Mark: What if I told you that one of the biggest mistakes you can make in your career is... working too hard? That being the first one in and the last one out might actually be holding you back from the promotion you deserve? Michelle: That is such a provocative and, for many of us, a deeply uncomfortable idea. But it’s the exact kind of thinking that made Dr. Lois P. Frankel's bestselling book, Nice Girls Don't Get the Corner Office, a phenomenon. Mark: Exactly. And Dr. Frankel isn't just an author; she's a high-profile executive coach with a Ph.D. in psychology. She spent decades in the trenches, observing why incredibly competent, hard-working women were getting stuck, while others seemed to advance more easily. Michelle: And she concluded it wasn't a competence gap. It was a behavioral one. She saw that many women were unconsciously sabotaging themselves with behaviors they were taught and rewarded for as girls. The book identifies over 100 of these mistakes. Mark: Over a hundred! That’s a lot of ways to mess up. And the book has been a massive bestseller for nearly two decades, translated into dozens of languages. But it's also been a bit controversial, which I think we should get into. So, where do we even start with these mistakes? Michelle: Let's start with the one you opened with, because it’s probably the most shocking for people. Mistake #3: Working Hard.

Mark: Okay, I have to stop you right there. How can 'working hard' possibly be a mistake? That's what my parents, my teachers, my first boss—everyone—told me was the absolute key to success. Put your head down, do the work, and you'll be rewarded. Michelle: That’s what we're all taught. It’s the meritocracy myth. Frankel’s core argument is that the workplace isn't a school where you get an 'A' for effort. It's a game. And like any game, it has a set of unwritten rules, strategies, and objectives. Simply working hard, in isolation, is like a football player who has incredible stamina but doesn't know the playbook. Mark: A player who just runs up and down the field without a goal. Michelle: Precisely. You might look busy, but you're not scoring points. Frankel tells this fantastic story about a woman who was complaining that her male coworkers were getting all the best, most high-profile assignments. She was frustrated because she was always at her desk, working diligently through lunch, staying late. Mark: She was doing everything right, by the old rules. Michelle: Exactly. Meanwhile, her male colleagues spent the first half-hour every Monday morning during football season just chatting with the boss about the weekend's games. She saw it as a complete waste of time. But what was actually happening? Mark: They were building a relationship. The boss was getting to know them, their personalities, how they thought. Michelle: Yes. He was building comfort and familiarity with them. So when a challenging, high-stakes project came up, who did he think of? The quiet, diligent worker he barely knew, or the guys he felt he had a rapport with, whose character he felt he understood? Mark: He picked the guys he was comfortable with. Wow. That’s a tough pill to swallow. It feels… unfair. Michelle: It can feel that way. And this is where the book gets some of its criticism. Some argue that it's essentially telling women to adapt to a broken, male-centric system instead of trying to change the system itself. They'd say the boss should be better at recognizing talent, regardless of football chats. Mark: Yeah, that’s a very valid point. Why should women have to learn to play a game with rules they didn't create? Michelle: I think Frankel’s perspective is deeply pragmatic. She's not necessarily saying the game is fair or that it's the ideal system. She's an executive coach. Her job is to give women the tools to win in the arena as it currently exists. It's about empowerment through strategy. You can work to change the rules of the game, but first, you have to be in the game. If you're stuck in a junior role because you're invisible, you have very little power to change anything. Mark: Okay, I can see that. It's about playing the hand you're dealt, even while you're trying to get a new deck of cards. So beyond just chatting about sports, what other 'game-playing' mistakes do women make? Michelle: A huge one is Mistake #2: Playing the Game Safely and within Bounds. Women are often socialized to be rule-followers, to color inside the lines. In the workplace, this translates to never taking risks, never challenging the status quo, and never pushing the boundaries of their authority. Mark: They wait to be told what to do. Michelle: Exactly. Frankel uses a great tennis analogy. A woman was promoted to supervisor but got feedback that she wasn't being "proactive." She was confused because she was doing her job perfectly. The coach told her it was like she was playing tennis, but only hitting the ball safely in the middle of the court, never daring to hit the lines. She was assuming what her boss would or wouldn't approve of, so she was shrinking her own playing field. Mark: And her male counterparts were probably using the entire court, hitting shots she wouldn't even dream of attempting. Michelle: You got it. The solution wasn't to go rogue, but to proactively define her authority. She went to her manager and said, "Help me understand the boundaries of my court. What decisions can I make on my own?" Once she knew the lines, she felt comfortable taking those calculated risks and was seen as a leader. Mark: That’s a brilliant reframe. It’s not about breaking rules, it’s about understanding just how much room you actually have to play. And a huge part of that must come down to how you communicate.

