Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask☆
Introduction
“There is no form of human excellence before which we bow with profounder deference than that which appears in a delicate woman…and there is no deformity in human character from which we turn with deeper loathing than from a woman forgetful of her nature, and clamorous for the vocation and rights of men.” Bledsoe (1856, p. 224)1
Research on corporate managers suggests that women are less likely than men to use negotiation in upward influence attempts (Lauterbach & Weiner, 1996). Other studies of broader populations indicate that women are less likely than men, in general, to initiate negotiations (Babcock et al., 2006, Babcock and Laschever, 2003). Women report greater anxiety than men about negotiating and are less likely than men to perceive situations as negotiable (Babcock et al., 2006).
Conventional wisdom (e.g., “it pays to ask” and “the squeaky wheel gets the grease”) suggests that, if women want the same resources and opportunities as men, then they should learn to seek out, rather than shy away from, opportunities to negotiate. For instance, one study of the job negotiations of graduating professional school students found that only 7% of female students attempted to negotiate their initial compensation offers as compared to 57% of men. Those who negotiated gained on average 7.4% over their initial offers (Babcock & Laschever, 2003). Even small differences in starting salaries can lead to substantial compensation gaps over time (Bowles et al., 2005, Gerhart and Rynes, 1991). Women’s reluctance as compared to men to initiate negotiations may be an important and under-explored explanation for the asymmetric distribution of resources, such as compensation, within organizations.
So, why would women let such opportunities pass? Maybe women need more training and practice in negotiation to help them get over their nervous feelings and to learn how to act more like the men when opportunities to negotiate arise. But, what if women’s relative hesitation about initiating negotiations has less to do with their negotiating ability than with the way they are treated when they attempt to negotiate? “Fix the women” solutions to gender issues often fail to take into consideration the gendered social context out of which gender differences in behavior emerge (Deaux and Major, 1987, Ely and Meyerson, 2000, Wade, 2001, Watson, 1994b).
Society rewards and reinforces different types of behavior for men and women (Eagly, 1987), and it is not always good advice for women to act more like men in order to claim the same resources and privileges. Research on feminine modesty, for instance, shows that women tend to present themselves more modestly than do men (Daubman et al., 1992, Gould and Slone, 1982, Heatherington et al., 1993), and that a modest self-presentation style tends to undermine perceived competence, particularly as compared to those who self-promote in a stereotypically masculine way (Rudman, 1998). However, if women attempt to overcome this “deficiency” by behaving in a more masculine self-promoting manner, they are perceived as technically skilled but lacking in social competence. This lack of social competence then detracts from their perceived hireability (Rudman, 1998). Similarly, research on gender and leadership has found that female leaders who attempt to establish their authority in a traditionally masculine (e.g., authoritative or directive) manner are evaluated more harshly than their male peers (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992). Perhaps in response to this resistance, women have tended to develop a more participative leadership style, which is correspondent with prescriptive gender roles for women (Eagly & Johnson, 1990) and more effective for them than traditionally male leadership styles (Eagly et al., 2003, Eagly et al., 1995).
The current research explores the question of whether gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations may be explained by differential treatment of men and women when they attempt to negotiate.2 We examine whether women encounter more social resistance than do men when they attempt to negotiate for higher compensation and whether the gender of the evaluator moderates that resistance. We investigate further whether women are less inclined than men to initiate compensation negotiations under those circumstances in which they are more likely than men to encounter social resistance. In this way, we are able to illuminate how differential treatment of male and female negotiators may motivate gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations over resources, such as compensation.
We focus on compensation negotiations, specifically, because of their important economic implications and because they represent a domain in which gender differences in negotiated outcomes are well-documented (Barron, 2003, Bowles et al., 2005, Brett and Stroh, 1997, Gerhart and Rynes, 1991, Stevens et al., 1993). Recent developments in the study of gender in negotiation have made clear that gender effects in negotiation are situational (Bowles et al., 2005, Kray et al., 2002, Kray et al., 2004, Kray et al., 2001, Stuhlmacher and Walters, 1999, Walters et al., 1998). By focusing narrowly on compensation negotiations, we intend from the outset to limit the potential for generalization of our results in terms of negotiating contexts. That is to say, we would not expect women to encounter more social resistance than men across all types of potential negotiating contexts, nor would we expect women always to be more reluctant than men to negotiate. However, by demonstrating that women are more reluctant than men to negotiate in a context in which they face a greater social cost from doing so, we aim to illuminate the broader phenomenon that gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations may be motivated by social incentives as opposed to individual differences.
Section snippets
Initiation of compensation negotiations as a status violation
Prescriptive sex stereotypes stem from men’s higher status as compared to women within society (Conway et al., 1996, Eagly and Steffen, 1984, Hoffman and Hurst, 1990, Jackman, 1994, Meeker and Weitzel-O’Neill, 1977, Ridgeway and Bourg, 2004). Societies with more gender equity tend to espouse less sexist beliefs (Glick et al., 2000). Within the U.S., as the proportion of women in the workplace has grown and the gender segregation of occupations has declined, women have come to identify more with
Experiment 1
In Experiment 1, we conducted a preliminary test of Hypothesis 1, Hypothesis 3 in a 2 (gender of candidate) × 2 (initiate negotiations: no ask vs. ask) × 2 (gender of evaluator) between-subjects design. Participants evaluated a job candidate based on a resume and interview notes. The interview notes indicated whether the candidate was male or female and whether (or not) the candidate had attempted to negotiate for extra compensation and job benefits.
