we canactually use our brain's
prediction engine to trickourselves into feeling less
(44:02):
stressed and feeling moreempowered.
So a lot of the scientists Ispoke to use this technique
called priming, so psychologicalpriming either.
They do it by you write down atime when you felt powerful.
You write down a time when youfelt powerful.
You write down a time when youhad a position of power or you,
um, are kind of talking about umor given, you're literally
(44:23):
given a sense of you.
You are in this position, thinkabout yourself.
So you can use kind of theunderstanding of the past to
prime yourself, to feel morepowerful.
So it's a bit like impostersyndrome, right, like nobody
knows.
You feel that, so you canactually almost fake it till you
make it Um.
And especially empowering isknowing that having more power
(44:45):
and can improve your health andwellbeing gives us more access
to resources.
Um helps us influence ourspouses, helps us kind of not
fall victim to goal contagionthis is another phenomenon I
love.
So if you're in the position ofless power in a relationship,
you're more likely to absorb thegoals of your higher earning
partner.
(45:05):
So, whether it's their personalgoals or hobbies or their job
goals, because you're less power, you have less power in the
relationship.
And a really obvious example islike wives who take up golf
because otherwise they'll haveno time to spend with their
partners or they also want, youknow, five hours out of their
day and that's their hobby.
Um, and ironically, myhusband's taken up golf and he's
(45:27):
like you can join me if youwant.
I'm like no, I'm not going tofall victim to golf contagion.
And he's like what are you onabout?
Cause he loves it and he doesgenerally want you know me to
like it too.
And I'm like I just don't andI'm not going to do it just
because you do it.
But then he recognizes that andsays well, you know, you can
have your own two, three hourhobby if you want to, which is
not quite practical, but it'sthe recognition that, say, I did
(45:49):
have a hobby that would takethree hours, he would support it
.
And, lastly, the I think thetake-home message is the more
that we understand these powerdynamics and imbalances, um, and
the more that we can overcomethem, we will have a happier
relationship and children whogrow up not expecting kind of
(46:09):
some of the more toxic dynamicsthat some people find themselves
in okay, so, coming to the end,how can people get in touch
with you, melissa?
Speaker 1 (46:20):
What platforms or what ways can people reach out
to you?
And if you ask about the book,I guess it's going to be
available in all good bookshopsand online platforms et cetera.
So how can people connect withyou?
Speaker 2 (46:35):
Yeah, they can find me on LinkedIn.
Um, it's just Melissa Hogan.
Boom, uh, I'm on Instagram andthreads as well.
Um, when my books released.
If anyone would like a signedcopy, I'd be happy to have them
order it to my home and I cansend them to it.
Uh, so, and I'd love havingdialogues and conversations
(46:55):
about this.
So part of what was most funabout the book is I interviewed
so many, um, interestingindividuals and scientists from
learning about the scientificresearch to understanding what
happens in individualrelationships and how people
deal with money and stress, um,and so kind of weaving the two
together, cause I found lots ofcommon threads and people did
love to talk to me about it.
(47:16):
So I'm always looking for moreexamples, either for my
newsletter to feature people orfor articles I'm writing about
the topic.
So please get in touch andshare with me how you have
overcome any power imbalances inyour life, or if there's any
that you want to overcome andyou're just not quite sure how.
I really want to kind of createa dialogue and I love, jerry, I
love your idea about theparents amplification effect.
(47:38):
If there's anyone who has tipson how they've noticed that in
their life like I think you canask your kids quite simple
questions like who does thecooking or who does the washing
up, and it's quite revealingwhat they say, because kids do
notice everything.
And if you can change that byamplifying something you're
doing, then I think we're kindof making small gains.
(47:59):
So please get in touch withyour examples.
I'd love to hear it and open adialogue.
Speaker 1 (48:04):
My small contribution to this world and, by the way,
for the listeners.
You can regularly catch up onyour work at the BBC, isn't that
right?
Yes, you do a lot of shorts onthe app and you're interviewed
quite regularly on topics thatyou've got expertise on, isn't
(48:25):
that right?
Speaker 2 (48:25):
Yeah, my second hat is as a health correspondent at
the BBC.
So I write a weekly newslettercalled Health Fix Just Google
BBC Health Fix and you'll findit.
And it's a free weeklynewsletter Health Fix just
Google BBC Health Fix and you'llfind it.
And it's a free weeklynewsletter.
And I do regular little shortfilms about how to improve your
health and wellbeing.
So I've got films about how toavoid ultra processed food,
(48:46):
whether matcha is really goodfor you or not, and why you can
benefit from spending time innature, and so a lot of these
insights that I learn about atwork I find that I kind of come
back to when I come to write mybooks, as well, and I'll put
some links in the show notes.
Speaker 1 (49:00):
so, as ever, melissa, thanks for sharing your
insights, tips and wisdom withme and my listeners here today.
Speaker 2 (49:07):
Thank you, gerry.
Speaker 1 (49:10):
Coming up on Leading People.
Speaker 3 (49:12):
Acting is.
It's entirely about taking amicroscope to human behavior and
taking a microscope to your ownbehavior and creating massive
awareness about the impactyou're having on people.
And I'll come back to that aswe talk through leadership,
Gerry, because it's so much thatI did there that's so important
to what I do now.
Speaker 1 (49:32):
My next guest is Kate Walker-Miles, client director
and a coach at RADA Business.
In our conversation, we explorehow posture, breath and voice,
among other things, shape theimpact you have as a leader.
It's a fascinating conversationabout reclaiming presence and
(49:53):
showing up in rooms with impactwhere you might otherwise hold
back.
You won't want to miss it andremember, before our next full
episode, there's another OneSimple Thing episode waiting for
you A quick and actionable tipto help you lead and live better
.
Keep an eye out for it whereveryou listen to this podcast
(50:16):
Until next time.
Welcome to Leading People with me, gerry Marais.
