Nice Girls Don't Get the Corner Office: 101 Unconscious Mistakes Women Make That Sabotage Their Careers

“From the therapy room to the conference room, for more than twenty-five years I have listened to women tell stories of how they were overlooked for promotions and placated when they expressed their ideas. I have observed women in hundreds of meetings. The thread common to those who were ignored was how they acted in and reacted to their situations. I could hear and see the ways in which they unknowingly undermined their credibility and sabotaged their own careers. No one had to do it for them.”

Firsthand observational evidence helps reinforce Frankel’s argument that women’s workplace setbacks often stem from behavioral patterns, thematically illustrating The Influence of Societal Conditioning on Professional Behavior. By drawing on decades of experience across both therapeutic and corporate settings, she establishes credibility while positioning herself as an expert witness to systemic workplace dynamics. The phrase “No one had to do it for them” serves as a striking conclusion, shifting responsibility away from external discrimination and onto women’s own actions, which, though unintentional, contribute to their career stagnation. This rhetorical move, while potentially controversial, aligns with her pragmatic approach—rather than focusing on structural reform, she urges women to recognize and change behaviors that diminish their authority and professional presence.

“I am fully aware that there are those who say the term empowerment is outdated and overdone. I strongly disagree. The people who think it’s overdone are those who possess the most power. Easy for them to say! They don’t really want anyone to have the same power and influence that they enjoy, and so they downplay empowerment’s importance in the employment and social arenas. It’s a classic case of the desire to maintain the status quo. Those who have power don’t really want to share it, so they minimize the need for others to share it. Without embarrassment or apology I say, This book is about empowerment.”

Frankel uses a direct and unapologetic tone to defend the concept of empowerment, positioning it as an ongoing necessity rather than an outdated notion. By using rhetorical contrast—“Easy for them to say!”—she highlights the privilege of those who dismiss empowerment, reinforcing the idea that resistance to power-sharing is a deliberate strategy to uphold existing hierarchies. Her choice of phrases like “without embarrassment or apology” signals her firm stance, rejecting any notion that advocating for women’s professional advancement should be seen as unnecessary or redundant. The repetition of “power” emphasizes its centrality to workplace dynamics, while the final declarative statement—“This book is about empowerment”—serves as both a thematic anchor for Empowerment Through Self-Awareness and Behavioral Change and a challenge to those who seek to dismiss the term’s relevance.

“Attempts to act counter to social stereotypes are frequently met with ridicule, disapproval, and scorn. Whether it was Mom’s message—‘Boys don’t like girls who are too loud’—or, in response to an angry outburst, a spouse’s message—‘What’s the matter? Is it that time of the month?’—women are continually bombarded with negative reinforcement for acting in any manner contrary to what they were taught in girlhood. As a result, they learn that acting like a ‘nice girl’ is less painful than assuming behaviors more appropriate for adult women (and totally acceptable for boys and adult men). In short, women wind up acting like little girls, even after they’re grown up.”

A combination of rhetorical contrast and social critique illustrate how deeply ingrained gender stereotypes shape women’s behavior. The juxtaposition of childhood conditioning (“Mom’s message”) with adult experiences (“a spouse’s message”) highlights the lifelong reinforcement of restrictive norms. Frankel’s use of ridicule and dismissal—phrased in patronizing tones—underscores how deviation from expected femininity incites social penalties, forcing women to internalize compliance as a means of self-preservation. The final sentence, with its stark contrast between “acting like little girls” and “grown up,” emphasizes the infantilization of women, reinforcing how societal pressures inhibit their professional and personal agency. By framing these learned behaviors as survival mechanisms rather than innate traits, Frankel challenges the assumption that women’s workplace struggles stem from individual shortcomings rather than systemic conditioning.

“When we live lives circumscribed by the expectations of others, we live limited lives. What does it really mean to live our lives as girls rather than women? It means we choose behaviors consistent with those that are expected of us rather than those that move us toward fulfillment and self-actualization. Rather than live consciously, we live reactively. Although we mature physically, we never really mature emotionally. And while this may allow us momentary relief from real-world dilemmas, it never allows us to be fully in control of our destinies.”

