1
Differences in Gender Negotiation
Bob Ludwig
Bellevue University
MSM 510; Portfolio Project
2
Negotiation: Male / Female Strengths and Differences
Abstract
Determining the similarities and differences between how men and women operate in the
negotiation process can be quite risky. Without stereotyping either gender, and on the basis of
empirical research alone, we will attempt to explain both the similarities and the differences between
how men and women negotiate in order to better understand ourselves as negotiators, conflict
managers, and communicators in general. With this knowledge, we can be more educated on the
strengths and weaknesses that each gender has displayed through research. This will allow us to better
position our negotiation techniques and approach when negotiating.
Negotiation: The Retail World
The type of negotiation we will focus on is the discussion between two or more parties to come
to an agreement that leaves both sides satisfied. An area where this is very relevant is the retail
business world. Men, while having many similarities in the negotiation process, also have many
different techniques than women. Men have a tendency to be more aggressive and competitive when it
comes to trying to achieve the success of coming to common ground on an agreement. In fact, men
tend to interrupt 96% of the time when negotiating with women as opposed to when they are arguing
with men. (Gilly, 1988) Even though men interrupt more, they are also more analytical, which often
times means they don’t respond as fast as women since they have the tendency of searching for what
would be the logical solution for both sides to agree on. (Gilly, 1988) Since men seem to lend
themselves more toward this analytical nature, the research demonstrates that while perhaps men don’t
“seek out” negotiation, they tend to be more interested in it. There are various reasons why one might
negotiate. One of the most common reasons to inter a negotiation process is the prospect of financial
gain by one or both parties.
The prospect of financial gain helps to explain one of the techniques that men use, as they like
3
to set goals in sales that will maximize the number of buyers and sellers in order to help maximize
profits. Men will sit down and calculate out the number that they need to achieve to obtain their goal.
They also have the tendency of writing out their action plan step by step to achieve this goal. (Gilly,
1988) In a study which analyzed both women and men in concordance with availability and individual
profit, men tended to achieve a higher individual profit and also spent much more time negotiating than
women. (Gilly, 1988) There was another factor that was demonstrated in that when men didn’t
cooperate nor display a higher personal level of behavior leaning toward one school of thought over the
other, thus, the study proved there was no difference. (Gilly, 1988)
During negotiation, men tend to use more questions to clarify what is being said. They prefer to
use “we” instead of “I” during conversation. Men use hedges to get positive and negative reactions,
and in doing so, use presumptive words like “you”. Men also display a tendency of speaking at the
same time as their counter-part. Men also have less likelihood to laugh during negotiations and also
lower their pitch of their voice. (Gilly, 1988)
Another technique is using persuasive bargaining tactics. These tactics include asking the right
questions, and listening to what is being said. This important especially when it comes to international
negotiations, as it is increasingly important to know the culture of who you are speaking to since
international business has become a huge part of worldwide economics. (Sebenius, 1992)
True Advantages and Disadvantages: Do they Exist?
American men and women also share some advantages in negotiation communication. In
America we have some advantages over some cultures, as we have numerous individuals that can speak
different languages; thus, the use of interpreters becomes a great advantage. (Sebenius, 1992)
Americans have some exceptions when it comes to negotiation with third world companies, as our
4
demands at times are considered unreasonable. (Graham, 1983) The other thing is that the American
males are sometimes taught never to give up and when it comes to negotiation, with a common term
being that they are taught not to take “no” for an answer. (Graham, 1983) This might have the
potential to ruin aspects of the negotiation process with other countries because they might possibly
think that we as Americans are trying to push them into something they don’t want to do, just as if we
lacked familiarity, we would also be hesitant to engage in negotiation if treading on unknown ground.
We are in such a competitive driven society, that often times it becomes hard to “back down” from an
argument.
In business these competitive behaviors are a strategy to find the best salespeople to be able to
negotiate the best pricing. This is important at the forefront of many businesses of which are involved
in manufacturing, banking & finance and insurance particularly. Studies found that many top
management employees have had an association between demographic composition and organizational
characteristics. All of these individuals have had some form of higher education with studies of many
different functional backgrounds. (Hamrick, 1996) In the article “Negotiation Analysis: A
characterization and Review,” (Sebenius, 1992) game theory is used in repeated negotiations within
financial markets, such as bidding mechanisms. Players are trying to predict the outcome of future
events when it comes to the prices of the economic market.