This is the podcast for leadersand HR decision makers who want
to bring out the best inthemselves and others.
Every other week, I sit downwith leading authors,
researchers and practitionersfor deep dive conversations
(00:22):
about the strategies, insightsand tools that drive personal
and organizational success.
And in between, I bring you onesimple thing short episodes
that deliver practical insightsand tips for immediate use.
Whether you're here for usefultools or thought provoking ideas
, leading People is your guideto better leadership.
(00:44):
Thought-provoking ideas LeadingPeople is your guide to better
leadership.
What does power do to your brainand your relationships?
Why do so many women stillcarry the burden of unpaid work,
even when they out-earn theirpartners?
And what happens when men feeldisempowered but can't admit it?
In this episode of LeadingPeople, science journalist and
(01:18):
author Melissa Hogenboom joinsme to explore the hidden power
dynamics that shape how we live,lead and relate.
Science behind leadership andempathy, challenge outdated
gender norms and look at how ourbrains are wired to mirror and
reinforce systems of inequality.
Melissa's new book Breadwinnersoffers a bold, research-backed
view on what needs to change atwork, at home and in ourselves.
(01:43):
So let's hear what Melissa hasto say.
Melissa Hocheboom welcome toLeading People.
Speaker 2 (01:52):
Thanks for having me, Gerry.
Speaker 1 (01:55):
Okay, so you've just published a new book.
It hasn't just quite come outyet at the time of recording,
but it'll be out very soon andwe're going to get to that
shortly.
But first to kick things off somy listeners can get to know
you better how did you come towork as a science writer at the
BBC, and what people, places orevents stand out on your journey
(02:16):
, and were there any epiphanymoments that led you to write
this book?
Speaker 2 (02:21):
So I had a quite unconventional start.
I was the autocue person in thenewsroom.
So when you watch the news andthe presenter is, um, reading
the script, they're actuallyreading from an autocue.
So a black box with white textthat goes up and down, um, but
because the news changes all thetime, it's not automated
(02:42):
there's someone sitting in alittle corner of a dark room
with a manual knob scrolling it.
And I was 23, just out ofuniversity, a little bit naive
perhaps.
You know.
I was of the generation where Iwas told I could do anything.
I put my mind to it and I wouldsee these scripts and, you know
, the intros of the story wouldbe like 15 seconds long and I
(03:03):
was like I can do that, I couldwrite about.
You know, the intros of thestory would be like 15 seconds
long and I was like I can dothat.
I could write about, you know,the political story of the day
or the conflict of the day.
I'd always wanted to be a writer, ever since I was like 16.
And I hadn't considered goinginto journalism.
But I thought, oh, I'm here, Ican definitely write these kind
of scripts.
Let me talk to the people whodo this and see if there's any
opportunities the people who dothis and see if there's any
(03:27):
opportunities.
And so I started off just doinga trial shift, booking guests
to come onto the news, and ifyou book the guest you also have
to write the scripts and doevery aspect of that story as
the story moves on.
So you'd be working on storiesthat often change throughout the
day and it turns out it wasreally difficult.
But I'm glad I had that naive,slight arrogance, because that
(03:47):
kind of confidence actually mademe get that foot in the door in
the first place and then itmade me learn very quickly to
fill the gaps until I was up tospeed.
And then I was, you know, justas good as the other people in
the room, but had I interviewedfor the position, I don't think
I would have got it.
So a bit of luck, butdefinitely speaking to the right
people and kind of givingmyself the power and empowering
(04:11):
myself, which is interesting tolook back now.
I've been writing about it alot, um, and I think having that
kind of belief in myselfdefinitely empowered me to seek
those opportunities, um, andthen, yeah that that that was
the first year or two, in thatyou kind of go from job to job
at the BBC because you're onshort contracts and eventually I
was writing articles.
(04:31):
I got a trainee science reporterposition which meant I was
covering science stories of theday.
So I'd be interviewing leadingscientists, every day,
publishing a different story,and that led me to report for
radio, go on television to talkabout the stories and write
articles.
So very quickly you get a rangeof insights into all these
different fields, fromastrophysics to psychology to
(04:52):
neuroscience.
But I always came back tohealth and psychology and
well-being because that's whatI'd studied at university and
I'm just fascinated about howhumans tick.
What makes the mind work?
Why do we behave the way we do?
So that kind of common threadhas always been um part of my
journalism.
So the stories I pitch often goback to that.
(05:13):
But I also think my kind ofinterest and understanding of
people have always mentionedensured that when I do do the
writing I kind of get behind thestory and as I always had an
ambition to write a book, I wason maternity leave with my
second and I thought this isquite something.
Why is nobody writing about howdifficult this is and why a
(05:35):
mother's sense of self is sochallenged.
There must be some sciencebehind it.
So, to start off the writingjourney was really me trying to
figure out why your sense ofself changes from a biological
perspective and neuroscientificperspective.
And the irony of that was Ididn't want motherhood to define
me, and it's not because Ididn't love motherhood, it's
(06:06):
because outside expectationsinfluence who you are seen as
and who you become, especiallywork pressures and the fact that
you can't, you know, work aslate as other people.
And then you're seen as lessambitious.
And actually I became moreambitious to kind of try and
prove that I wasn't affected,which, looking back, wasn't
particularly healthy, but it's afunction of the society we live
(06:28):
in.
And after I wrote that book Ikind of got addicted and I
carried on, you know, leading ateam at the BBC, publishing
films, making documentaries, butI had a first taste of
leadership and management, andso when it came to the topic of
the next book, I was able tocombine kind of power imbalances
(06:48):
, how to avoid being overpowered, with, you know, a look at
equality and how society'schanging.
So it was a perfect blend ofall these topics that I'd kind
of subtly consumed throughout mycareer and, you know, able to
bring a new research insightsinto that.
So it wasn't a linear journey.