Michelle: It's almost everything. This was one of the most eye-opening parts of the book for me. Frankel cites research showing that your credibility is overwhelmingly determined by non-verbal and para-verbal cues. Something like 55% is how you look, 38% is how you sound, and only 7% is the actual words you say. Mark: Only 7 percent? That's insane. So you could have a Nobel Prize-winning idea, but if you deliver it meekly, it's worthless. Michelle: It might as well be. And women are conditioned to use communication patterns that actively undermine their authority. The book lists so many, but a huge one is Mistake #21: Asking Permission. Mark: Oh, I know this one. The classic, "Is it okay if I...?" or "Would you mind if I...?" Michelle: Yes! And the book has the perfect story to illustrate the cost of this. A woman wanted to take her team for a one-day off-site event. A great idea for morale and team-building. So she went to her boss and asked, "Would it be alright if we were all gone for one day?" Mark: And the boss, being busy and risk-averse, probably said no. Michelle: He did. He said he'd prefer they didn't. She was disappointed but accepted it. Later, she's talking to a male colleague who just got back from taking his team on a three-day trip to a resort. She asked him, "How did you get approval for that?" And his response is the key to this whole chapter. He said, "It never occurred to me to ask." Mark: Whoa. He just did it. He probably sent an email saying, "Just so you know, my team will be off-site for a planning session from Tuesday to Thursday." He informed, he didn't ask. Michelle: Exactly. He acted like a leader, assuming he had the authority that came with his role. She acted like a child asking a parent for permission. By asking, she handed her power over to her boss. She made her good idea contingent on his approval, and he took the path of least resistance. Mark: That is so subtle and so powerful. And it’s a habit that’s beaten into us. "Ask nicely." Michelle: Another one is Mistake #25: Apologizing. Women apologize constantly. We say "I'm sorry" when someone bumps into us. In a work context, we apologize for having an opinion, for interrupting, for a minor typo in an email. Mark: It’s a verbal tic. A way of softening everything. Michelle: And it erodes your authority. Every unnecessary "sorry" is a little pebble chipped away from your credibility. Frankel’s coaching tip is brilliant. Instead of saying "I'm sorry for the delay," say "Thank you for your patience." Instead of "I'm sorry for the typo," say "Good catch, I've corrected it." It shifts the dynamic from guilt to gratitude or action. Mark: That’s a practical switch you can make today. It’s not about being a jerk; it’s about being precise with your language. You’re not sorry, you’re appreciative. Michelle: And it connects to Mistake #27: Using Minimizing Words. Words like "just," "only," "a little," "kind of." A woman will say, "I just have a quick idea." Why is it "just" an idea? Why is it "quick"? Mark: It’s pre-apologizing for taking up space. It signals that what you're about to say isn't that important. A man would say, "I have an idea." Full stop. Michelle: The book is full of these tiny linguistic shifts that have an outsized impact. It's about scrubbing your language of anything that diminishes your contribution. Because if you don't value your own ideas, why should anyone else? Mark: So if you're not just working hard, and you're communicating with authority, you still have to make sure people actually know who you are and what you do. You can't be invisible.