There are three major sources of gender differences: socialization, self-construal, and moral
values. (Gilly, 1988) Research on gender differences only rarely occurred before 1980. One of the first
times the issue was debated was in the book The Psychology of Sex Differences from 1974 by
Maccoby and Jacklin. These theorists centered their arguments around four key differences between
men and women, where three of them are particularly relevant for negotiations. Their findings
concluded the following: Men are more aggressive than women; women are more verbal than men;
and men are more quantitative and visual-spatial than women (Krey & Thompson, 2005).
5
Dianna Booher stated in an article that as females grow up, they are taught not to be
confrontational or be aggressive. The results are that women ask questions meant only to solicit
information to which men react defensively. Women tend to use indirect language, which can be
indiscreet, tactful, and even manipulative. They also tend to give fewer directives and use more
courtesy words. Women talk to build rapport with others, and to explore their own feelings and
opinions, while men tend to regard conversation as a means of exchanging information or to solve
problems. (Booher, 2010) In this, we see again men having a tendency to want to finalize, complete, or
“win” in any given situation. Research to this point would suggest that women are not on the same
wavelength in terms of their need to do this.
How men and women see themselves play an important part of negotiations. In an empirical
research about overcoming gendered stereotypes on negotiating, Dr. Laura Krey found that people
interpret the world through beliefs developed at an early age that teach us what is ‘supposed’ to be the
difference between men and women. The early socialization in family and recreation teaches women to
read books and play with their dolls, while men are immediately told that they are supposed to play
more aggressively (Krey & Thompson, 2005).
Socialization suggests by this that men should be better at claiming value in negotiations due to
their aggressive nature. Because negotiations involve exchanging information to identify mutually
beneficial trade-offs, the superior verbal skills of women could be used actively by them in order to
better and easier understand their counterparts’ goals and interests. However, research also shows that
women are unlikely to be amongst the first to raise their voice, allowing men to at least believe that
they have the upper hand in negotiation. (Krey & Thompson, 2005).
According to Laura Madson’s research, women often times compare themselves with others,
while men see themselves independently. Applying to negotiations, this suggests that women are likely
to see negotiations as including a relationship to their counterpart. (Madson, 2001) Since women tend
6
to see negotiations as a masculine task, they can sometimes have lower self-confidence in that area than
men, again allowing men to often times dictate the direction of the negotiation, because women tend to
be unsure of their own skills, knowledge and other negotiation type benefits that might be useful such
as economical resources, power of consumers or something else related to the specific situation being
negotiated. (Krey & Thompson, 2005).
Emotional intelligence is defined by Salovey and Mayer as the subset of social intelligence that
involves the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among
them, and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions. Daniel Goleman came up with
five different dimensions of emotional intelligence that are all related to how we act in negotiation.
These five are self-awareness, self-management, self-motivation, empathy and social skills (Luthans,
2011). However, in the case above with women as well as in a scenario that can hold true with men, if
one doubts ones skills and knowledge, we are all unable to use any of these assets to our benefit.
Krey found that we have two moral orientations: justice-based and care-based. A justice-based
perspective uses abstract principles and fundamental rights to manage conflict, whereas a care-based
perspective focuses on the maintenance of relationships and the preservation of personal integrity to
resolve moral disputes. Her empirical research supports the view that women are more likely to express
an ethic of care in understanding moral dilemmas than what men are, whereas men have a tendency to
relate moral dilemmas in a justice perspective (Krey & Thompson, 2005).
These perspectives are also supported by different informal surveys. According to a survey done
by careerwomen.com, women believe that the Mars/Venus relationship needs to be top of mind in
business negotiations. Since men and women use different styles of communication, communications
styles should be direct by sharing plans, not concepts. (i.e. Think ‘collaboration,’ not ‘confrontation’)
Women tend to think of getting along instead of getting what they want, which also supports Boohers
findings and beliefs.
7
Research indicates that men are much more likely to negotiate their first salaries than women.
Again, we see the financial aspect come into play as heavily important from a male perspective.
According to Linda Babcock, this is related to self-construal. Babcocks research show that women and
men negotiate differently for pay raises, promotions and salaries. The key difference: Many women do
not negotiate at all (Amatucci et al, 2008).
In one survey of job negotiations among graduating students, Babcock found that 57% of men
negotiated their initial compensation, compared with only 7% of women. In another study, Babcock
and two researchers recruited students for an experiment and told them they would make between $3
and $10 for playing a game. After they had finished, an experimenter handed them each $3 and asked if
that was ok with the participant. The researchers found that almost nine times as many male as female
subjects asked for more money (Amatucci et al, 2008).
