Gender distinctions and empathy in negotiation.

Barkacs, Linda L. ; Standifird, Stephen

INTRODUCTION

Gender differences are the most researched topic in negotiation (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). When we speak of gender in the context of negotiation, we are referring to the "cultural and psychological markers of the sexes," not biology (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). Most research in the area focuses on the role of women in society and its effect on negotiation outcomes. Few researchers would posit that there are purely biological explanations of negotiator behavior (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). So are there actually differences in the negotiating behavior of males and females? Or is it simply society's expectations that lead us to see differences that don't truly exist?

Research indicates that there are differences in approaches, expectations, and yes, outcomes of negotiation based on gender. This paper will endeavor to do three things. First, we will review past and current research to identify gender differences based on empirical research. Second, we will look at how and why these differences impact the outcomes of negotiations. For example, are males and females treated differently for assertive or aggressive negotiation behavior? And what role, if any, does empathy play in negotiation? Finally, we offer suggestions that we hope will "even the playing field."

IDENTIFYING GENDER DISTINCTIONS IN NEGOTIATION

Prior to the 1990s, research in the area of gender differences typically neglected the importance of relationships in negotiation (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). Moreover, much of the research prior to this time treated gender as "a stable set of characteristics that describe all women (or men) in negotiation situations"(Kolb & Coolidge, 1991; Kolb & Williiams, 2003). Assuming that males and females do differ in their approaches to negotiation, then exactly what are those differences? There are several prevailing theories. We approach these theories keeping in mind the caveat that not all females behave the same way, just as all males do not behave the same way.

CULTURAL STEREOTYPES

There is little doubt that males have an advantage as the "dominant cultural stereotype" in our society (Kolb & Coolidge, 1991; Kolb & Williams, 2003). This is particularly true for white males (see section two of this paper re: empirical studies done in 1991 and 1995). Negative stereotypes about women negotiators may influence expectations, as well as behaviors, of both males and females at the negotiating table (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). In a management study, a group of managers were asked to list eight characteristics that they believed managers must have to be effective leaders. The males' lists included aggressiveness, confidence, and objectivity in their top five (Carrell & Heavrin, 2008). These characteristics are compatible with a competitive style of negotiation (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). Female managers listed appreciation, recognizing strengths, fairness, and accessibility as the most important characteristics of a leader (Segal, 1991). These qualities are compatible with a collaborative style of negotiation (Carrell & Heavrin, 2008). Moreover, two large-scale reviews concluded that women behave more cooperatively than men (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). Females are seen as more patient and empathetic, as well as better listeners (Klein, 2005; Cahn, 1992). These studies seem to buttress the view that society expects males to be more aggressive, while females are expected to be more cooperative (i.e., less aggressive). In section two of this paper, we will examine how these expectations affect negotiation outcomes.

RELATIONSHIPS

Another prominent theory on the differences between male and female negotiators is that females are more aware of the relationship between negotiators, whereas males are more task-specific (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). In studies on nonverbal communication, women are seen as more approachable and more focused on the other person during interactions (Thompson & Kleiner, 1992). Men are viewed as more composed, therefore less expressive. A partial explanation of the behavior of women is that they fear fewer rewards and greater costs if they fail to expressive positive emotion (Thompson & Kleiner, 1992). In addition, nonverbal expressiveness is linked with social power (Thompson & Kleiner, 1992). Those with lower social status and power are expected to engage in great expressivity (Thompson & Kleiner, 1992). Women have traditionally held lower social status than men. These expectations may affect how men and women deal with issues during negotiation.

In 2003, Deborah M. Kolb and Judith Williams published their theories on the hidden context within every negotiation (Kolb & Williams, 2003). This hidden context was dubbed the "shadow negotiation." The theory posits that while people negotiate over issues, they also negotiate how they will relate to one another. During the process of trying to persuade the other party, each negotiator makes assumptions about the other negotiator's wants, weakness, and likely behavior. Kolb and Williams conclude that the shadow negotiation is where bargainers decide how cooperative they will be in reaching a mutual solution. Relationships play a larger role in women's lives than in men's, therefore it makes sense that women's attitudes toward negotiation are more focused on relationships. When engaged in integrative (i.e., "win-win") negotiations, women may actually have an advantage over men, as more cooperative behavior is required (Carrell & Heavrin, 2008). Distributive (i.e., "win-lose") negotiation requires competitive behavior, which is typically associated with a masculine negotiation style (Carrell & Heavrin, 2008). Section two of this paper will address exceptions to the theory that women's cooperative negotiating style is equal or superior to more masculine negotiation styles (e.g., women negotiating on their own behalf versus women negotiating for others).

