Dare to Ask!       Negotiating When it Matters                Emily T. Amanatullah              Assistant Professor of Man...
Gender Disparities Still Exist Women’s advancement  14.1% Fortune 500 Corporate Officers  16.1% Fortune 500 Board seats...
Gender & Negotiations Conflicting empirical evidence for the  effect of gender on negotiations (for review, Kray & Thomps...
Social Constraints Traditional gender roles   Feminine = communality, caring, helpfulness    (Chapman, 1975; Eagly, 1987...
Backlash Effect Managerial effectiveness (and distributive  negotiation tactics) strongly associated with  masculine char...
Advocacy Advocacy Context (Bowles, Babcock & McGinn,  2005; Wade 2001)   Self: Negotiating on one’s own behalf   Other:...
Your Data:             Comparing Advocacy Contexts              4Extremely             3.8             3.6             3.4...
Outline of Studies Effect on Outcomes   Pilot Study – Salary negotiation exercise Psychological Mechanisms   Behavior ...
Pilot Study: Method 56 upper-level managers (80% male) Simulated salary negotiation   Manipulated advocacy in new hire ...
Pilot Study: Results                       133                       131Salary ($ thousands)                       129    ...
Outline of Studies Effect on Outcomes   Pilot Study – Salary negotiation exercise Psychological Mechanisms   Behavior ...
Study 1: Method 115 Executive MBAs (74% male) Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument   The innovation      Focusing t...
Study 1: Results                     3                     2Distributive Index                     1                     0...
Your Data:                                           Negotiation Self-Efficacy                                    75Confid...
Study 2: Method 59 subjects (53% male) Computerized negotiation experiment   Same counterpart for each subject      Co...
Study 2: Results                               Anticipated Backlash                       52000Anticipated Backlash       ...
Study 2: Results                         Concessionary Behavior                       52000Round 1 Counteroffer           ...
Study 2: Results                          Mediation                                Anticipated                            ...
Study 2: Concessionary Behavior500004800046000                                          Male - Self44000                  ...
Outline of Studies Effect on Outcomes   Pilot Study – Salary negotiation exercise Psychological Mechanisms   Behavior ...
Study 3: Method 52 MBA students Salary negotiation exercise   During class focused on value claiming tactics   Student...
Study 3: Results                        6Impression Formed by                       5.5     Counterpart                   ...
Study 4: Method 226 undergraduate subjects (50% male) 2 x 2 x 2 Factorial Design   Gender of Target: Male or Female   ...
Study 4: Results                     5                    4.8Social Acceptance                    4.6                    4...
Gendered Attributions Double bind: Warmth vs. Competence   Likable & incompetent OR competent & unlikable Greater nuanc...
Follow-up Study: Attributions 532 students Watched video of a negotiation    Hiring manager was static    Manipulated ...
Attribution Study: ResultsNegative Masculine Attributions   5.00                                  4.50     (Dominant/Arrog...
Attribution Study: Results                                 3.80                                 3.60Negative Feminine Attr...
Negotiating for a group Us-advocacy   What is more salient?      Self-interested motives – Inconsistency →       backla...
Us-Advocacy:                   Your Frequency Data - again              4Extremely             3.8             3.6        ...
Follow-up Studies: Us-Advocacy Negotiation vignette   Financial hardships leaves annual bonuses smaller than    usual  ...
Results: Social Appraisal                    3.90                    3.70Social Acceptance                    3.50        ...
Results: No Reward Differences                               3.4Likelihood to INCREASE Bonus                              ...
Results: Penalty Levied!                             2.9                             2.7Likelihood to REDUCE Bonus        ...
Summary of Findings Self-advocating women   Fear social backlash for behaving assertively      And do incur backlash wh...
Take-aways & Remedies Individual-level   Blaming vs. Empowering the Victim   Framing of the negotiation      Reframe s...
The Female Advantage Women tend to take a more co-operative  approach to negotiations than men.   Share information.   ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Dare to Ask: Negotiating When it Matters, Texas Enterprise Speaker Series, March 28, 2012