There was just there was somany influences along the way
that led to um where I am today.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Okay, so, um, I guess that's.
We're at the point now where wecan start talking about the new
book which you call just forour listeners.
Speaker 2 (07:21):
The book's called Bread Winners and Other Power
Dynamics influence your life.
So breadwinners is the titleand then the subtitle is and
other power imbalances thatinfluence your life, which is
quite clever because breadwinner, being the breadwinner, is the
ultimate power play oftenbecause, whether you know it or
not, if you are the mainbreadwinner because of your
(07:43):
financial status, it tends tomean that you have more
positional power in society.
Positional power is yoursocioeconomic status in your
society, how society views you,and what's interesting is that
kind of positional power outsidethe home often then influences
power inside the home.
So it's not as if the two areseparate spheres, because our
(08:05):
society is quite successorientated and interested in our
achievements.
Um, we really kind of look towho the successful person is in
terms of how much, who's makingthe money or how much money they
make.
So, um, it was just aninteresting way into kind of
these interesting dynamics.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Now, who's this book for and why did you feel now was
the right time to write thisbook?
Speaker 2 (08:30):
Well, I'll start with why it's the right time.
So in my book I start with thefact that power balance in
society is shifting because morewomen are becoming primary
breadwinners and this meanswe're kind of witnessing
traditional power dynamicschanging in real time because as
these female breadwinnersincrease it is becoming the
(08:50):
driving force for potentiallychanging household inequality.
And I'd say the book is for anyman or woman who has felt
either disempowered or has feltthat they have more power and
have realized that it'saffecting their relationship.
So for a woman, it's kind ofvery obviously geared towards
(09:12):
anyone who's realized that theyare doing more at home because
of their partner's financialstatus, which become which, by
the way, is one of the biggestdrivers for relationship
dissatisfaction and divorce.
Because even if you're, even ifthere's someone who's a teacher
and someone in the financialservices, they might be working
the same hours during the day.
But often you see the lowerearning women traditionally
(09:35):
still doing more at home in thehours where they both have free
time, because kind of women havebeen conditioned to do more.
But then this also happens whenwomen start to earn more money
than their male partners, theystill do more at home and that
causes relationshipdissatisfaction too, because men
start to feel disempoweredbecause of the expectation of
(09:57):
men to be primary breadwinners.
So, because of theseexpectations, their masculinity
is threatened, and so I reallywant this to be a book that men
can read to understand why weneed to disencouple this
breadwinner expectation withmasculinity, because it harms
men just as much as women and,if nothing else, it harms the
next generation.
Like, are we growing if we'reparents, or even if we're uncles
(10:21):
and aunts?
Are we telling our sons thatthey have to be the main earners
and our daughters that theyhave to, you know, to spend more
time during childcare?
Because that's not a sustainabledynamic in a society where we
do expect a dual earner incomebecause of, you know, most
people can't afford just to liveon one income.
But also, the more that womenstart earning in society, the
more financial power they have.
(10:42):
The more that women startearning in society, the more
financial power they have, themore empowered they feel and the
more kind of ambitious they'reable to become, which their
daughters and sons will grow upseeing.
So it's really kind of agenerational shift that we're
seeing, but the expectations inthe home haven't, which is why
this kind of power dynamic canbe so challenging for couples to
(11:04):
navigate, and then because it'schallenging at home.
This translates into you knowhow you can achieve at work,
because if you're spending a lotof your time at home thinking
about laundry and childcare, youhave less time to focus on CV.
So it kind of really harms thewhole family if power balance
isn't shared more equally.
Speaker 1 (11:33):
On Leading People.
The goal is to bring youcutting edge thought leadership
from many of the leadingthinkers and practitioners in
leadership today.
Each guest shares theirinsights, wisdom and practical
advice so we can all get betterat bringing out the best in
ourselves and others.
Please subscribe wherever youget your podcasts and share a
link with friends, family andcolleagues, and stay informed by
(11:55):
joining our Leading PeopleLinkedIn community of HR leaders
and talent professionals.
Okay, so, for the book, youinterviewed lots of people
heterosexual couples, youinterviewed couples in same-sex
relationships, you did a lot ofresearch and that and you now
you talk about this, thisdynamic that has persisted and I
(12:16):
guess it has been evolving.
If you go back to maybe the1950s, etc.
And look at where women's placetoday has probably evolved
quite a bit since then, and yet,at the same time, I'm hearing
that, um, these, thisbreadwinner dynamic is still
present.
And what?
What makes it so hard to breakthe?
(12:37):
This male, female, thebreadwinner, the woman having to
do more at home?
What makes it it so challengingto break this dynamic?
Speaker 2 (12:49):
There's a term sociologists use called
structural lag, and this simplymeans that when, even though
society's attitudes are changing, actual physical change lags
behind attitudes and it comesdown to kind of centuries of
expectations of the man beingthe breadwinner and it's really
tied into your sense of whatmasculinity means.
(13:12):
It's being kind of in charge ofyour family, having to have the
financial responsibility, andmen are judged for it.
So I think, even though we seea reality where women are
earning more and they'rebecoming more empowered, often
as soon as they have childrentheir earnings go down because
(13:34):
they're the ones that takematernity leave or parental
leave, more so than men, and sothey become kind of the project
managers of the household.
So even where expectations arechanging, the infrastructure by
society that puts women at homemore than men means that women
(13:54):
end up doing more.
Men's earnings could go up.
So it kind of cements the cycle.
And then there's the fact thatmen are judged for it if they're
staying at home or if they'retaking flexibility.
There's one researcher Iinterviewed who calls it the
fatherhood forfeit.
So when men ask for flexibility, they're judged for it.
The irony is, women are as well, but because they're expected
(14:16):
to and they're expecting theircareers to be kind of reduced or
their ambitions to be reducedsomewhat.
