Women at the Bargaining Table: Pitfalls and Prospects

Women have made great strides toward achieving workplace equity in the United States in the last several decades, resulting in women's near-equal representation in the workforce (Women's Bureau of Department of Labor 2007). Nonetheless, empirical evidence robustly documents American women's economic disadvantages relative to men. Despite the documented benefits that accrue to organizations for promoting women, such as increased return on equity and return to shareholders (Catalyst 2004), the promotion of creativity through increased workforce diversity (Nemeth and Wachtler 1983), and improved problem solving (Nemeth and Kwan 1987; Jackson 1992), women are consistently underrepresented in upper management (Gutek 1993; Catalyst 2007) and receive less compensation when controlling for such factors as age, education, career type, and level within the organization (Stroh, Brett, and Reilly 1992; Schneer and Reitman 1995).¹ Moreover, college-educated women between the ages of 21 and 30 earn 89 percent of what men earn (Roberts 2007), and perhaps surprisingly, the gap in salaries between all men and women has widened slightly in the past decade (Cotter, Hermsen, and Vanneman 2004; Leonhardt 2006).

Gender theorists argue that one important contributor to this economic inequality is the social constraint that results from the inconsistency between the core feminine stereotype and the masculine expectations of the business world (Kent and Moss 1994; Rudman 1998; Tharenou 2001; Eagly and Karau 2002). Specifically, the values and behaviors expected of effective managers are highly correlated with such stereotypically masculine characteristics as independence, assertiveness, self-reliance, and power (Moore 1984; Schein and Mueller 1992; Schein 2001) and inconsistent with such stereotypically feminine characteristics as communality, caring, and helpfulness (Chapman 1975; Eagly 1987).

This inconsistency has important ramifications in work contexts. First, based on the descriptive function of gender stereotypes, it can lead evaluators to assume that women lack the competencies necessary to succeed (Eagly and Karau 2002). Second, because gender stereotypes act as social norms, they also carry injunctive functions, dictating how men and women ought to be (Cialdini and Trost 1998). As such, women who violate gendered expectations incur negative social consequences. In other words, evaluators tend to make negative judgments about women who behave in masculine ways to fulfill the needs of their jobs (Eagly, Makhijani, and Klonsky 1992; Heilman 2001; Heilman et al. 2004; Heilman and Okimoto 2007). This negative way that people react toward women engaging in masculine behaviors (such as independence and assertiveness) has been termed the backlash effect (Rudman 1998).

For example, as detailed in the U.S. Supreme Court case, Price Waterhouse v. Cooper (1989), Deborah Hopkins was denied partnership at the firm Price Waterhouse after being told that she needed to attend “charm school” and that she should “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry.”²

Further, this potential for social backlash can lead women to anticipate a social disincentive, inhibiting them from exercising the independence and assertiveness necessary for career success, such as asking for resources (Barron 2003) or assuming leadership roles (Davies, Spencer, and Steele 2005). Thus, we see the classic double bind: because of the perceived incongruence of stereotypical feminine traits with managerial effectiveness, women may be perceived as competent but unlikable or as likable but incompetent.

In this article, we present evidence that documents this double bind both in a general work context and in a negotiation context more specifically. We review studies showing evidence for a social backlash against women (judging them less likable), an economic backlash against women (being less likely to grant their resource requests), and studies showing the former leading to the latter. But we also review research showing that the social and financial backlash experienced by women may be contextually dependent. That is, in some situations, women's assertiveness (such as asking for resources) is met without any social or financial backlash. With this knowledge we then offer prescriptions to enhance women's effectiveness at the bargaining table and conclude with some suggestions as to how to incorporate some of this research into negotiation courses in order to make students, both male and female, more aware of their own inclination to backlash and how to rectify such inequities from both sides of the bargaining table.