ENTITLEMENT, ABILITY, AND WORTH

Recent research indicates that women are more likely than men to see their worth as determined by what the employer will pay (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). Conversely, men have higher expectations as to what they will earn over the course of their careers (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). Harvard professors Kathleen McGinn and Hannah Riley Bowles conducted an experiment to look at the differences in how men and women negotiate. McGinn and Bowles began with data on job offers to MBA graduates and implemented controls on variables such as industry. While men and women did not negotiate drastically different salaries (women negotiated slightly lower starting salaries), they did negotiate other packages (Legace, 2003). For example, women did not negotiate as big of bonuses and moving allowances than men (Legace, 2003). Why? According to the theory of the "entitlement effect," people get what they think they deserve. Studies indicate that women perceive that they deserve to earn less than men (Legace, 2003). People really do seem to live up or down to expectations, and, accordingly, if you expect less, you will receive less. In one experiment, men and women were brought into a lab and told either "Work until you think you have earned the $10 we just gave you" or "Work and then tell us how much you think you deserve" (Legace, 2003). Women consistently worked longer with fewer errors for comparable pay, or they paid themselves less for comparable work (Legace, 2003).

One theory on why women expect less is linked to women's reference points regarding salaries. Women compare themselves to other women and men compare themselves to other men (Legace, 2003). Given that women on average earn less than men (Babcock & Laschever, 2003), women are comparing themselves to lower wage earners, thus leading to lower expectations. Moreover, while both men and women both have socio-emotional support networks, males typically have socio-emotional support networks made up of the men that they work with. When a male needs advice about what he should be paid, or how to handle a problem at work, he asks the men with whom he works. Conversely, most female socio-emotional support networks consist of people outside the workplace. While women do have social networks with the men they work with, there is not the same type of emotional bond across gender (Legace, 2003). So if women consult with women outside their workplace regarding how much they should be paid, the range will typically be lower than if that same woman asked a man from her workplace.

EXPECTATIONS WITHIN SOCIETY AND ONE'S SELF

Society has a greater expectation of "niceness" from women than from men (Babcock & Laschever, 2003). One body of research shows that when women are required to act in a way that is stereotypically male, such as being authoritative or aggressively claiming resources, there may be a backlash against them (Babcock & Laschever, 2003). Women who "lock into an unrelenting competitive stance when their partners refuse to cooperate," are viewed as "vindictive" (Klein, 2005; Watson, 1994).

Moreover, "gender triggers" may cause women to check their own behaviors (Legace, 2003). When a woman is in a situation with a gender trigger and ambiguity (e.g., where the leader is historically male or what the woman is doing is defined as male or masculine), the woman may feel uncomfortable. Environmental cues signal to women that men should be claiming more resources than them (Legace, 2003). Even if a woman feels entitled, she may stop herself from acting in what is typically defined as a masculine behavior.

EMBEDDED VIEW OF AGENCY

Males and females see negotiation in different ways. Women tend to see negotiation as "behavior that occurs within relationships without large divisions marking when it begins and ends (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). Accordingly, women may be less likely to recognize when negotiations are occurring (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). Conversely, men tend to demarcate negotiation from other behaviors within the relationship. Men see a clear beginning and end to a negotiation, and will signal such with their behavior (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007).

If women do not necessarily understand when a negotiation is occurring, then logically women are not going to get a fair share of the pie. In her ground-breaking book Women Don't Ask, Linda Babcock explains how women can lose ground without even realizing it. While she was acting as the director of the Ph.D. program at her school, many of the male graduate students were teaching their own classes, but most of the female graduate students were assigned as teaching assistants to the regular faculty. Babcock was approached by the female students and decided to take up the matter with the Associate Dean. It was explained to her that "[M]ore men ask. The women just don't ask"(Babcock & Laschever, 2003). Women are more likely than men to believe that life is a meritocracy. Research suggests that many women believe that simply working hard and doing a good job will be recognized and, accordingly, will bring them success and advancements (Babcock & Laschever, 2003).