They just kind of take it on,whereas men um literally feel
emasculated, um, because ofthese expectations.
And then of course I talk aboutlots of people believing in
equality and wanting change.
But then we see a politicalinfrastructure in the united
(14:39):
states where governmentofficials are literally telling
the society that they want morewomen to stay at home, that they
want there to be like a mainhousehold income just by one
person, and so this is reallydamaging rhetoric, where you
kind of have this bombardment ofthese centuries of expectations
(14:59):
, the desire for change, but apolitical infrastructure that
doesn't allow this change tohappen.
I mean, you can see, in the ukat least, paternity leave is two
weeks at statutory, statutorypay, so not even full pay.
Companies don't have to do it.
Some companies willinglyincrease it, um, but often men
don't take what they're givenbecause if they're the higher
(15:19):
earners it might impact thefamily um, or they worried that
if they're out of the workplaceyou know they won't get a
promotion, and so unless societychanges that kind of level of
paternity leave available,things on a daily basis won't
change.
And you do see places whereit's improved.
(15:40):
So in some of the Nordiccountries, when they introduced
generous paternity leavepolicies where it's paid, it's
now become unacceptable for mennot to take in Sweden at least
for men not to take the leaveallocated to them, because all
the dads do it.
And then you see interestingpatterns in the workplace.
So when dads take morepaternity leave you can
(16:04):
literally see women's earningsgo up I think it was like 7% or
something Whereas in the rest ofsociety there is known to be a
motherhood penalty of about 4%pay reduction per child she has.
And so you can see that theworkplace and societal
expectations literally impact onearning potential throughout
(16:26):
your life.
Speaker 1 (16:28):
I was going to ask you about the Nordic countries.
I have lots of friends up thereand I visit Sweden from time to
time and I'm curious about yourstatistic about the 4% increase
in women's earnings.
The question that comes to mymind is do men's earnings suffer
in reverse to in Sweden?
Is there any research to saythat men are actually penalized,
(16:50):
or is this just a notion thatexists in our heads that a man's
earning potential capacity canbe affected by taking parenting?
Speaker 2 (17:00):
leave.
I haven't seen this, any statsaround that but probably because
generally men's earnings go upand women's earnings don't.
If you look at gender pay gapstatistics, I think the last
time I looked, all but onecountry had a gender pay gap.
So there's a term called thefatherhood bonus.
So when men become fathers theyactually tend to see their
(17:24):
earnings go up, but in terms ofthe figure.
So I'm just looking at the datanow.
So for every month of leave adad took in Sweden, earnings
increased for women by about 7%,which shows that fathers taking
time off can erode themotherhood penalties.
The motherhood penalty is the4% decrease in earnings that
motherhoods typically have whenthey become, when they have
(17:47):
children.
Speaker 1 (17:48):
Okay, so, so there are two kind of topics that come
into my mind and I might keepone of them now for a little bit
later.
Let's get to how organizationsbecause you're talking about the
political environment in placeslike the United States at the
moment, which is probably notgoing to help the situation in
(18:10):
the short term.
Anyway, over the next couple ofyears, what can organizations
start to do, or what are theydoing to address this imbalance?
Speaker 2 (18:19):
Well, I think in terms of the workplace, we need
to understand that earnings areclosely tied to how powerful you
feel, and power literallychanges the brain.
So those in power have adifferent profile in the brain's
mirroring system.
The brain's mirroring system isthe part of you.
If you see someone sitting likethis I'm for listeners I'm
(18:42):
sitting with my um head and myhands.
You tend to mimic them and thesame neurons fire.
But when you're in power youhave less of this Um and this
kind of suggests you're, you're,you're above the other person.
You don't need to kind of feelattuned to them as much, and
this can be useful because ifyou're in a position of power,
you don't have the time andenergy to be concerned with
(19:05):
everybody that you'reoverpowering, like if you need
to make decisions.
If you're in a position ofleadership, you can negotiate
with everyone because nothingwill ever get done.
But this means socialhierarchies can be extremely
difficult to navigate,especially because feeling
superior can be addictive.
So I found this reallyinteresting research that
literally when you're in aposition of power, you release
(19:29):
more chemical messengers thataffect your mood, including
serotonin, and so once you getthat kind of addictive notion of
you're in power, you kind ofcontinue to seek the reward and
at the same time, when you're ina position of power, your
empathy is reduced.
So you start feeling lessempathy with other people.
And this has been found in kindof a range of experiments and
(19:53):
scientists have even done.
There's one scientist calleddecker keltner who did a lots of
interesting studies like thisand he found that um bosses are
most likely to, or the person ofpowers is most likely to, eat
the last cookie.
If there is a room of fourpeople and five cookies and
there's one left, the person inposition of power is most likely
to eat the last one becausethey don't worry or care as much
(20:13):
about what other people arethinking.
You can see this have hasbenefits.
But the flip side is, if youare disempowered and feel
powerless, you show more stress,lower cognitive function,
you're less likely to think ofthe bigger picture, and when
you're stressed, of course it'sdifficult to regulate other
emotions and if you'rechronically stressed you find it
(20:34):
harder to seek out help.
But you can kind of see thatthis happens in the workplace,
right, but that kind ofaddictive feeling of power and
lack of empathy can translateinto the home sphere as well.
And so if you have higherstatus and higher social support
, you don't feel the effect ofum you know any stressors as
(20:57):
much as if you have lower, lowerstatus and lower social support
so that's really interesting.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
What you just said, melissa, and what comes into my
head when you talk about themirror neurons and the, the
power and how it's the empathything is.
There's so much talked aboutout there on emotional
intelligence in leaders, andI've done some neuroscience
studies myself and you know someof the kind of models and
(21:26):
things that are promoted outthere don't stand up very well
when it comes to the underlyingneuroscience behind how we
actually operate, how our brainsfunction and how we operate.