Many organizations may remain what Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1977) described as “gendered” work environments, meaning they reflect and reward traits and values such as rationality, aggression, and emotional stability. Moreover, these traits are more stereotypically associated with men (Acker 1990) despite the fact that there is no hard evidence demonstrating any real differences between men and women on these traits (Heilman, Block, and Martell 1995). Because these traits are important for workplace success and are more stereotypically associated with men than with women, it may make it harder for women to advance in the workplace. For example, 52 percent of senior women managers reported that their male colleagues' stereotypes and gender role biases were a major barrier to their career advancement (Catalyst 1996).

Specifically, women appear to be forced to choose between being perceived as likable because they behave in stereotypically feminine ways (by being caring, cooperative, and nurturing) or being perceived as competent because they behave in stereotypically masculine ways (by being self-confident, independent, and assertive). One experiment demonstrated exactly this sort of constraint. Catherine Tinsley and her colleagues (2008) produced a series of scripted scenes on video in which a finance director (alternatively a man or a woman) has to choose between tending to a work crisis (an information technology system crash) and a family emergency (a sick child). Respondents watched one of these four scenarios (male or female director; choice to stay at work or go home) and then rated the director on a series of questions measuring both competence and likability. When the finance director was female and chose to stay at work, she was seen as competent but unlikable. When the female finance director went home, she was rated as incompetent but likable. On the other hand, the choices that the male finance directors made had no bearing on the way they were perceived by respondents — they were always judged as fairly likable and competent. In other words, the same behaviors (staying or going) evoked different judgments when they were done by a female versus a male manager. Moreover, the female finance director was essentially forced to choose between being seen as likable or competent. Assuming that both competency and likability are necessary for career progression, we see how a gendered work environment might create barriers for women that they do not typically create for men.

Other studies of varying methods have found that assertive and self-confident women were evaluated more negatively than men who behaved similarly (Costrich et al. 1975; Heilman et al. 1989; Butler and Geis 1990). Moreover, these negative evaluations often have tangible penalties associated with them. In studies evaluating job candidates' behavior in interviews and job negotiations, self-promoting women were perceived as more competent yet socially unattractive and were likely to be judged less desirable from a hiring standpoint (Janoff-Bulman and Wade 1996). This same pattern in which women who engage in counterstereotypic behaviors are perceived as competent yet socially unskilled has been demonstrated in a number of studies exploring why women are passed up for promotions relative to equally qualified men (Fiske et al. 1991; Sonnert and Holton 1996; Lyness and Judiesch 1999; Heilman 2001). In fact, some researchers argue that women are aware of the social penalties for counterstereotypic behavior and subsequently act in ways to hide their successes in cross-gendered contexts (Rudman and Fairchild 2004) or choose to work in environments that they perceive to be more female friendly (Moss 2004).

In negotiation, gendered expectations can have a striking influence on the social, and perhaps financial, penalties that women face relative to men. For example, results from one study in which participants read job interview transcripts found that when the female job candidates asked for more compensation they were judged significantly more demanding and less “nice” than when a male candidate engaged in the same behavior (Bowles, Babcock, and Lai 2007). In a simulated salary negotiation experiment, participants negotiating against assertive counterparts reported a lower desire to interact, both socially and in the workplace, with female counterparts than with male counterparts who behaved in the exact same manner (Amanatullah 2007). Similarly, in another simulation in which a human resources (HR) manager negotiated for a refund on unused hotel space, the manager was judged more offensive and was less likely to receive a refund when the role was played by a female than by a male (Amanatullah and Tinsley 2008a, 2008b). Interestingly, both male and female evaluators were equally likely to engage in this social and financial backlash against female negotiators.

In an unpublished manuscript, Mary Wade (1995) found that women who made salary requests in a public context (in situations in which the potential for evaluation and subsequent backlash was present) requested lower salaries than women who made salary requests in a private context (in which the potential for backlash was eliminated and women were freed from normative expectations of selflessness.) This suggests that women's reticence to assert their self-interest may often stem from an anticipatory response designed to avoid backlash.