Research in this area also suggests that men and women differ on their propensity to negotiate (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). In a 2004 study participants were told that they would receive between $3 and $10 for their performance on a word task. After completing the task, participants were told "Here's $3. Is $3 OK?" (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). Males were much more likely than females to ask for more money. This result was true in two different scenarios. In the first, the participants received no social cues involving negotiation. In the second, participants were explicitly told that negotiation was an option. Interestingly, gender differences disappeared when participants were told they could "ask for more money" (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007).

POWER AND PROBLEM-SOLVING

Men and women use dialogue in different ways. From the time they are young children, women use dialogue to engage others "in a joint exploration of ideas whereby understanding is progressively clarified through interaction" (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). Women alternatively listen and contribute. Men, however, use dialogue to convince the other party that their position is correct and to win points during the discussion (Lewicki& Sanders, 2007).

Women and men also perceive and use power in different ways (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). As with dialogue, women seek empowerment where there is "interaction among all parties in the relationship to build connection and enhance everyone's power (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007)." Men tend to use power either to achieve their own goals or to force the other party to submit to their point of view (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007).

The difference between male and female views of dialogue and power correlate somewhat with distributive (typically male) (Klein, 2005) versus cooperative (typically female) styles of negotiation (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). Women may feel more comfortable with integrative negotiation because it focuses on problem-solving and relationship building. Men, conversely, may feel more at ease negotiating distributively (i.e., win-lose). Babcock argues that from birth men are taught to uphold masculine norms of competition and superiority and that women learn early that competing and winning against a man may threaten his socially defined masculinity (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007).

THE IMPACT OF GENDER DIFFERENCES ON NEGOTIATION

To date, empirical research has reached inconsistent results as to whether men or women negotiate better results (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). Two large-scale reviews found that women behave more cooperatively than men, but men get better outcomes (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007).

Other research has looked at the differences in how men and women think about negotiation, how they respond to tactics, how they are influenced by stereotypes, and other factors that may or may not influence negotiation outcomes (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). There is evidence, however, that men and women are treated differently in negotiation when they engage in the same behavior (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007) .

THE IMPACT OF GENDER ON AUTOMOBILE NEGOTIATIONS

Women's propensity to negotiate (or lack thereof), discussed earlier in this paper, appears to have an impact on the results of automobile sales. In a Consumer Federation of America survey, a combined 37% of male and female respondents did not believe that the sticker price on a car was negotiable (Ayres, 1995). In addition, women were more likely than men to be misinformed about the willingness of dealers to negotiate the price of a new car (Ayres, 1995).

In one large study in Chicago, all the negotiation testers were given two days of training, followed a set script, and were similar in age, dress, economic class, occupation, and attractiveness (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). The automobile salesperson's initial and final offers to females were higher than those made to males (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). Variables such as the length of the negotiation and concession rates were not found to differ significantly based on gender or race (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). All negotiators in the test received the same average concession from the car dealers. As such, all the negotiation testers thought they had negotiated good deals. The difference in the final price occurred because the salespeople made higher opening offers to females and blacks (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). Perhaps surprisingly, the results did not differ when the salesperson was a woman or black (i.e., women and blacks versus white men did not gain an advantage by dealing with a female or black salesperson) (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007).

THE IMPACT OF GENDER ON SALARY NEGOTIATIONS

A 1991 study of MBA graduates found that, while men and women were equally likely to negotiate, men received higher salaries for negotiating their salary than did females (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). The study was controlled for the effects of industry, college major, GPA, and business experience. The differences in salary may have emerged from how negotiators define the bargaining zone (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). As discussed earlier in this paper, women may suffer from the "entitlement effect" (the belief that they deserve to earn less). Moreover, a woman's reference point is typically other women--women who traditionally earn less than men. The combination of lower expectations and misinformation about their worth may contribute greatly to women receiving less when negotiating salary.

More recent research indicates that that in unambiguous situations there is little or no pay gap between men and women (Legace, 2003). This is true in industries were salaries are normative. These industries include investment banking, consulting, and high technology (Pradel, Bowles & McGinn, 2006). Even in such industries, however, women and men negotiate difference packages (Legace, 2003). In "high-ambiguity industries," such as telecommunications, real estate, health services and media male MBAs negotiated salaries that were on average $10,000 higher than salaries negotiated by female MBAs (Pradel, Bowles & McGinn, 2006). Assuming that the lower paid MBAs continue working in high-ambiguity industries for the next 35 years and receive a three percentage increase each year, the wage gap is more than $600,000 (Pradel, Bowles & McGinn, 2006). Invested at 5% annual interest, the gap grows to $1.5 million (Pradel, Bowles & McGinn, 2006).