Frankel uses a philosophical and psychological lens to critique the constraints imposed by societal expectations, arguing that conforming to prescribed roles leads to stagnation rather than growth. The contrast between “living consciously” and “living reactively” highlights the lack of agency women experience when they prioritize external validation over personal fulfillment. The phrase “circumscribed by the expectations of others” reinforces the idea that these limitations are not self-imposed but rather socially constructed. The repetition of “never” in the final sentences emphasizes the long-term consequences of this conditioning—emotional immaturity, lack of autonomy, and an absence of true self-actualization. By equating this form of existence with a perpetual state of girlhood rather than womanhood, Frankel critiques the systemic barriers that prevent women from fully realizing their potential, illustrating how compliance with outdated gender norms ultimately strips them of control over their own destinies.

“Each time a woman directly asserts herself, however, she is essentially saying to the men in her life (whether they are husbands, sons, bosses, or other male authority figures), ‘I want something from you. I want what is rightfully mine. I expect my needs to be met, too.’ With each assertion we frequently feel guilty. We equate taking control back with taking something away from someone else. More than simply getting what we need, deserve, or want, we are forcing others to give back what we have been giving away for so long. The reactions we get are difficult to cope with. Others don’t really want the situation to change—they already have everything they need, so why should they change?”

To expose the deep-seated guilt that accompanies women’s attempts at self-advocacy, Frankel illustrates how societal conditioning equates female assertion with an act of taking rather than reclaiming. By framing direct assertion as a demand for what is “rightfully mine,” she emphasizes that women are not asking for special treatment but for fairness—yet this simple act disrupts entrenched power dynamics. The phrase “forcing others to give back” underscores how women’s habitual deference has created an imbalance that benefits those in control, making any attempt to rectify it feel like an unwelcome intrusion. Her rhetorical question at the end—“why should they change?”—highlights the self-interest that fuels resistance to gender equality, exposing the reality that those who already hold power have no incentive to alter the status quo. Through this analysis, Frankel reveals how internalized guilt and external pushback combine to keep women from fully embracing their own authority.

“Many women—especially those who grew up in the 1960s and 1970s—never had the opportunity to participate in competitive sports. Until relatively recently, few of us served in the armed forces, attended military academies, or participated in other activities that required us to play to win. As a result, we don’t know how to play the game, let alone play within bounds but at the edge (which will be explored further a little later in this chapter), and play to win without feeling apologetic or guilty. Worse yet, many women view the whole idea of the game of business as something unpleasant, dirty, and to be avoided at all costs.”

Frankel highlights how historical gender norms have left many women unprepared for the competitive nature of the professional world, framing their lack of exposure to high-stakes competition as a structural disadvantage rather than an inherent trait. By referencing activities like sports and military training—arenas traditionally dominated by men—she underscores how these experiences cultivate a mindset that embraces strategic risk-taking, assertiveness, and the drive to win. The contrast between men’s ingrained familiarity with competition and women’s discomfort with it reinforces the idea that many women enter the workforce without the same instinctive understanding of workplace dynamics. Her use of phrases like “play within bounds but at the edge” suggests that success requires a balance between following the rules and pushing limits, yet she acknowledges that many women hesitate to engage in such strategies. The closing statement—that some view business as “unpleasant, dirty, and to be avoided at all costs”—reveals a deeper cultural resistance, positioning the workplace as a space that women must actively reframe rather than reject in order to succeed.

“There’s a popular saying: ‘Women have to work twice as hard to be considered half as good.’ As a result, women are like little ants—working, working, working. They complain that they do more than everyone else, and they do! It’s a myth that people get ahead because they work hard. The truth is, no one ever got promoted purely because of hard work. Likability, strategic thinking, networking, and being a team player are but a few of the other factors that go into crafting a successful career.”

Challenging the widely accepted belief that hard work alone guarantees success, Frankel exposes the flawed mindset that often leads women to overwork without strategic advancement. By likening women to “little ants—working, working, working,” she uses imagery to highlight their relentless effort, yet also their invisibility in professional hierarchies. The repetition of “working” reinforces the exhausting cycle many women find themselves in—believing diligence will naturally lead to recognition while overlooking the importance of influence, visibility, and self-promotion. Her assertion that “no one ever got promoted purely because of hard work” disrupts traditional meritocratic ideals, emphasizing that career success is shaped by a combination of factors, including strategic networking, likability, and team dynamics. This passage serves as a wake-up call, urging women to move beyond the “work harder” mentality and adopt a more calculated approach to career growth, one that aligns with how professional success is actually determined.