A study released in April by the American Association of University Women found that one year
after college graduation, women earn 80% of what their male counter-parts do. Ten years after
graduation, they earn about 69%. The study found that even after controlling for hours, occupations,
parenting and other factors that might affect earnings, one-quarter of the pay gap remains unexplained.
Babcocks findings point to that differences in the way men and women negotiate may explain pay gaps
between genders. (Amatucci et al, 2008)
"Women negotiate better for other people than for themselves," Babcock says. Again, this is
related to the fact that women establish a relationship first, while men go straight after their own goals.
She also supported that the differences in the ways women and men negotiate are often attributed to
childhood socialization (Amatucci et al, 2008).
Babcock and Hannah Bowles ran a series of experiments looking into attitudes toward women
and men who negotiate. They found that both men and women penalized women who negotiated
during their experiments. For one of the experiments, Bowles recruited 119 university students and
8
gave them resumes for candidates. The students were instructed to play the role of managers who was
supposed to hire college students for summer internships. One set included candidates who didn't ask
for higher salaries, while the other described candidates who asked for higher salary and additional job
benefits. Although the students penalized both men and women who asked for more, the negative effect
for women was more than twice as large as it was for men. An additional set found that men were less
willing to work with women who negotiated, while women penalized both men and women who asked
for more (Amatucci et al, 2008).
Men are expected to be aggressive and in charge, while women are expected to be agreeable,
and attend to the concerns of others, Babcock says. Women who step outside that role during
negotiations are viewed more negatively than those who stick to what is expected (Amatucci et al,
2008).
Gender differences in the negotiation process are well documented. In their book Women Don't
Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide, Babcock and Laschever describe the differences between men
and women in the negotiating process. Their research has shown that women tend to be satisfied with
less optimal outcomes and do not aggressively seek more favorable conditions for themselves when
compared to men. Also, they describe men as viewing negotiation as a competition while women view
it as a more collaborative win-win undertaking (Amatucci et al, 2008).
Kray described gender stereotypes and stereotype threat which suggests that because men are
thought to be more rational and highly protective of their own interests, they are more effective
negotiators than women who are thought to be more passive, emotional and accommodating to other's
needs (Amatucci et al, 2008).
Conclusion
Rather than to suggest that one gender is increasingly “better” at negotiation or conflict
resolution than the other, the empirical research provided demonstrates that neither is at a true
9
advantage. Rather, it is important to note these strengths and weaknesses demonstrated by the research
above, which indicate that men and women, while approaching conflict resolution with different
methods and more importantly with different innate and developed skill sets, will be more likely to
negotiate to their highest potential when being fully aware of their strengths or lack thereof. The full
understanding of how men and women differ in their means of negotiation communication can assist us
in better understanding one another on a personal level, which will translate to better understanding one
another on a professional level.
References
Agnvall, E. (2007). Women and Negotiation. HRMagazine. v. 52 (12) p. 69-73
Amatucci, F.M., Swartz, E. and Coleman, S., "Testing the 'Women Don't Ask' Hypothesis: A
Qualitative Study of Contract Negotiation in the Private Equity Investment Process,
Proceedings Paper for the International Council of Small Business Conference,
Halifax,
Canada, 2008.
Booher, D. (2010). Gender Negotiation Communication Style & Differences: Women.
Gilly, M. C. (1988), The Influence of Gender on Behaviors and Outcomes in a Retail Buyer-
Seller
Negotiation Simulation. In: Journal of Retailing, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 427–451.
Graham, John L.; Herberger, Roy A. (1983) Negotiators abroad don’t shoot from the Hip.
Harvard Business Journal.
Hambrick, D.C., T.S. Cho, and M-J. Chen. (1996). The Influence of Top Management Team
Heterogeneity on Firms’ Competitive Moves. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1 (12).
Kray, L.J., & Thompson, L. (2004). "Gender Stereotypes and negotiation performance: An
examination of theory and research." In Kramer, R.M., & Staw, B. (Eds.), Research in
organizational behavior (vol. 26, pp. 103-182). Greenwich, CT: JAI press.
10
Luthans, F. (2011). Advanced Organizational Behavior. McGraw-Hill.
Madson, Laura. Gender Comparisons in the Private, Collective, and Allocentric Selves. The
Journal of Social Psychology. 2001. 141 (4), 551-559.
Sebenius, James K. (1992) "Negotiation Analysis: A Characterization and Review."
Science 38, no. 1. 1-21.
Management