So, given that people whobecome more powerful may be
experiencing a reduction inempathy and they make decisions
(21:48):
about these kinds of things,what can be done or what are
organizations doing today toaddress that?
Speaker 2 (21:55):
So there's I'll take you back a few steps.
There's an interestingphenomenon called the power
paradox, which kind of explainswhat we need to do in real time.
So in order to become powerful,you need to use your empathy
skills to get there.
So we use kindness, compassion,empathy, but once we're in a
position of power, these verytraits start to diminish and to
(22:19):
exacerbate that.
Individuals with dominant andself-serving and even
narcissistic personality traitsare actually more likely to seek
positions of power.
And once they're in a positionof power, these traits are
amplified, because power kind ofdisinhibits your natural
tendency to feel empathy.
And if, if a group lacks aleader this is another
(22:41):
experiment I've found quiteamusing so if a group lacks a
leader, it's the narcissist inthe group who's more likely to
step in and take charge, and soyou can see all kinds of real
world examples of that.
But there are ways to get toyour question.
There's ways that we canovercome this power paradox.
So I interviewed some reallyinteresting scientists.
(23:02):
There's one psychologist whostudies power called Deborah
Greenfeld, and she says we needto see power as a sense of
responsibility over others.
So if you're a leader and it'slike an us-them environment, you
kind of are accentuating yourpower over it.
But if you see yourself as acollective group and we, you're
(23:24):
more likely to feel responsible.
Even face-to-face interactionsmake you feel more responsible
than others and alsounderstanding kind of the
stressors that someone has.
And there's another term that Ilove, which was originated by a
scientist called Adam Galinsky,and he calls it the leadership
amplification effect.
(23:44):
So when you're and that soundsvery wordy, but when you're in a
position of power and you saysomething, those more junior to
you take every word of whatyou're saying, so it kind of
amplifies it.
And he uses the example where,if your boss sends you an email
saying can we have a quickcatch-up, that catch-up is
amplified in your mind and itcould be anything.
You could be like oh mygoodness, I'm getting fired.
(24:05):
Or oh my god, especially if youfeel disempowered, you might
think, oh, am I being calledupon for, um, some poor reward?
And if the, if the call is in afew days' time, you kind of are
ruminating about what that callmight be.
So a very simple tweak a leadercan do is oh, can we have a
quick catch-up to talk about thefigures from last week?
Then that kind of takes anystress away.
(24:27):
And the same goes for adeadline.
If you give someone a deadlineand you're in a position of
power, they won't question it.
But a way to kind of overcomethat, if you're the person who's
less powerful, is to explainexactly what you have on.
Yes, I can absolutely hit thatdeadline.
First, I um, I'll put I'll pushthis one back and I won't do
(24:48):
that.
But the problem is because ofleader amplification effect,
you're less likely to speak upbecause you're worried about
what they think.
But kind of that two-waydialogue, seeing power as a
responsibility and people beingpart of a team, can kind of make
that go away a little bit.
And then, interestingly, thebest leadership traits, when you
(25:08):
do look at what people value,are actually enthusiasm,
kindness, focus, calmness andopenness.
So even though a lot of leadershave a lot of negative traits,
that's often because of thatstudy I mentioned, where those
who are dominant and slightlynarcissistic are even more
likely to put themselves in aposition of power.
But when you look at goodleaders, they do tend to have
(25:32):
some of these more positivetraits.
So it's kind of a good and badpicture here.
But if you have an organizationwhere you prioritize kindness
and you realize that kindnesselevates, you'll kind of have a
much less toxic organization.
Speaker 1 (25:47):
And I'm really pleased you mentioned Adam
because he was a guest on thepodcast a few episodes back, so
anybody who wants to hear moreabout leadership amplification
can tune into that episode thatwas released a little while ago,
so you can actually hear Adamtalk about it.
And I'm really curious becauseyou talk about how this paradox,
(26:12):
this power paradox, can besomewhat modified through a more
collective approach to things.
What's happening in thegenerations?
You know, a lot of youngerpeople today are well.
A lot is written about theirmore collaborative nature and
I'm wondering if that is true inthe research you've done and
(26:34):
whether or not it's having anyimpact on this power paradox you
mean the younger generation iskind of.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
They're more likely to shun that traditional power
structure.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
Well, I mean, I'm just going by the types of
things I read and and this, thisidea that there's a more social
aspect to the way youngerpeople, let's say in their 20s
and early 30s, like to worktoday.
Is that true?
In your research, did you findthat there's any generational
impact?
Do generations have any impacton this power paradox phenomenon
(27:12):
or is it just automatically theway we we're programmed?
At a certain point we're givensome extra responsibilities and
we just it just clicks in likeit's a switch that just clicks
on and we all go to that default, which is, you know, to, to
reduce the empathy, etc.
You're listening to leadingpeople, people with me, gerry
(27:38):
Murray.
My guest this week is MelissaHogenboom, bbc science
journalist and author ofBreadwinners, coming up.
We explore how earlysocialisation shapes who feels
entitled to lead, how leaderscan model equality in action and
why being a good role model athome might just make you a
(28:00):
better leader at work.
Speaker 2 (28:03):
I think.
So what I have uncovered isthat, you for sure, the younger
generation is less keen onoverwork and presenteeism and
demands, you know, theflexibility to work from home
more.
But I think that is alsoshifting because we're seeing
more and more businesses calltheir workers back in, we're
(28:25):
seeing more presenteeism, and soI think, until those who are
the power holders at the topmake company-wide policies that
have this more kind ofhorizontal approach instead of
hierarchical.
So if you literally think abouta horizontal line instead of a
hierarchy where everything'svery top down, I think it will
(28:48):
be slow to change.
But there is hope, because Ilooked at cross-cultural
differences and in theNetherlands, for instance, it's
quite a horizontal culture.
It's still individualistic.
Individualistic literally meansyou're putting yourself first
and there's a focus on successin many Western countries, but
it's much more horizontal.
