Researchers Linda Babcock, Maria P. Recalde, and Lise Vesterlund look into “Why Women Volunteer for Tasks That Don't Lead to Promotions” in an op-ed in the Harvard Business Review. One of the reasons they give is that women do a lot of the “glue work”, or non-promotable work, in a business. We explain what it is and how it can hinder women's careers.

Holding together the components of project mode

The notion of “glue work” was coined by engineer Tanya Reilly in a blog post entitled “Being glue”. In a deliciously ironic text alongside visually impactful vignettes, she describes a paradox of teamwork. Everyone contributes their expertise and technical know-how. 

But someone needs to be the glue that holds the project together, making sure it runs smoothly, that deadlines are met and that the whole thing is coherent. Someone needs to keep things on track, follow up on those who are trailing behind, check on submissions, plan times for discussions, correct errors or have them corrected, handle tricky personalities, answer questions, onboard additional resources, etc.

Yes, that's normally handled by the project manager. If there is one. And sometimes that person tends to focus more on the “manager” part than on the “project” part. Nowadays, when “experts” are celebrated and “talent” is pampered, plenty of people are willing to wear the leader’s hat, as long as they don’t have to handle all the tasks that come with it, especially those that weigh down their mental load, and that they would rather see done by a super-assistant. Trouble is, “super-assistants” are few and far between, particularly in organizations that operate in project mode.

So, someone has to hold everything together. Who? The perfectionist? The best team-builder? The one least inclined to assert their expert status? The most pragmatic one who knows that if you don't tighten the bolts between the plates, the structure has no chance of holding? The most experienced, who knows the entire value chain and has learned from past mistakes, so understands that a project’s success depends on coordinating people and tying up the details? The most recent member of the team, so they can learn the ropes?

It can feel a bit like a game of Old Maid: who ends up with the unlucky card and does the “glue work”? But, as Tanya Reilly points out, it’s not that this work is less valuable, it’s that it isn’t recognized as valuable! When it comes to promotions, bonuses, and raises, what matters is that you can highlight a creative contribution you made, a particularly ingenious program you came up with, a brilliant idea you had, an important customer you secured.  

What doesn’t seem to matter is that you’ve worked solidly on micro-tasks, replied to and satisfied multiple requests and found solutions to the everyday problems that get projects finished.

An extension of invisible labor

Non-promotable “glue work” isn’t only about how things operate in project mode, but extends to all organizational cultures in the financialized economy, according to the economist Pierre-Yves Gomez, author of the essay Le travail invisible – Enquête sur une disparition. Accusing reporting processes of being intrinsically linked to shareholders' idea of value and performance, Gomez denounces a growing invisibilization of “real work” in favor of an overestimation of positions that can be traced as directly profitable. Here, profitable must be understood in the literal sense of the term: something that makes money. It’s common sense, you have to focus on what generates profit.

But the game is rigged, because in reality, profit generation doesn’t happen with the actual work: the range of tasks, actions and behaviors that are essential to the value chain. It's just that by being largely absent from the metrics used to measure value creation, this “real work” is devalued, under-recognized, and sometimes treated as if should be free.

But what is “invisible work”? For Gomez, a promoter of emancipatory work, it is all about “subjective and collective work”: how individuals “do their job well”, how they help others and contribute to the life of the collective, cooperating and learning. It is what makes the difference between a salesperson who merely follows the chain’s commercial handbook and one who truly engages with each customer. 

It’s the distinction between the colleague who focuses solely on reaching their own goals first and the one who makes sure everyone on the team can achieve theirs. It’s the time spent sharing experience, tips and advice with others. It’s the energy invested in team spirit, conflict resolution, and supporting newcomers. It’s is the commitment to meaningful projects, even if they are not necessarily the most profitable. It’s the attention given to maintaining everyone’s well-being and keeping them motivated.

Who pays for “glue work”?

Women tend to take on this work more readily than men, according to Babcock, Recalde & Vesterlu in their article “Why Women Volunteer for Tasks That Don't Lead to Promotions”. Their research has allowed them to estimate that women perform 200 more hours of non-promotable work per year than men.

This “free” work is costly for those who do it. They pay a price on three levels:

• In the short term, non-promotable work doesn’t generate bonuses or raises.

• In the medium term, it doesn’t allow workers to showcase their skills for career development, even though it is an excellent arena for implementing all kinds of soft-skills like empathy, emotional intelligence, relationship management, mediation, adaptability, political awareness, stress management, solution orientation, openness to change, and creativity.

• In the long term, as Babcock, Recalde & Vesterlu emphasize, this bad habit of doing “free work” reinforces stereotypes about “women’s work”, which is perceived as focused on care, relationships, self-giving, and the collective, rather than on performance. rationality, competitiveness and ambition.

In short, women's “glue work” contributes to the glass ceiling!

Can you say no to “glue work”?

Linda Babcock and her colleagues suggest that women should learn to say “no” to non-promotable work, a concept they explore in a book entitled The No Club. Saying “no” isn’t easy. Women often take on this work out of fear of displeasing others: the expectation to be the one who serves, arranges, welcomes, supports, and keeps the work environment pleasant.

But who are they afraid of upsetting? Other women, perhaps, according to the queen bee myth (oh, she’s not as nice to other women as she was before she was promoted)? Men, who may support women being promoted, but would prefer that they preserve their stereotypical feminine attributes (Women bosses? sure, but not if they’re going to behave like men!)? Or themselves, uncomfortable with the reflection of a woman who refuses to be endlessly helpful, who keeps a respectful distance from care duties, and reserves her time and energy for work that actually advances her career? 

Babcock argues that women need to challenge the limiting beliefs that hold back their careers. They can learn to say “no” without feeling selfish, delegate undervalued tasks without guilt, step back from daily pressures without self-reproach, and even encourage men to take on their fair share of non-promotable work without fear of being seen as confrontational.

“Glue work” can only be shared out equally if women dare to say “no”. This issue raises broader questions for organizations about the value they place on this essential work of connecting people, and how that value is reflected in compensation and promotion decisions.