“Nice girls find that others will try to make them feel guilty, selfish, or uncaring when they try to change things up and put their needs first. Whereas the nice girl wants to change, other people want to maintain status quo because it works for them. Winning women look at resistance as a necessary part of building relationships.”

Frankel illustrates how societal conditioning discourages women from prioritizing their own needs by weaponizing guilt, reinforcing the expectation that women should remain self-sacrificing and accommodating. The contrast between “nice girls” and “winning women” highlights a fundamental shift in mindset: While society pressures “nice girls” to maintain the status quo for the comfort of others, “winning women” recognize resistance as an inevitable and even productive part of asserting their needs. The phrase “it works for them” underscores how others benefit from women’s compliance, making any effort toward self-advocacy seem disruptive rather than necessary. However, Frankel reframes resistance as a relational dynamic rather than a deterrent—positioning it as a sign of growth rather than failure. By emphasizing that “winning women” expect and navigate resistance rather than fearing it, she encourages women to reframe pushback as a natural consequence of stepping into their power rather than a reason to retreat.

“As a psychiatrist friend once said to me, ‘Just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should do it.’ This is certainly true in the case of multitasking. Dr. Jeremy Hunter, an expert in workplace productivity and professor at the prestigious Drucker School of Management, has found that multitasking not only makes you less efficient and less effective, but, over time, stresses and even damages the brain. Splitting attention between two tasks decreases the limited amount of brainpower a person can devote to each task. The result? Neither task is done particularly well.”

Frankel challenges the common misconception that multitasking is an asset, instead framing it as a self-defeating habit that diminishes productivity and mental well-being. By citing experts like Dr. Jeremy Hunter, she reinforces her argument with scientific credibility, demonstrating that multitasking is not just ineffective but neurologically harmful. The contrast between capability (“just because you can”) and necessity (“doesn’t mean you should”) underscores the distinction between competence and efficiency, urging women to prioritize focused, high-quality work over juggling multiple tasks. The phrase “neither task is done particularly well” serves as a stark conclusion, emphasizing that multitasking ultimately undermines professional performance rather than enhancing it. Through this analysis, Frankel dismantles the myth that multitasking is a strength and instead advocates mindful, deliberate engagement with tasks as a strategy for greater workplace effectiveness.

“The desire to be liked is so strongly ingrained in some nice girls that it becomes nearly impossible for them to act in any alternative manner. They become immobilized at the thought of disappointing someone. It’s critical to understand the difference between being liked and being respected. If you’re concerned only with being liked, you will most likely miss the opportunity to be respected. Your need to be liked will preclude you from taking the kinds of risks taken by those who are respected. Conversely, if you’re concerned only with being respected and not liked, you lose the support of people you may need in your camp. Paradoxically, it’s the people who are liked and respected who are most successful in the workplace.”

Critiquing the paralyzing effect of prioritizing likability over professional growth, Frankel highlights how the need for approval prevents women from taking necessary risks. By positioning “being liked” and “being respected” as opposing forces, she emphasizes the tension between social conditioning and professional advancement. The phrase “immobilized at the thought of disappointing someone” illustrates the emotional weight that societal expectations place on women, reinforcing the idea that stepping outside the boundaries of niceness can feel almost impossible. However, Frankel avoids advocating complete detachment from social approval, acknowledging that mutual respect and likability are not mutually exclusive but, when balanced, are key to workplace success. Her use of the paradox—those who are both liked and respected achieve the greatest success—serves as a call for women to redefine their professional identities, not by seeking universal approval, but by commanding respect through confidence, competence, and strategic relationship-building.

“The lesson here is: If you live your life within the boundaries circumscribed by others, you’ll never know the full scope of your potential—nor will anyone else.”

Highlighting the self-limiting nature of societal expectations, Frankel argues that those who conform to externally imposed boundaries risk never realizing their full potential. The phrase “circumscribed by others” highlights how external pressures—whether from cultural norms, workplace dynamics, or personal relationships—shape women’s behavior, often in ways that hinder growth. The use of “never know” emphasizes the irreversible cost of this conformity, suggesting that unchallenged limitations not only stunt personal development but also obscure one’s capabilities from the world. By framing this as a lesson, Frankel urges readers to actively resist these constraints, as she positions self-awareness and autonomy as essential for both personal fulfillment and professional success. This statement aligns with her broader argument that breaking free from conditioned behaviors is not just a career strategy but a necessary step toward self-actualization and empowerment.