So a psychologist I interviewedsaid if you walk into a
(29:13):
business room in the Netherlandsyou won't know who the boss is
because everybody's able tospeak up.
And I think leaders canencourage a horizontal culture
within their own organization.
So you have culture-wide, likeculturally and country level,
you have these differences, butcompanies can also create this
(29:33):
kind of culture and again itties back into that sense of
responsibility I mentioned.
So responsible leaders tend tobe more empathetic, ask for more
honest feedback and actuallylisten to their employers.
They ask, like, what they'redoing, what they can do
differently.
And in my last appraisal, mymanager and he's clearly been on
some leadership trainer, but he, he's a brilliant manager,
(29:55):
brilliant boss and his questionto me was what?
What am I doing well or not sowell?
What can I do differently?
And actually that is a verysmall um, you know it takes very
little time to ask that, but Idon't think in my career I've
ever been asked that, or notoften.
And so that kind of ability tocreate a two-way dialogue and it
has to be safe, you can't justsay what you want him to hear,
(30:17):
which often happens because ofthe leadership amplification
effect.
But creating a safe dialoguewhere you're able to share this
kind of dual feedback is goingto create a much better
manager-employee relationship.
And when, as I mentioned about,if you you lack power, you
become disempowered, if you, asa leader, know that and you
(30:37):
realize that giving your staff asense of autonomy and giving
them, letting them give honestfeedback, they're going to feel
more empowered.
And when you're more empowered,you're more creative, um,
you're harder working, you'rethinking bigger picture.
So actually it doesn't justbenefit you as an organization,
it will benefit teams and yourcreativity, um.
And you know, like, if, if, ifyou have a dominant person at
(31:00):
the top and you realize thatthat's affecting everyone
underneath you, you can shiftthat there is a way to create
kinder organizations, um, and itwill benefit your, your whole
team, in terms of work-lifebalance as well as kind of just
happiness at work your position.
Speaker 1 (31:17):
Power can stay intact by just adopting that.
Your boss hasn't become less ofa boss in in his, in the
organizational structures,because he's asking you what he
could do better or improve.
But what it does is it soundslike it connects you to him, you
feel you know, more supported,you feel like it's a very fair
(31:38):
question to be asked and youobviously say he's a brilliant
boss, so it's working for him,right in that respect and well.
Speaker 2 (31:46):
So, absolutely, it does work.
And there's one study I have tomention, um, that I came across
.
That kind of shows how this canplay out in real time, um, and
so when you're lacking in aposition of power, you're less
likely to speak up, right?
And there's this really funexperiment where they put
participants in a room um, theyprimed some of them to feel
(32:09):
position of power, so by gettingthem to write about a time when
they felt powerful, and thenthey put a really noisy, cold
fan right next to them and thenthey witnessed what happened.
So those who felt that they hadmore power and had been primed
to feel more powerful were morelikely to move the fan, even
though that wasn't aninstruction, whereas those who
(32:32):
had felt disempowered weren'tlikely to move the fan.
And this came out of a real-lifeexample where Deborah Grunfeld
was sitting next to someone whoseemed like a very top-level
senior executive.
They just seemed like a verycompetent business person.
I don't know how she cameacross that, but she was sitting
(32:52):
in a very under a very coldairplane fan and she felt
disempowered by his status, andit took her half an hour to ask
to if he could turn the fan downbecause it was literally on her
, and then she's like, oh, whydid I feel like that, why did I
feel that way?
Can actually shifting our senseof how much power we have make
us speak up?
And it can, um, and then, sothat it can have a real positive
(33:15):
change, um, and on the flipside, there's another experiment
I really want to highlight.
Um, there was an experimentwhere participants weren't told
what the experiment was about,but they were again, um, asked
to, you know, talk about theirfinancial status and finance
being a proxy for power.
And those who had the highestkind of power were more likely
(33:35):
to take two sweets on the wayout, when they didn't realize
they were being watched, thanthe people who are disempowered,
showing that those in power aremore likely to cheat and take
what's not theirs.
And you can see how that canhave like a positive and a
negative thing.
And that that ties into thisfact that when you are in a
position of power, it because ofthis disinhibiting effect, it
(33:59):
can make you more likely tocheat and steal, and there's
this effect called hubrissyndrome, so you feel like
you're above others, but usuallyand it takes a lot of time
those power holders that usepower for ill good, do kind of
have a downfall eventually,because it's only so long you
can kind of hold on to thatpower before you know those
(34:21):
underneath.
You kind of don't put up withit anymore.
Speaker 1 (34:23):
You mentioned the horizontal aspect, and I have
worked with Dutch companies andI can say the ones I've been
involved with do have a lot ofemphasis on consensus and
sometimes they complain that ittakes them too long to get to
the decision point.
And yet they, when they do getto the decision, they all feel
(34:47):
reasonably good about it becausethey've all felt that their
voice has been heard in theprocess.
So, for those who justexperienced the Dutch as direct,
there's also this consensusaspect to Dutch society, which
is a very impressive way they goabout this.
And you're part Dutch, right,so you grew up in the UK but
(35:08):
you're part Dutch.
Can you give us an example of avertical society and vertical
society that you know has, andhow that impacts this, this
power imbalance?
Speaker 2 (35:20):
yeah, there's um a really fun study where they
compared um.
The so vertical societies areoften um.
So japan's quite a verticalsociety.
China's known as a verticalsociety and also more
collectivist, right.
So there is a study that wherethey got American students and
(35:45):
Chinese students to do a test,and the American students were
more likely to want to do wellif they knew there was a reward
at the end, but the Chinesestudents didn't have that same
incentive.
For them it was more about thegroup, and this again is how it
shows you how group norms canreally influence you.
So if you see yourself as partof a group, then you're less
(36:06):
likely to focus on theindividual, the individual
pursuit of success.