EFFECT OF NEGOTIATOR PERCEPTIONS ON NEGOTIATION OUTCOMES

Research over the years indicates that gender differences in negotiation outcomes is not necessarily based on differences in behavior, but rather how the same behavior of male and female negotiators is perceived differently (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). In the context of salary negotiations, some research indicates that males may receive a more positive outcome by reminding supervisors of previous favors and offering to make sacrifices (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). This same tactic, when used by female employees, has a negative effect. Many scholars believe that this is based on stereotypical expectations about appropriate female behavior (Kray & Thompson, 2005).

In a study on aggressive tactics in salary negotiations, Bowles and colleagues (Pradel, Bowled & McGinn, 2006) had participants read a resume and interview notes from a job candidate. The gender was varied. In addition, some candidates attempted to negotiate job benefits and others did not. The results indicated that both males and females are less likely to be hired when bargaining aggressively (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). Females, however were three and a half times less likely to be hired when they behaved aggressively (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). Arguably, this is because there is a greater expectation of "niceness" from women (Legace, 2003).

THE IMPACT OF THE STEREOTYPE EFFECT ON NEGOTIATION OUTCOMES

The stereotype effect is a form of performance anxiety that causes certain individuals (e.g., women and minorities) to fear that their performance will confirm negative stereotypes (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). Kray, Thompson, and Galinsky (2005) did extensive research in 2001 examining how the performance of male and female negotiators varied depending on the type of sex-role stereotypes activated in particular situations (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007). Their findings led to the conclusion that males and females claim resources differently and perceive negotiation differently.

For example, when told that a bargaining task is a test of one's ability to negotiate, females typically did worse than males. Conversely, when negotiators are told that the task is not a test of ability, there are no differences in performance (Lewicki & Sanders, 2007).

THE IMPACT OF EMPATHY ON NEGOTIATION OUTCOMES

"Empathy refers to a person's understanding of and sensitivity to the feelings, thoughts, and situations of others"(McShane & Von Glinow, 2008). The "female model" of negotiation posits that a key characteristic of women's negotiating behavior is that they are empathetic (Carrell & Heavrin, 2008). In his book Working with Emotional Intelligence, author Daniel Goleman (2000) opines that to negotiate effectively, individuals need to identify and use their emotional intelligence (Carrell & Heavrin, 2008; Goleman, 2000). Emotional intelligence encompasses the following five characteristics as they relate to a bargaining situation: self-awareness, self-regulation, self-motivation, empathy, and managing relationships (Goleman, 2008).

In the context of negotiations, negotiators need the ability to understand the other party's verbal and nonverbal messages, as well as the link between others' emotions and their behavior (Goleman, 2008). Research supports the view that women, generally, are more empathetic when negotiating. In a process called "stereotype regeneration," the link between stereotypical feminine traits (e.g., empathy) and negotiation effectiveness is strengthened (Kray & Thompson, 2005). When the stereotype of an effective negotiator is "regenerated" to include feminine traits (such as empathy), women gain the bargaining advantage (Kray & Thompson, 2005).

OVERCOMING GENDER DIFFERENCES IN NEGOTIATION: FOCUS ON COMMON GOALS AND DEPENDENCY

Women are more likely to be punished for self-promoting behavior than men. The world will not change overnight, therefore women need to discover ways to overcome this disadvantage. Experts in the area suggest when women negotiate in these types of situations, emphasis should be placed on the dependency of both parties to the relationship (Kray & Thompson, 2005). The benefit of this approach is the way in which talking about common goals transcends gender.

OVERCOMING GENDER DIFFERENCES IN NEGOTIATION: ACTIVATE GENDER STEREOTYPES

There is some evidence that activating a gender stereotype can improve performance. In one study, researchers found that after female negotiators were told that masculine traits lead to better performance, women often outperformed men in mixed-gender negotiations (Kray & Thompson, 2005). When feminine stereotypes were activated, both males and females achieved integrative outcomes (Kray & Thompson, 2005). This has led some to the conclusion that negotiators use information about stereotypes to evaluate their own performance and then act more consistently with the stereotype, even if contrary to one's own gender. In follow-up research by Kray, however, it was discovered that the negotiating performance of women was improved only when there was not a power disadvantage in the negotiation (Kray & Thompson, 2005).