Michelle: You absolutely cannot. That brings us to the final, and perhaps most modernly relevant, theme of the book: branding and marketing yourself. This is where Frankel talks about Mistake #77: Waiting to Be Noticed. Mark: The "tiara syndrome." The belief that if you just do good work, someone will eventually notice and place a tiara on your head. Michelle: A tiara that never comes. Frankel argues that you have to think of yourself as a product in a marketplace. Your product is you. And if you don't have a brand, if you don't market yourself, you'll be left on the shelf. Mark: What does 'defining your brand' even mean in a practical sense? It sounds like corporate jargon that people throw around. Michelle: She breaks it down very simply. A personal brand is just "a promise of performance." It’s the answer to the question, "What are you known for?" If people can't answer that question about you in one or two sentences, you don't have a brand. For example, instead of saying, "Oh, I just manage a legal office," which is a classic minimizing answer... Mark: Right, the "just" again. Michelle: You say, "I run the legal operations for a fast-paced tech firm, ensuring our contracts are ironclad and our intellectual property is protected." One is a description of a task; the other is a brand that communicates value and expertise. Mark: That’s a much clearer picture. It’s not about bragging; it’s about clarity. Michelle: And the stakes for not having that clarity are incredibly high. The book tells this chilling story about a woman named Jacqueline during a massive corporate downsizing. She was terrified of being laid off. The coach asked her to go make a case for herself to her boss and HR. Mark: To go in and say, "Here's why you need me." Michelle: Yes. And Jacqueline couldn't do it. She was paralyzed. She said, "I can't just go in there... what would I even say?" Because she had spent her entire career waiting to be noticed, she had never practiced articulating her value. She had no brand, no talking points, no story to tell about her own contributions. Mark: So in the moment of truth, when her job was on the line, she had nothing. That’s terrifying. Because in today's economy, with layoffs and restructuring, you could be in that situation tomorrow. Michelle: It's the ultimate argument for why you can't afford to be invisible. Another part of this is Mistake #81: Refusing High-Profile Assignments. A woman might be asked to sit on a committee or lead a task force and she'll think, "Oh, that's just more work. I don't have time." Mark: She sees it as a burden, not an opportunity. Michelle: Exactly. She's focused on the task, not the visibility. A high-profile assignment is a stage. It’s a chance to showcase your skills to senior leadership, to build relationships across departments, to become known for something. Turning it down is like an actor refusing a lead role because it requires too many lines. Mark: You’re actively choosing to stay in the background. And when it comes time for promotions, or, like with Jacqueline, for cuts, the people in the background are the easiest to forget.

Michelle: That’s the thread that ties all of this together. All these mistakes—working hard but not smart, communicating passively, staying invisible—they all stem from the same root. They are the actions of the "good girl" who was taught to be quiet, agreeable, and wait her turn. Mark: Right, it seems the core journey of the book is about making a conscious shift. It’s about moving from being that passive 'good girl' to being an active, strategic, adult 'woman' in the workplace. It’s not about changing who you are, but about being more deliberate in how you act. Michelle: That's it perfectly. And Frankel has this one quote that I think is the entire thesis of the book. She says, "Success comes not from acting more like a man, as some might lead you to believe, but by acting more like a woman instead of a girl." Mark: I like that distinction. It’s not about adopting a new personality; it’s about maturing into the power you already have. It’s about growing up, professionally. Michelle: So, for our listeners, a great first step, a really simple action you can take away from this, is to just become an observer of your own behavior. For the next week, try to notice how many times you apologize for something that isn't your fault or isn't a big deal. Don't even try to change it at first. Just count. The awareness itself is the first, giant step. Mark: That’s a great, non-threatening way to start. And as you're doing that, maybe ask yourself a bigger question. The one that really sits with me after this conversation. Michelle: What's that? Mark: Which 'nice girl' rule are you still following, and what would happen if you finally decided to break it? Michelle: This is Aibrary, signing off.