So there's no right or wrongway to think about it.
But in vertical societies youcan have someone who's a
powerful position at the top andeveryone else makes sure that
they do what that person says,whereas horizontal culture, like
(36:26):
you said, it's more consensusand everybody has a say.
So it's no surprise that inhorizontal cultures there's a
greater emphasis on equality andthere tends to be less
financial inequality in thegeneral population, whereas in
vertical countries there's oftenmuch more financial inequality
(36:50):
back to the, the breadwinnerconcept and and how did?
Speaker 1 (36:54):
how do these different cultures?
What sort of impact are theyhaving?
The vertical versus horizontalcultures on the?
You know the evolution of, youknow the breadwinner concept and
the role of the woman, both atwork and at home this is quite
challenging and that kind ofties back to one of your first
questions about who the book'sfor.
Speaker 2 (37:15):
So most have this conversations in countries where
women aren't like there aren'tmany women in the workplace, um,
(37:42):
so I I think we're, we'realready seeing a challenge in
like the uk and the us, wherethere are more female
breadwinners.
So power imbalance, powerbalances are shifting, but so
some countries, countries wherethey are even more patriarchal
in terms of the fact that somewomen don't work at all, I think
there's not going to be ared-winner shift when women
(38:04):
aren't even expected to work.
So it's challenging and itmeans that this book definitely
is for those where it's possible, because it must be very
frustrating to read this book ifyou're in a culture or country
where you're expected to stopwork or not work at all to look
after the children.
Speaker 1 (38:20):
Okay, and now I want to go back to the question I
mentioned that I was going toask you later in the
conversation, and Some of whatyou spoke about early on is this
notion that a lot of thestereotypes are ingrained in our
society and men are expected todo this, etc.
Women, etc.
(38:41):
As a mother yourself, whatsteps are you taking to educate
your children in this world oftrying to achieve this balance
between the female and maleroles?
Speaker 2 (38:58):
yeah, it's definitely tricky because I definitely do
most of the cognitive and mentallabor at home.
So this is the planning, theanticipating, the needs, the
book, which is like not just thebooking, the child care options
, but the researching andresearching the camps.
But the crucial aspect in myrelationship is we talk about it
(39:19):
.
So we talk about the division,we recognize each person's
contribution and in my case, myjob has always been slightly
more flexible, which is anunfortunate common um.
It feels it's a common um.
It's not just a stereotype,because it's true in so many
cases women tend to have moreflexible jobs because they mold
(39:42):
flexibility into their career oras men's jobs are seen more
rigid.
But in my case, I do tend toalways finish earlier.
So I've been home to do the,the cooking more.
But in terms of hours spent onchild, my partner is the one
that plans the weekendactivities.
He was doing piano practicewith my daughter before school
today.
So we really try and make surethat, in terms of what they see
(40:04):
us doing, we do very similar,equitable things.
I talk about my work a lot.
You know, yesterday I was ontelevision, on BBC News, talking
about a health story, about whygardening improved your mental
health.
But I make sure to tell thekids and my daughter asked me
the other day she's like wow, soeverybody's going to see you.
So they have a realunderstanding that my role is
(40:27):
just as important as theirfather's role, that they're both
seeing us working.
We make sure that they see himcooking, that we both do the
laundry.
So it sounds small, but thesegender expectations are so
ingrained, especially when youconsider that studies show that
girls tend to do more choresthan boys, starting from a very
(40:49):
young age.
Fathers talk more aboutemotions to their daughters than
to their sons.
Fathers do more rough andtumble, play with their sons and
then you kind of see how littlegirls and boys grow up into
these very rigid gender roles.
So it has to start small, hasto start with the small things
in order for the next generationto understand that they can
(41:09):
make a change.
And also just talking aboutlike that, my daughter can be
whatever she wants.
She can be a doctor, she can bea pilot, she can be a nurse and
not have a judgment to that andsimilar with my son like he can.
You know, they don't have tofollow typical gender roles and
I think it's definitely easiersomewhere quite in our kind of
(41:31):
quite liberal London bubblebecause you see all sorts of
family setups kind of quiteliberal London bubble because
you see all sorts of familysetups.
My kids know that someone canhave two dads, someone can have
two moms, and so I think thereis hope for the next generation,
especially considering Iinterviewed quite a lot of
stay-at-home dads and theytalked about the struggles they
(41:51):
had, especially losing a senseof purpose or meaning, not
because they didn't feel lesspurpose in their role with their
children, but because they werejudged for it.
But they knew this was moreimportant or they were putting
their children first.
And the more dads we can seethe playground of pickup, the
more the next generation isgoing to expect this.
Speaker 1 (42:12):
And you have a boy and a girl, which gives you the
really opportunity to even getthem to see each other in
different ways.
Maybe inspired by AdamGalinsky's leadership
amplification effect.
Maybe we should invent a term,the parent amplification effect,
because it seems that that'swhat you're attempting to do
(42:35):
here is to amplify by rolemodeling and not just talking
about it.
But you and your partner areliving it out as best you can in
your circumstances.
So one last question for youCan this book make me happier?
Speaker 2 (42:53):
I think it depends on where you're coming from.
If you're the femalebreadwinner and you are doing
earning most of the money anddoing everything at home, I
think it's going to enrage yousomewhat, but I think it will
give you the tools to makechanges.
So I think when you're armedwith the knowledge of how these
(43:14):
power imbalances affect yououtside the home and inside the
home, and then you learn thatactually there are tools I can
use that aren't going to pointfingers, you can make change.
Stress and losing power reducesour self-esteem.
(43:39):
We can learn that we can feelempowered by kind of having
simple conversations, by feelingmore responsible, by simple
things just like sharing themental load, doing tasks end to
end.