OVERCOMING GENDER DIFFERENCES IN NEGOTIATION: CHANGE THE FOCUS OF THE NEGOTIATION

When women negotiate on their own behalf, their concerns over relationships often suppresses their negotiating outcomes (Carrell & Heavrin, 2008). This is because women tend to see themselves as more interdependent, while males often view themselves as independent (Carrell & Heavrin, 2008). The exception to this rule occurs when women negotiate on behalf of others. In a study by Babcock and Riley, students were given a single-issue, distributive price negotiation. Some women were asked to negotiate for themselves and others were asked to represent another person in the negotiation. On average, women entering the negotiation intended to ask for 22% more per hour for someone other than themselves (Carrell & Heavrin, 2008; Riley & Babcock, 2002). This suggests that when women enter a salary negotiation, they should focus on the benefit to others, such as spouses and children. By redirecting the focus to benefits to others, women may be able to achieve better outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There is little doubt that the dominant stereotype of the successful negotiator is composed mostly of masculine traits (Kray & Thompson, 2005). Additionally, there is strong evidence that these stereotypes alter negotiators' performance (Kray & Thompson, 2005). Men and women differ in how they claim and create value, their propensity to negotiate, and their approach to negotiation (e.g., competitive versus cooperative). The good news is that by identifying gender distinctions in negotiation, women can harness gender stereotypes for their own benefit. Moreover, the trend in negotiation pedagogy is toward an integrative (i.e., win-win) negotiation model. As we move away from a distributive (i.e. win-lose) model, we are also moving toward a more feminine model of negotiation, which plays to the benefit of women's perceived propensity to be more empathetic.

REFERENCES

Ayres, Ian, (1995). Further Evidence of Discrimination in New Car Negotiations and Estimates of Its Cause. 94 Mich.L.Rev. 109.

Babcock, Linda & Sara Laschever (2003). Women Don't Ask--Negotiation and the Gender Divide. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Cahn, Naomi R.(1992). Theoretics of Practice: The Integration of Progressive Thought and Action: Styles of Lawyering. 43 Hastings L.J., 1039.

Carrell, Michael R.& Heavrin (2008). Negotiating Essentials--Theory, Skills, and Practices. Pearson--Prentice Hall.

Goleman, Daniel (2000). Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.

Klein, Chief Magistrate Judge Karen K. (2005). A Judicial Mediator's Perspective: The Impact of Gender on Dispute Resolution: Mediation as a Different Voice. 81 N. Dak. L.Rev. 771.

Kolb, D. & G.G. Coolidge (1991). Her place at the table: A consideration of gender issues in negotiation. In Rubin, J.Z., and J.W. Breslin (Eds.), Negotiation theory and practice (pp.261-277). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Program on Negotiation.

Kolb, Deborah M. & Williams (2003). The Shadow Negotiation: How Women Can Master the Hidden Agendas That Determine Bargaining Success. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kray, Laura J. & Leigh Thompson (2005). Gender Stereotypes and Negotiation Performance: An Examination of Theory and Research. In B. Staw & R. Kramers (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior Series, 26, 103-182.

Lagace, Martha (October 12, 2003). What Women Can Learn About Negotiation. HBS Working Knowledge (interview with Harvard Business School Professor Kathleen L. McGinn and Assistant Professor Hannah Riley Bowles of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government).

Lewicki, Barry & Sanders (2007). Essentials of Negotiation (Fourth Edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

McShane & Von Glinow (2008). Organizational Behavior (Fourth Edition). McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Pradel, Dina W., Hannah Riley Bowles & Kathleen L. McGinn (February 13, 2006). When Gender Changes the Negotiation. HBS Working Knowledge.

Riley, Hannah & Linda Babcock (2002). Gender as a Situational Phenomenon in Negotiation. Paper presented at the IACM 15th Annual Conference, Salt Lake City, June 2002, and KSG Working Paper No. RWP02-037, available from the Social Science Research Network, http://ssrn.com/abstract=305159 (accessed September 19, 2006), 1-28.

Segal, Jonathan (June, 1991). Women on the Verge of Equality. HR Magazine 30 (117-123).

Thompson, P.A. & B.H. Kleiner. (1992). How to read nonverbal communication, Business Communication Quarterly, 55, 81-83.

Watson, Carol (1994). In Theory: Gender Versus Power as a Predictor of Negotiation Behavior and Outcomes. 10 Negotiation J. 117.

Linda L. Barkacs, University of San Diego

Stephen Standifird, University of San Diego