This backlash story, however, is more complex. A number of studies have shown there are some contexts in which women suffer little or no backlash. It may be that when gender stereotypes are not activated, women are not held to the rather impossible standard of being both independent and assertive (normative demands of the workplace) as well as being communal and nurturing (normative demands for being female). That is, we believe for evaluators to socially and financially sanction assertive behavior in women, their stereotypes of female behavior must in some way be activated. Thus, those aspects of the situation that elicit or suppress stereotyping can either amplify or attenuate the likelihood of backlash.

First, in their hotel room refund simulation, Emily Amanatullah and Catherine Tinsley (2008a) found that when resources were so plentiful that a refund request did not threaten the respondent, then backlash was attenuated. Threats tend to heighten the negative stereotypes of both individuals (Fein and Spencer 1997) and other social groups (Gonsalkorale, Carlisle, and von Hippel 2007). Accordingly, Amanatullah and Tinsley (2008a) also found that when resources were diminished (and thus perceived threats were intensified) female HR managers who asked for a refund were penalized more than male HR managers were. On the other hand, when resources were plentiful, female HR managers were actually slightly more likely to receive the refund than the male HR managers.

In other studies, Amanatullah and Tinsley (2008b) explored a situation in which backlash was reduced depending on the status or role of the women involved. The researchers hypothesized and found that when the women were described as being of high status (senior HR managers with track records of success), the backlash against them was diminished. A possible explanation for this status effect is that women who occupy high-status positions (especially ones that are externally conferred such as organizational roles) are less likely to be perceived as challenging the status quo when their behaviors violate traditional gendered expectations. In other words, their assertive behaviors are seen through a status and position “lens” rather than through a gender lens and because successful executives are expected to assert themselves, this behavior is no longer perceived as a violation of expectations. Senior HR managers who have established track records of success may be less bound to rules about “being nice.”

Finally, it seems that women are allowed to be assertive when their assertiveness is for the benefit of others (clients, team members, family members, etc.). Advocating for others would be consistent with the overall expectation that women are communal or nurturing. In a study of lawyers rating other lawyers in their most recent negotiation, female lawyers were described in terms that were similar to their male colleagues (ethical, confident, and personable) and both were equally likely to be judged as effective (Schneider 2002, 2008).³ When acting as lawyers, these women were not sanctioned even though they were rated more highly for assertiveness and firmness. In other words, assertive behavior faces little backlash when it is seen as protecting colleagues or advocating on behalf of teammates.

Similarly, assertive female managers negotiating on behalf of a group are no less likely to get what they ask for nor no more likely to incur social sanctions than similarly assertive men (Amanatullah and Tinsley 2008c). Acting as an other-advocate not only aligns assertive negotiation behavior with the communal aspects of the female gender stereotype but may actually change how injunctive gender stereotypes are applied in this context. For example, an other-advocating female negotiator who behaves nonassertively is actually perceived as violating gendered expectations and in this context will incur backlash similar to that experienced by self-advocating women who behave assertively (Amanatullah 2007).

Research also shows that women are aware of the potential for backlash as moderated by contexts of advocacy. Specifically, Hannah Bowles, Linda Babcock, and Kathleen McGinn (2005) found that women who negotiated as other-advocates performed significantly better than those negotiating for themselves. Wade (1995) found a consistent pattern of results when measuring salary requests in a public context: women asked for higher salaries for others than they requested for themselves. Further, Amanatullah and Michael Morris (2008) found that self-advocating female negotiators were more likely to make concessions at the bargaining table because they feared social sanctions for pushing too hard. Women engaging in the exact same negotiation but as other-advocates did not fear social repercussions for behaving assertively and subsequently made fewer concessions and negotiated better salaries.

Another recent experiment looked at the impact on negotiation of flirting. When both men and women flirted in the negotiation, women were perceived as more likable (Kray and Locke 2008). As the researchers noted, because flirting is seen as a more stereotypically feminine behavior, the women may have benefited more from using it. Furthermore, the flirting had no impact on the measure of the female negotiator's perceived competence, although it did diminish her perceived trustworthiness.