Experiment 2
In Experiment 2, we tested Hypothesis 1, Hypothesis 2a, Hypothesis 2b, Hypothesis 3 in a 2 (gender of candidate) × 3 (initiate negotiations: no ask vs. moderate ask vs. strong ask) × 2 (gender of evaluator) between-subjects design. Participants evaluated a candidate based on a transcript of a job placement interview. We ran two versions of the ask manipulation in order to explore whether the manner in which the candidate initiated negotiations would moderate the predicted interaction effect of
Experiment 3
In Experiment 3, we conducted another test of Hypothesis 1, Hypothesis 2a, Hypothesis 2b, Hypothesis 3 in a 2 (gender of candidate) × 2 (initiate negotiations: no ask vs. ask) × 2 (gender of evaluator) between-subjects design. The scenario was identical to the one used in Experiment 2, except that the participants evaluated candidates based on their behavior in a videotaped interview. The videotaped candidates used the no ask and strong ask scripts that participants read in Experiment 2.
Our
Experiment 4
In Experiment 4, we tested our second set of Hypothesis 4, Hypothesis 5, Hypothesis 6a in a 2 (gender of participant) × 2 (gender of evaluator) between-subjects experimental design. Adopting the perspective of the candidate in the job placement interview scenario, participants reviewed two potential strategies for how to respond to a question about their salary and benefits offer. The two strategies were identical to the no ask and ask scripts in Experiment 3. In order to test for effects by
General discussion
We posed the question at the beginning of this article of whether women’s greater reluctance (as compared to men) to initiate negotiations over resources, such as higher compensation, could be explained by the differential treatment of male and female negotiators. The results of these experiments suggest that the answer to this question is yes. In the first three experiments, male evaluators penalized women more than men for attempting to negotiate for higher compensation. In Experiment 4,
References (90)
- et al.
Theories of gender in organizations: A new approach to organizational analysis and change
Research in Organizational Behavior
(2000) - et al.
Reversing the gender gap in negotiations: An exploration of stereotype regeneration
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(2002) - et al.
Dynamics of upward influence
Leadership Quarterly
(1996) - et al.
Gender and negotiator competitiveness: A meta-analysis
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
(1998) The probability function of the product of two normally distributed variables
Annals of Mathematical Statistics
(1947)- et al.
Gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations
- et al.
Women don’t ask
(2003) - et al.
Nice girls don’t ask
Harvard Business Review
(2003) Ask and you shall receive? Gender differences in beliefs about requests for a higher salary
Human Relations
(2003)The measurement of psychological androgyny
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
(1974)
Bem sex-role inventory
Status characteristics and social interaction: An expectation-states approach
Status cues, expectations and behaviors
An essay on liberty and slavery
Constraints and triggers: Situational mechanics of gender in negotiation
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Jumping ship: Who benefits from an external labor market career strategy?
Journal of Applied Psychology
Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
Nonverbal affect responses to male and female leaders: Implications for leadership evaluations
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Gender, language, and influence
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Nonverbal behavior, gender, and influence
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Status, communality, and agency: Implications for stereotypes of gender and other groups
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Models of the self: Self-construals and gender
Psychological Bulletin
What do people care about when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain
Gender and the self-presentation of academic achievement
Sex Roles
Gender
Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior
Psychological Review
Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Power displays between women and men in discussions of gender-linked tasks: A multichannel study
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation
Gender and leadership style: A meta-analysis
Psychological Bulletin
Transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-analysis comparing men and women
Psychological Bulletin
Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis
Psychological Bulletin
Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis
Psychological Bulletin
Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Are there ’his’ and ’hers’ types of interdependence? The implications of gender differences in collective versus relational interdependence for affect, behavior, and cognition
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Negotiating rationally: The dynamics of the relational self in negotiations
Academy of Management Review
Determinants and consequences of salary negotiations by male and female MBA graduates
Journal of Applied Psychology
Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
On the exact variance of products
Journal of the American Statistical Association
The “feminine modesty” effect: A self-presentational interpretation of sex differences in causal attribution
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Smiling and gazing
Cited by (598)
Do all the empowered women promote smokeless kitchens? Investigating rural India
2024, Journal of Cleaner ProductionGender differences in wage expectations and negotiation
2024, Labour EconomicsBut what if I lose the offer? Negotiators’ inflated perception of their likelihood of jeopardizing a deal
2024, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision ProcessesGender, personality, and performance
2024, Journal of Behavioral and Experimental EconomicsSalary Negotiations: Gender Differences in Attitudes, Priorities, and Behaviors of Ophthalmologists
2024, American Journal of Ophthalmology
- ☆
We gratefully acknowledge support from the National Science Foundation SES-0213474 and the Center for Public Leadership at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. The authors thank the following people for their helpful comments on this manuscript: Elaine Backman, Diane Burton, Robin Ely, Frank Flynn, Adam Galinsky, Michele Gelfand, Fiona Greig, Laura Kray, Jennifer Lerner, Kathleen McGinn, Denise Rousseau, Maureen Scully, and William Simpson.