“My experience with women who give up what’s important to them to meet the needs of the job is that either they don’t have anything to go home to or they don’t want to deal with what they do have to go home to. Like any other ‘ism,’ workaholism is usually in the service of avoidance. Having activities and people outside work that are important to you helps you remain positive and productive. It’s a fallacy that you have to give up your life to have a successful career.”

Frankel critiques workaholism as a form of avoidance and argues that excessive dedication to work often masks deeper personal dissatisfaction. The phrase “don’t have anything to go home to” suggests that for some, work becomes a substitute for meaningful personal connections, while “don’t want to deal with what they do have” implies that others use work as an escape from personal struggles. By framing this as an “ism”, Frankel likens it to other destructive compulsions and positions it not as a virtue but as a coping mechanism. The fallacy she exposes is the widespread belief that professional success requires total sacrifice, which reinforces her argument that a balanced life, including relationships and interests outside of work, enhances rather than hinders productivity and fulfillment. Through this analysis, she challenges the glorification of overwork and advocates a healthier, more sustainable approach to career success.

“The men felt they were entitled to even more than what their colleagues had been offered at the other company, whereas the women felt it would be ‘fair’ to get equal to what their colleagues received. In other words, men had more of a sense of entitlement and women more of a desire to ask for what they thought was ‘fair.’”

Thematically underscoring the thinking behind Strategies for Overcoming Gender Stereotypes in the Workplace, Frankel contrasts men’s sense of entitlement with women’s tendency to prioritize fairness, which illustrates a significant psychological and social divide in workplace negotiation. The phrase “felt it would be fair” suggests that women often approach negotiations from a cooperative and equitable perspective rather than an assertive, self-maximizing one. This framing reveals how deeply ingrained social conditioning influences professional behavior, teaching women to seek fairness rather than push for more, while encouraging men to demand what they believe they deserve regardless of external benchmarks. The word “entitlement” carries a sense of confidence—perhaps even audacity—whereas “fair” suggests a more passive, conciliatory stance, reinforcing the cultural expectation that women should be agreeable rather than self-advocating. Frankel uses this example to highlight how this difference in mindset leads to gendered disparities in salary negotiations and career advancement, which ultimately contributes to the persistent wage gap.

“As Scottish essayist Thomas Carlyle said, ‘All work, even cotton spinning, is noble; work alone is noble.’ Regardless of what you do, be proud of it and describe it in a way that allows others to see that pride and, in turn, builds your personal brand.”

Frankel uses Carlyle’s quote to reframe the perception of work as inherently valuable, regardless of the role or industry. By emphasizing pride in one’s work, she reinforces the idea that self-presentation plays a key role in shaping professional identity and career advancement. The phrase “describe it in a way that allows others to see that pride” highlights the power of narrative and branding—how one articulates their contributions directly influences how they are perceived. This aligns with her broader argument that women often downplay their achievements, assuming their work will speak for itself, rather than actively positioning themselves as competent and valuable professionals. The reference to personal branding ties into her critique of modesty as a career-limiting trait as she urges women to own their accomplishments and present their work with confidence to gain the recognition they deserve.

“Women, especially those who are not particularly good at ‘selling’ themselves, are often overlooked—not because of lack of capability, but because of modesty or the mistaken belief that their accomplishments will eventually be noticed.”

Frankel critiques the passivity ingrained in women’s professional behavior, emphasizing how modesty—traditionally seen as a virtue—becomes a self-sabotaging habit in the workplace. The phrase “mistaken belief” underscores the disconnect between effort and recognition, which challenges the assumption that hard work alone guarantees success. By framing self-promotion as a necessary skill rather than arrogance, she highlights how women’s reluctance to advocate for themselves results in their being overlooked despite their competence. The contrast between capability and visibility reinforces her core argument: Success is not just about merit but also about ensuring that one's contributions are acknowledged. Thus, Frankel exposes how deep-seated social conditioning discourages women from taking ownership of their achievements and urges them to shed outdated notions of humility and instead actively assert their value in professional spaces.