The deeply ingrained nature of gender categories, for our society as a whole and for individual members of that society, suggests that trying to argue people out of (often subconscious) gender stereotypes is unlikely to yield positive results. In our studies, not only did both men and women penalize assertive women, but when confronted with the results, participants expressed no awareness that they had judged female targets more harshly. Thus, as with other debiasing attempts, success at undoing gender biases simply by telling people they exist is likely to be elusive. So what are women to do at the bargaining table? A number of insights emerges from the research above. First, we suggest that women try to work within the core feminine stereotype when possible — by capitalizing on society's expectations of the nurturing female. Second, when women cannot or choose not to work within the confines of prescribed roles, we suggest that they try to minimize the chance of the core feminine stereotype becoming activated and being perceived as violated. And finally, women can consider negotiating to move the boundaries of this core feminine stereotype or minimize its relevance for evaluating women's behavior. We consider each of these in turn.

If the core feminine stereotype characterizes women as nurturing and protective of others, then efforts to align women's assertive bargaining moves with this expectation of nurturing behavior could be effective ways for women to garner economic gains while avoiding social costs. The research on advocacy suggests that one way women might align the core feminine stereotype with assertive bargaining would be to reframe negotiations for raises or promotions as other-oriented (e.g., for the communal welfare of her work team) rather than self-interested. Using specific references in the negotiation to the team or client will help to reinforce the communal frame of negotiation. This serves both the women and those on whose behalf they are negotiating. Indeed, the lawyers in our studies advocating on behalf of their clients were successful in acquiring their desired outcomes while avoiding social backlash. Clearly, this success at the bargaining table on behalf of another would also advance their own careers as well.

Moreover, Amanatullah and Tinsley (2008c) found that women managers negotiating a raise for their work team were rewarded just as well as their male counterparts. Another way women might work within the confines of gender stereotypes would be to establish relationships at work in which they partner with others, and instead of negotiating with the boss about one's own salary or promotion, they could instead each sing each others' praises and tout each others' accomplishments thereby avoiding the negative backlash that they would inevitably incur if they individually self-promoted their praises.

Research by Laura Kray and her colleagues (2004) has also found, consistent with past research, that women succumb to stereotype threats, negotiating more poorly when cues to stereotypes are subtly activated. When stereotype cues are blatantly activated, however, female negotiators react against the norm and negotiate more effectively. It is possible this reaction to overt stereotyping occurs when a female negotiator treats the situation as a negotiation on behalf of her social group as a whole (defending women in general) rather than merely on behalf of herself. This is consistent with the previous findings reviewed on other-advocacy and suggests that empowering female negotiators with the mentality that every interaction is a reflection on her social group may open doors to effectively asserting interests at the bargaining table.

Another important lesson for working within the core feminine stereotype is the realization that affirming expectations of femininity can be crucial for avoiding backlash. Researchers argue that the backlash effect is not a reaction to women behaving in too masculine a fashion but rather is a sanction against women who do not behave in a sufficiently feminine way (Heilman and Okimoto 2007). As such, learning to balance and monitor one's self-presentation as both competent (masculine) and likable (feminine) is vital for negotiation and career success. In the past, women with career aspirations thought the key to success was becoming one of the guys (e.g., by pulling their hair back, wearing pantsuits instead of skirts, and rejecting femininity for masculinity), although using this strategy runs the risk that the woman in question will be perceived as “unfeminine.” We now know that balance is the key to navigating the corporate labyrinth,so maintaining a feminine presence while engaging in the masculine behaviors necessary to succeed may facilitate a woman's ascent up the corporate hierarchy.

These prescriptions suggest that women can work within the core feminine stereotype by trying to reframe self-interested negotiations as other-advocacy contexts to align assertive behavior with core gender norms.

Some practical applications of this prescription are:

• When negotiating a starting salary, bonus, or promotion, instead of requesting more resources out of personal entitlement or desire (or equity), women might consider reframing their request in the context of their team — as one of the critical contributors to the unit. This should affirm women's perceived communality and concern for others.

• Similarly, when negotiating for seemingly self-interested resources, women should make requests based on a desire to be best equipped to do their job on behalf of their team, department, or organization as a whole, thereby affirming their positions as team players for the greater organization, more interested in the performance and success of the group rather than they are in their own personal ambition.

