Negotiation and gender.

I'm really intrigued by Megan McArdle's description (okay, it's third-hand, hence the multiply nested blockquotes) of a study on gender norms in negotiation situations:

[MEGAN McA.]: One of the reasons that women are paid less than men is that they don't negotiate.  The advice that follows is usually, "Well, negotiate!"  But in fact, women don't negotiate for very good reason, as Kevin Drum points out:

[KEVIN D.] I apologize for sticking around, but there's a reason. I've run into this before myself, and have always told women "Just ask! The worst that can happen is that they say no." But that's not actually the case. Here's a bit of research on the subject:

 

Their study...found that women's reluctance [to negotiate] was based on an entirely reasonable and accurate view of how they were likely to be treated if they did...."What we found across all the studies is men were always less willing to work with a woman who had attempted to negotiate than with a woman who did not," Bowles said. "They always preferred to work with a woman who stayed mum. But it made no difference to the men whether a guy had chosen to negotiate or not."

 

[Back to MEGAN McA.] When I was in business school, I learned about a case that had been run experimentally.  I may hash some of the details, but the gist is that half the classes that used it read about "John" facing a tough management problem, while the other half read about "Jane" facing the same problem.  No detail other than the names had been changed.

But what a difference a name makes!  "John" was a strong, thoughtful leader making tough choices about what was best for his group.  "Jane" was a headstrong bitch who was wildly overstepping her authority and generally making a mess of things.

No woman is unaware of these dynamics. 

Let's see if I can sum this up correctly -- negotiation is in reality a riskier game for women to play, so they act in their own interest by doing it less often (or perhaps less directly).   Instructing women to negotiate, then, perhaps may meet with one measure of success (more women will attempt to make gains by negotiating) but maybe will be repaid by biteback (some may be "punished" for the effort).  

I would really like to write about this subject from personal experience because it intrigues me, but I am spectacularly disqualified to comment on my own ability to negotiate or on my response to other people negotiating, as I have historically been an opinionated yet socially awkward introvert with a fixation on facts rather than feelings, probably somewhere on the Asperger's spectrum, and am therefore among the "no" women whom McArdle says are "unaware of these dynamics."

As the commenters on the thread take the time to point out, it would be a mistake to assume that the hostility toward women who negotiate is conscious and overt.  It would also be a mistake to assume that it's primarily men who unconsciously punish women who attempt to negotiate; probably women and men both do it.    

One thing I find particularly fascinating is the notion of a person who lacks natural social gifts, or who is hampered by prejudices around them, creating sets of rules to mitigate the situation.  That is, deliberate behaviors that attempt to create the social interactions that we imagine a truly successful or powerful or gregarious or friendly person can conjure up naturally and without having to think about it.  Ways to manipulate people!

(Kind of analogous to a colorblind person imposing a rule on herself to always dress in basic black with a single colorful accessory.)

One commenter writes,

I had read the study Drum references before, and after I saw it I started using two strategies that work well so far: (1) When I'm disagreeing with a man who has a moderately to very high opinion of himself, I smile while I disagree. (2) If I'm giving a presentation with a man, and he speaks first because of the way our presentation is structured or something, I take a step in front of him to address the group.

Small body language things, not threatening, that still allow me to be assertive without offending anyone's subconscious. It's not the way it should be, but it works: I have good relationships with and respect from co-workers and management in a majority-male environment.

Boy, I could have used a lot of tips like this in my past life.   There's no need that they have to be laden with judgments about which sex is friendlier or more open or more assertive and whether that's better or whatever, or whether our expectations are good or bad.  It seems not unreasonable just to accept that human nature is what it is, and many cultural forces are what they are, and women and men live (typically) under different sets of unconscious expectations and have therefore evolved (typically) different common strategies to meet their goals.  Encouraging women and men to adopt each other's apparently successful strategies will likely backfire when it turns out that the unconscious expectations in the environment are not so mutable.

Thoughts?

Comments

[Jennifer Fitz]

I'm a little encouraged? Because every time I see the advice "women need to negotiate more!" I think:

a) I hate negotiating

and

b) People will think I'm a jerk.

[And actually: I think people who try to press hard for advantages from me, are jerks. Either you want what is fair, or I'm going to avoid doing business with you, ever, if I can possibly help it.]

But that's all I know.

[Erin]

This is fascinating. As someone who recently discovered she is not at the same pay level as her male counterparts, I find it particularly enlightening. The overwhelming advice from male colleagues is I won't get anything unless I ask. I haven't been able to articulate why I haven't negotiated before, but I think part of it is that I want my value to be recognized without having to ask for it. I plan to push myself in this area and will be interested to watch for the response. I'm in a primarily male dominated field and for the first time ever, I report to a woman so that will be an interesting study as well.

[mandamum]

This is what makes me growl when (conservative) people make sweeping statements about women being paid less "because they choose to work fewer hours." Fascinating.

[bearing]

Mandamum, I don't think I've ever heard anyone seriously make a statement like that, in such a simplified form.

Most of the time, the argument reflects the reality that choosing to work fewer hours over the course of one's career (partly through career choice, partly through career-ladder choice, partly through hourly choices) tends to lower one's pay, and averaged over all men and all women, that's what we see. (Defining "work" as "work for pay," here, of course. Mostly it's a matter of choosing unpaid work over some of the paid work.)

But maybe we are thinking of different arguments?

[MelanieB]

Oh this is fascinating.

[mandamum]

I'll have to look up who was talking to Kresta (in the Afternoon, on Ave Maria Radio) who said that--as I recall the discussion, she meant not only what you said, but also this person vs that person in the same position, the woman will work less and therefore will (and should) be paid less. It might be Suzanne Venker, talking about her book, "The Flip Side of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know - and Men Can't Say"?

[JMB]

Here's what I learned when I was a VP at an investment bank on Wall Street way back in the day: every job has a salary range and it is up to the applicant, whatever gender they may be, to get the highest salary in the range. When I hired people I always offered the lowest number in the range, knowing that we would have to give more if the applicant asked for it. Nine out of ten times the guy would ask for more, but we never turned it down. So if a girl asked for it, we would give it to her too. It wasn't a gender thing at all. It was there for the taking.

[bearing]

Mandamum -- Oh, you are talking about *prejudging an individual,* based on gender classification alone, as to what salary they are worth paying. Predicting that women will work less and therefore predeciding that a woman hired into a certain job should be offered a lower salary.

Well, of course, that is not only wrong but illegal. I don't have any idea how prevalent that view is.

What I'm talking about is a rational explanation for disparity in real wages as they exist, one that does not require active discrimination to explain it.