The strategy of the foils

In classical theatre, there is a well-known figure... For its ability to be invisible ! It's the foil. He is a secondary character whose function is to enhance the qualities of the main character by comparison. The foil shows the importance of the hero by showing his loyalty and admiration for him. But it can also be done by the simple fact that he is smaller, less handsome, less well dressed, less witty... He has less existence and presence, in short. We like to mention the character of Spirou who in the Dupuis universe is omnipresent without his personality ever really gaining in relief : he is rather there to counterpoint the original temperaments of Fantasio or Gaston. It is therefore essential, but it is its very discretion that makes it important.

In real life, being someone's foil is not very rewarding. We feel used by the other person who only sees his or her interests in the relationship. Also, a person who is suspected of surrounding himself with less brilliant people than he is soon to be morally judged. He is accused of relational utilitarianism but he is also reproached for preferring to surround himself with mediocre people to minimize his efforts to be remarkable (a bit like the king of the one-eyed in the land of the blind). Worse, she is suspected of working to belittle others in order to elevate herself.

The myth of the " queen bee "

This fantasy was particularly active against women leaders, at least until the early 2010s, and reminiscences of it can still be observed through the myth of the " queen bee ". This is how, from the 1970s onwards, women who would reach the pinnacle of power were designated by having skilfully worked to position themselves as " exceptional women", the only credible and respectable women, in any case " well above " other women.

There are few myths as perverse as the " queen bee " in the imaginary world surrounding women's leadership. He is perverse in three ways. First, it firmly re-anchors the idea that the world of power is natively that of men, accessible only to a minority of women who give guarantees that they are capable of being up to the task. Second, it assumes that a successful woman is a woman who treats other women badly. Third, he denies the possibility of sisterhood, maintaining the idea that women are first and foremost driven by rivalry.

When women shake up the codes

New York Mag columnist Ann Friedman has effectively dismantled this knot of stereotypes around women leaders who cannot have friends other than by using them as foils. In her article " Why powerful women make greatest friends ", she argues that women need to free themselves from the fear of being accused of sadistic narcissism as soon as they are ambitious.

Competition, she says, is not between women, it is with men who remain in the majority in spaces of power and do not always live, although women are taking an increasing place in them. What they are experiencing badly is not only the risk of seeing new competitors (new competitors, in this case) arrive in the prized space of responsibilities, it is also – and perhaps above all – that norms and codes can change. Also, as a conservative reaction, they could be tempted to stiffen up on gender benchmarks and show even more stereotypical expectations of women. Among these normative caricatures is the idea that a successful woman betrays her gender : by being less feminine herself and also by being less amiable to other women.

The " shine theory ", an exponential sisterhood strategy

But the opposite is true, Friedman says. Most ambitious women are more likely to make other women shine for the sake of making themselves shine than to belittle them. It is as if they were working to extend the realm of luminosity to put themselves in the spotlight. For example, we can cite the example of the women on Barack Obama's staff who had put in place a " strategy of amplification " of each other's voices in cab meetings. We can also mention women's networks, the very purpose of which is to multiply the number of women in visibility by mobilizing the energy of women and their allies. Women therefore practice exactly the opposite of the strategy of the foil.

But how can this inclination for sisterhood be explained? By the specificities of the career of women leaders, says the author. According to her, women become aware more quickly than men that you cannot succeed in isolation. They would have noticed at each stage of their progress that women were there for them, whether it was to look after their children, to contribute to " glue work " in companies or to support them morally, either informally or as part of professional support. This very concrete experience of support would make them relatively less sensitive than men to the conviction that individual merit is the primary ingredient of success and more receptive to the idea that success also depends on the quality of the environment in which one evolves.

Dare (and encourage) the " shine theory " !

With all this, the " shine theory " is beneficial for successful women because they take advantage of other women's willingness to shine a spotlight on them. It is also beneficial for women's ambition in general because the implicit promise of being supported and made visible by one's peers encourages much more audacity than the fear that girlfriends will sow banana peels. Finally, it is beneficial for organizations because the spotlight is on everyone, it is very useful for detecting and developing talent.

So, let's not hesitate any longer : let's dare to " shine theory ", let's dare to shine by making others shine. And let's encourage " shine theory " : it's not cronyism, it's a virtuous circle of ambition !

Marie Donzel, for the EVE webmagazine