• Another way that women can alter self-advocating negotiations into other-advocacy contexts is to swap negotiation roles with others. A woman can ask another manager to make the case for her promotion, bonus, or salary, and she can reciprocate by advocating for the manager's interests. This role switching is a policy used by some managers but is probably most effective when institutionalized and used by both men and women. If the organization establishes a norm that they advocate for each other, then women should not risk being seen as the only employees who will not speak up for themselves.

• When no other external constituencies are present to defer self-interested pursuits, a woman should consider mentally reframing the negotiation in her own mind, as one on behalf of the larger social group, for example, women as a whole, and argue on behalf of gender equity concerns. Recall that when women are told they negotiate less aggressively, they react to this gender stereotype by becoming more aggressive. Reminding oneself of the typical stereotypes — that women do not ask, that women are perceived as more cooperative — should trigger the assertive behavior necessary to overcome this stereotype threat.

It will often not be possible to reframe a situation in such a way that a woman negotiator may appear to be advocating for others. When professional women are self-advocating, they might be able to minimize the extent to which gendered expectations are socially enforced. Thus, we think that creating situations in which assertive behavior can be deflected away from one's identity as a woman may diminish the likelihood of backlash. The research we cited earlier indicates that for women, assertive behavior is most successful in times of plenty rather than in situations of scarcity and threat, and when women have high status with track records of success. This suggests the following:

• Women, in particular, should try to time their battles and evaluate when requests are going to be perceived as less rather than more threatening. Under more favorable conditions, people will be more open to self-advocating women.

• Women should appeal to common goals. When parties share a common overarching goal, then requests made by one party are less likely to be seen as threatening. Assertive behavior then is less threatening because it is seen as advancing a shared vision and goals. (This is similar to the integrative negotiation technique of identifying shared interests.)

• Women should affiliate as part of a team. To the extent that a woman is a member of a gender heterogeneous team, she may be able to focus evaluators' attention on her as a team member more so than as a female. As a team member it is acceptable to assert oneself, so being evaluated based on this referent is ideal relative to being evaluated based on a gendered referent.

• Similarly, if a woman happens to occupy the position of a team leader, the requests that she makes on behalf of the team as a whole may be seen as stereotype-consistent behavior (nurturing).

• Women might consider explaining their assertive behavior so that they are not judged as violating gendered expectations. For example, they could use their position/role in the organization to justify that behavior is role based. Statements to the effect of “I wouldn't be a very good lawyer/manager/owner if I didn't ask for more resources” help to focus the other party on the position rather than on the gender of the negotiator.

Finally, if a woman cannot work within the core feminine stereotype or minimize its activation, then her other logical choice is to be aware of what societal expectations might be but demonstrate how irrelevant and illegitimate they are for judging her in this context. This means, in essence, confronting and renegotiating her identity and role within her organizational context. The primary tasks would be to move beyond a dichotomous set of roles for men versus women. The good news is that smart people can be moved beyond binary, dichotomous thinking to consider complexities. Everyone engages in multiple roles (positions) — mother and wife, son and brother, supervisor and friend, board chair and business owner. This suggests:

• A woman negotiator may sometimes benefit by subtly acknowledging the gendered expectations of her evaluators and that her assertive behavior may appear “out of the norm” but offer explanations for why, in this instance, her behavior is valid (and even beneficial for the organization). Because the backlash effect is a mechanism for forcing conformity to social norms, implying that this instance of behavioral nonconformity does not challenge that gendered norm will mitigate the potential for backlash. She can do this without explicit reference to gender stereotyping that might embarrass the other party or cause that other party to lose face. For example, women might explain, “I don't mean to be too demanding, and I normally wouldn't care about this, but in this context, I think we need to argue for a refund because of the precedent it might set for the company if we do not.”