But another going back toneuroscience because I love
writing and researching aboutneuroscience and I know you
spoke to David Robson, who oftentalks about the brain's
predictive machine we canactually use our brain's
prediction engine to trickourselves into feeling less
(44:02):
stressed and feeling moreempowered.
So a lot of the scientists Ispoke to use this technique
called priming, so psychologicalpriming either.
They do it by you write down atime when you felt powerful.
You write down a time when youfelt powerful.
You write down a time when youhad a position of power or you,
um, are kind of talking about umor given, you're literally
(44:23):
given a sense of you.
You are in this position, thinkabout yourself.
So you can use kind of theunderstanding of the past to
prime yourself, to feel morepowerful.
So it's a bit like impostersyndrome, right, like nobody
knows.
You feel that, so you canactually almost fake it till you
make it Um.
And especially empowering isknowing that having more power
(44:45):
and can improve your health andwellbeing gives us more access
to resources.
Um helps us influence ourspouses, helps us kind of not
fall victim to goal contagionthis is another phenomenon I
love.
So if you're in the position ofless power in a relationship,
you're more likely to absorb thegoals of your higher earning
partner.
(45:05):
So, whether it's their personalgoals or hobbies or their job
goals, because you're less power, you have less power in the
relationship.
And a really obvious example islike wives who take up golf
because otherwise they'll haveno time to spend with their
partners or they also want, youknow, five hours out of their
day and that's their hobby.
Um, and ironically, myhusband's taken up golf and he's
(45:27):
like you can join me if youwant.
I'm like no, I'm not going tofall victim to golf contagion.
And he's like what are you onabout?
Cause he loves it and he doesgenerally want you know me to
like it too.
And I'm like I just don't andI'm not going to do it just
because you do it.
But then he recognizes that andsays well, you know, you can
have your own two, three hourhobby if you want to, which is
not quite practical, but it'sthe recognition that, say, I did
(45:49):
have a hobby that would takethree hours, he would support it
.
And, lastly, the I think thetake-home message is the more
that we understand these powerdynamics and imbalances, um, and
the more that we can overcomethem, we will have a happier
relationship and children whogrow up not expecting kind of
(46:09):
some of the more toxic dynamicsthat some people find themselves
in okay, so, coming to the end,how can people get in touch
with you, melissa?
Speaker 1 (46:20):
What platforms or what ways can people reach out
to you?
And if you ask about the book,I guess it's going to be
available in all good bookshopsand online platforms et cetera.
So how can people connect withyou?
Speaker 2 (46:35):
Yeah, they can find me on LinkedIn.
Um, it's just Melissa Hogan.
Boom, uh, I'm on Instagram andthreads as well.
Um, when my books released.
If anyone would like a signedcopy, I'd be happy to have them
order it to my home and I cansend them to it.
Uh, so, and I'd love havingdialogues and conversations
(46:55):
about this.
So part of what was most funabout the book is I interviewed
so many, um, interestingindividuals and scientists from
learning about the scientificresearch to understanding what
happens in individualrelationships and how people
deal with money and stress, um,and so kind of weaving the two
together, cause I found lots ofcommon threads and people did
love to talk to me about it.
(47:16):
So I'm always looking for moreexamples, either for my
newsletter to feature people orfor articles I'm writing about
the topic.
So please get in touch andshare with me how you have
overcome any power imbalances inyour life, or if there's any
that you want to overcome andyou're just not quite sure how.
I really want to kind of createa dialogue and I love, jerry, I
love your idea about theparents amplification effect.
(47:38):
If there's anyone who has tipson how they've noticed that in
their life like I think you canask your kids quite simple
questions like who does thecooking or who does the washing
up, and it's quite revealingwhat they say, because kids do
notice everything.
And if you can change that byamplifying something you're
doing, then I think we're kindof making small gains.
(47:59):
So please get in touch withyour examples.
I'd love to hear it and open adialogue.
Speaker 1 (48:04):
My small contribution to this world and, by the way,
for the listeners.
You can regularly catch up onyour work at the BBC, isn't that
right?
Yes, you do a lot of shorts onthe app and you're interviewed
quite regularly on topics thatyou've got expertise on, isn't
(48:25):
that right?
Speaker 2 (48:25):
Yeah, my second hat is as a health correspondent at
the BBC.
So I write a weekly newslettercalled Health Fix Just Google
BBC Health Fix and you'll findit.
And it's a free weeklynewsletter Health Fix just
Google BBC Health Fix and you'llfind it.
And it's a free weeklynewsletter.
And I do regular little shortfilms about how to improve your
health and wellbeing.
So I've got films about how toavoid ultra processed food,
(48:46):
whether matcha is really goodfor you or not, and why you can
benefit from spending time innature, and so a lot of these
insights that I learn about atwork I find that I kind of come
back to when I come to write mybooks, as well, and I'll put
some links in the show notes.
Speaker 1 (49:00):
so, as ever, melissa, thanks for sharing your
insights, tips and wisdom withme and my listeners here today.
Speaker 2 (49:07):
Thank you, gerry.
Speaker 1 (49:10):
Coming up on Leading People.
Speaker 3 (49:12):
Acting is.
It's entirely about taking amicroscope to human behavior and
taking a microscope to your ownbehavior and creating massive
awareness about the impactyou're having on people.
And I'll come back to that aswe talk through leadership,
Gerry, because it's so much thatI did there that's so important
to what I do now.
Speaker 1 (49:32):
My next guest is Kate Walker-Miles, client director
and a coach at RADA Business.
In our conversation, we explorehow posture, breath and voice,
among other things, shape theimpact you have as a leader.
It's a fascinating conversationabout reclaiming presence and
(49:53):
showing up in rooms with impactwhere you might otherwise hold
back.
You won't want to miss it andremember, before our next full
episode, there's another OneSimple Thing episode waiting for
you A quick and actionable tipto help you lead and live better
.
Keep an eye out for it whereveryou listen to this podcast
(50:16):
Until next time.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.