“Both boys and girls are taught in childhood to be modest—but women take the lesson way too far. There’s a time and a place for modesty. When you’ve moved a mountain, broken the sound barrier, or produced a miracle, it’s neither the time nor the place. When people fail to notice your major accomplishments, it’s your job to illuminate them. Making things look easy or seamless when in fact they required herculean efforts isn’t a great marketing technique.”

Thematically highlighting The Influence of Societal Conditioning on Professional Behavior, Frankel uses contrast and irony to critique the extreme modesty ingrained in women. By stating that both genders are taught modesty but that women “take the lesson way too far,” she highlights the disproportionate impact of socialization: Women internalize self-effacement even when it harms their careers. Hyperbolic examples—“moved a mountain, broken the sound barrier, or produced a miracle”—emphasize the absurdity of downplaying extraordinary achievements. The phrase “it's neither the time nor the place” signals a shift in perspective, urging women to recognize moments when self-promotion is necessary rather than a violation of social norms. Additionally, her critique of making things appear “seamless” as a flawed marketing strategy reinforces the idea that perception shapes professional advancement—if effort is invisible, so is success. Through this rhetorical approach, Frankel challenges women to reclaim visibility in their professional narratives.

“This is one of the most common mistakes I hear women make: asking a question as a safe way of expressing an idea without being perceived as too direct or pushy. Such questions typically take the form of ‘What would you think if we…’ or ‘Have you considered…’ By asking a question rather than making a statement, we relinquish the ownership and outcomes of our ideas.”

Frankel uses cause-and-effect reasoning to illustrate how linguistic choices shape professional authority. By framing ideas as questions—“What would you think if we…” or “Have you considered…”—women inadvertently dilute their own contributions, making their ideas seem tentative rather than authoritative. The phrase “as a safe way” highlights the underlying fear of being perceived as aggressive, reinforcing how social conditioning teaches women to prioritize likability over directness. The verb “relinquish” conveys a sense of lost agency, emphasizing that this habit does not merely soften communication but actively transfers power to others. By linking this pattern to broader workplace consequences, Frankel highlights the subtle yet significant ways in which language reinforces professional inequality, urging women to reclaim ownership of their voices and ideas.

“Apologizing for unintentional, low profile, nonegregious errors erodes our self-confidence and, in turn, the confidence others have in us. Whether it’s inadvertently bumping into someone on the street or making a small mistake in the office, a woman is far more likely to apologize than a man. It’s second nature to us and often done in place of confronting the real source of the mistake—the other person’s poor communication. It’s a conflict-reducing technique, but one that makes you look like you’re at fault when in fact you’re not.”

Contrast and repetition highlight how habitual apologizing undermines women’s confidence and authority. By juxtaposing “our self-confidence” with “the confidence others have in us”, she emphasizes how this behavior is not just self-sabotaging but also shapes external perceptions, reinforcing a cycle of diminished credibility. The phrase “second nature” suggests how deeply ingrained this tendency is, framing it as a learned behavior rather than an inherent trait. Her use of cause-and-effect reasoning—linking apologies to “conflict-reducing” rather than accountability—reveals how women often use apologies as a social survival tactic, even when they are not at fault. By exposing this disconnect, Frankel critiques the societal conditioning that teaches women to prioritize harmony over self-assurance and urges them to replace reflexive apologies with assertive communication, continuing her thematic development of Empowerment Through Self-Awareness and Behavioral Change.

“Despite the fact that one in five adults now have tattoos, a study conducted by career website Vault.com suggests that 85 percent of respondents think that a tattoo or body piercing negatively affects a candidate’s ability to get a job. Bryan Caplan, an economics professor at George Mason University, went so far as to suggest there’s an inverse correlation between tattoos and lifetime earnings.”

Statistical evidence and expert testimony help illustrate how societal biases about appearance persist in professional settings. By contrasting the growing prevalence of tattoos (“one in five adults”) with the high percentage (“85 percent”) of hiring managers who perceive them negatively, Frankel refers to a disconnect between cultural shifts and workplace norms. The mention of Bryan Caplan’s assertion about an inverse correlation between tattoos and lifetime earnings further reinforces the idea that these biases have material consequences, not just in hiring but in long-term career trajectories. This use of authoritative sourcing lends credibility to her argument, showing that professional success is often influenced by subjective judgments rather than purely merit-based evaluations.