• To help destabilize the dichotomy or required lack of dimensionality that both genders must confront, women might enhance their multidimensionality in their interactions with other parties. For example, a woman could highlight her role as an employee of the firm, manager of the team, community member, wife, mother, golf enthusiast, etc., creating a multifaceted and complex identity for herself so that she is less likely to be evaluated simply as “the female negotiator.”

• Women should cultivate powerful allies who will support their complex identities. Through intentional and vigorous networking, women should utilize the social capital of others to help them change the dichotomous, gendered context. The more people who enforce this individual complexity over gendered dichotomy, the more normative it will become to evaluate individuals based on their individuality rather than gendered heuristics.

Our experience is that instructors teaching about these gender effects will meet resistance. First, it is not politically correct or socially desirable to openly admit to engaging in any sort of demographic bias (race, gender, age, religion, etc.). As such, students might be reluctant to discuss any sort of personal examples or to suggest that others are prejudiced. Second, we have found that a large subset of young women either do not gender identify or do not want to discuss gender issues. They seem to believe that the world is racially blind and ungendered, possibly because avoiding the issue is easier than finding solutions for it. Or alternatively, some confide they wish to avoid being labeled as “radical” or “feminist” by their peers. Still others shy away from discussing gender issues in the belief that they are the ones with the problem if people treat them differently. Finally, younger women and men may simply be unaware of gender biases because so many of these biases are subconscious.

We have found that the most effective way to discuss gender biases is to use teaching devices specifically designed to ferret out the different evaluations or behaviors people exhibit when they think they are negotiating with a male versus female counterpart. For example, give half the students one scenario in which their counterpart is male and the other half the same scenario in which their counterpart is female and have them rate their counterpart's behavior. Then, show them the evidence, from their own classmates, for the existence of gender bias. Alternatively, showing graphs and data from multiple published experiments often spurs discussion about the sources of disparity and potential remedies.

Instructors can also administer negotiation cases designed to reveal gender bias (e.g., salary negotiations manipulating self- and other-advocacy). The students are randomly assigned roles and negotiate against their classmates. The negotiation results often reveal outcomes consistent with those found in prior research that self-advocating female negotiators perform poorly relative to men and other-advocating women, both financially and socially, based on postnegotiation impression formation reports. In small groups (three or four people) students can reflect upon their behaviors — a safer place to explore their own biases than with the class at large.

A particularly insightful exercise is to have students play opposite gender roles in a gendered situation (e.g., a woman feeling unwelcome or underpaid at work, negotiating for a raise). In the classroom debrief, the different assumptions about how to approach the situation and different responses based on gender can provide the opportunity to talk about gender assumptions.

Another striking tool that instructors can use to show students that bias exists, despite their desire to deny it, is the Implicit Association Test (Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz 1998). This ten-minute instrument, often administered via the web, measures implicit gender biases by measuring response times to simple associations between gender and competence. The results of the test usually reveal some degree of bias despite conscious efforts to avoid prejudice. As such, seeing their results usually opens students' minds to discussing more openly how these subconscious associations that we all share infiltrate our behaviors and judgments toward others.

The key for instructors is to use an exercise or visual to engage students into accepting the presence of bias, if not in their selves, at least in society as a whole, and providing a comfortable environment in which gender issues can be openly discussed without fear of retribution. Only through open discourse on the topic will we challenge the status quo and begin to mitigate some of the unequal social constraints impeding the success of women.

A compelling and growing body of research about the impact of subconscious gender bias on negotiation suggests that women may benefit from working within the core feminine stereotypes when possible. The research also suggests that women should try to minimize the likelihood that the core feminine stereotypes will be activated in a negotiation situation. Of course, we encourage women to negotiate or minimize the boundaries of this core feminine stereotype as much as possible. The status of women at the bargaining table may be challenging now, but understanding the social constraints that present challenges to women illuminates remedies for managing these issues in the present and, we hope, for changing gendered expectations in the future. A critical part of this evolution will be to integrate discussions of gender into the negotiation classroom. Exercises that uncover students' own subconscious biases or concrete data demonstrating biases across a number of different studies can produce fruitful class discussions and ideas to motivate conscious change.