“Communication consultant Tom Henschel advises clients to use gestures that ‘break the silhouette.’ That is, when you stand with your hands at your sides or in front of you, your silhouette shows no gestures. When you work on taking up more space, your gestures should move outside the line of that silhouette. You can do this whether you’re sitting at a conference table or standing in a doorway having a chat.”

Frankel refers to Tom Henschel’s advice on “breaking the silhouette,” highlighting the intersection of body language and perceived authority in professional settings. By encouraging women to expand their gestures beyond their natural silhouette, she reinforces the idea that physical presence influences professional credibility. The metaphor of the “silhouette” serves as a symbol of constraint, suggesting that women, often conditioned to take up less space, must actively reclaim physical authority to command attention. This aligns with broader themes in the book regarding nonverbal communication as a tool for professional advancement. The use of expert opinion lends credibility to the argument, emphasizing that confidence is not just conveyed through words but through how one physically occupies space.

“Observe how men sit at meetings. When they’re speaking, confident men almost always lean in with their elbows and hands resting on the table. When men begin listening to something that intrigues them, you can picture them sitting with their elbows on the table, chin resting on their clasped hands. And what do we do? We often do as we were taught—sit coyly with our hands folded in our laps or under the table. The difference is striking. As uncomfortable as it may be at first, when it comes to being taken seriously, all research points to the need to ‘put it on the table.’”

Contrast and observational analysis highlight how gendered body language impacts professional perception. The juxtaposition between men’s assertive postures and women’s reserved seating habits emphasizes the subconscious ways women diminish their presence in professional settings. The phrase “as we were taught” reinforces that this behavior is not innate but rather a product of social conditioning that discourages women from taking up space. The directive “put it on the table” serves as both a literal and figurative call to action, urging women to adopt more authoritative body language and assert confidence and credibility. By framing posture as a key determinant of workplace influence, Frankel emphasizes that small behavioral adjustments—such as leaning in and taking up space—can shift professional dynamics and enhance how women are perceived in leadership contexts.

“Parents are guilty of giving children all kinds of messages that they carry with them for a lifetime. Not all of these are negative, but they do impact our self-esteem and how we see ourselves in the world. Whether it’s ‘You’re just like your father—you’ll never amount to anything,’ or ‘You’re such a sweet girl. You’re going to grow up and get married and have lots of children,’ the message sets the stage for a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

Frankel explores the lasting psychological impact of childhood messaging and demonstrates how parental expectations shape self-perception and career trajectories. By juxtaposing overtly negative statements (“You’ll never amount to anything”) with seemingly positive ones (“You’re such a sweet girl”), she reveals how both can create limiting beliefs that dictate one’s sense of potential and self-worth. The phrase “self-fulfilling prophecy” reinforces the deterministic nature of these messages, suggesting that once internalized, they become guiding frameworks for behavior and ambition. Her use of direct quotes mimics how such phrases are ingrained in memory, which makes the argument more visceral and relatable. By highlighting how even well-intended praise can reinforce traditional gender roles, Frankel critiques social conditioning that narrows women’s aspirations and subtly urges readers to recognize and challenge these inherited narratives.

“In workshops and seminars women frequently ask, ‘What should I do when I’m asked to make coffee for or take notes at a meeting?’ The easy answer is, ‘Don’t do it.’ What’s harder is avoiding it. Each time we accept one of these tasks, we perpetuate the stereotype that a professional woman’s role is to nurture, care for, and serve others at work.”

Highlighting how seemingly small, everyday office tasks reinforce entrenched gender roles, Frankel shows that workplace inequality is not just about overt discrimination but also about subtle, repeated behaviors. By using the rhetorical structure of an easy answer (“Don’t do it”) versus the harder reality (“avoiding it”), she acknowledges the social pressure women face to comply with these expectations, which makes resistance more complex than it seems. The phrase “perpetuate the stereotype” underscores how complying with these requests is not just an individual issue but a systemic one, where each acceptance reinforces the larger societal expectation that women should perform supportive roles rather than leadership ones. Frankel’s choice of verbs—“nurture, care for, and serve”—further emphasizes how these tasks are tied to historically assigned domestic and caregiving roles, which makes them particularly difficult to reject without social consequences.