1,034 views

Published on

Slides from Univ. TX Texas Enterprise Speaker Series presentation by Dr. Emily Amanatuallah on March 28, 2012

Amanatullah explores her research findings that sometimes women are less effective negotiators than men because of social feminine gender constrants. She offers suggestions for how women can change this workplace dynamic

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,034
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Dare to Ask: Negotiating When it Matters, Texas Enterprise Speaker Series, March 28, 2012

  1. 1. Dare to Ask! Negotiating When it Matters Emily T. Amanatullah Assistant Professor of ManagementThe University of Texas at Austin, McCombs School of Business
  2. 2. Gender Disparities Still Exist Women’s advancement  14.1% Fortune 500 Corporate Officers  16.1% Fortune 500 Board seats  3.6% Fortune 500 CEO’s Women’s financial compensation  Wage gap = 76.6%  7.6% of Fortune 500 top earners were women
  3. 3. Gender & Negotiations Conflicting empirical evidence for the effect of gender on negotiations (for review, Kray & Thompson, 2005)  Situational variation is important Focus on distributive negotiations  Women are less competitive than men (Walters, Stulmacher, & Meyer, 1998)  Women agree to worse outcomes than men (Stulmacher & Walters, 1999)
  4. 4. Social Constraints Traditional gender roles  Feminine = communality, caring, helpfulness (Chapman, 1975; Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Karau, 2002)  Masculine = independence, self-reliance, assertiveness (Moore, 1984; Schein, 2001) Gender roles as social norms (Eagly, 1987)  Descriptive norms – “how women are”  Perceived average or typical behavior for the gender  Expectations are anchored on the perceived average  Injunctive norms – “how women should be”  Standard for gender-appropriate behavior in a situation  Violators of standard are socially sanctioned  Prescriptive & Proscriptive components
  5. 5. Backlash Effect Managerial effectiveness (and distributive negotiation tactics) strongly associated with masculine characteristics  Independence, Assertiveness, Self-confidence, etc.  Inconsistency with feminine gender roles  1: Women assumed to have less leadership potential than men  Likeable but incompetent (Eagly & Karau, 2002)  Based on descriptive function of gender norms  2: Women who do demonstrate leadership are socially punished for violating gender norms  Competent but unlikeable (Eagly et al., 1992; Heilman, 2001, et al., 2004)  Based on injunctive function of gender norms
  6. 6. Advocacy Advocacy Context (Bowles, Babcock & McGinn, 2005; Wade 2001)  Self: Negotiating on one’s own behalf  Other: Negotiating on behalf of another Other-advocacy moderates (in)congruence of female gender role with value claiming negotiation tactics  Self: Assertive tactics ≠ Female gender role  Perceived as self-interested and agentic  Other: Assertive tactics = Female gender role  Women traditionally other-advocates (Wade, 2001)  Women more comfortable wielding power for others (Miller, 1991)
  7. 7. Your Data: Comparing Advocacy Contexts 4Extremely 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 Frequency 3 Comfort 2.8 Success 2.6Not at all 2.4 2.2 2 Self-Advocacy Other-Advocacy
  8. 8. Outline of Studies Effect on Outcomes  Pilot Study – Salary negotiation exercise Psychological Mechanisms  Behavior of Targets  Study 1 – Conflict resolution style preference  Study 2 – Concessionary behavior during negotiation mediated by fear of backlash  Behavior of Perceivers  Study 3 – Social Backlash  Study 4 – Replication of Backlash
  9. 9. Pilot Study: Method 56 upper-level managers (80% male) Simulated salary negotiation  Manipulated advocacy in new hire role  New hire negotiating own salary  Substitute filling in due to scheduling conflict  For control, hiring manager always male  Wide zone of possible agreements from $108K to $133K
  10. 10. Pilot Study: Results 133 131Salary ($ thousands) 129 127 125 Male 123 Female 121 119 117 115 113 Self Other Advocacy Context
  11. 11. Outline of Studies Effect on Outcomes  Pilot Study – Salary negotiation exercise Psychological Mechanisms  Behavior of Targets  Study 1 – Conflict resolution style preference  Study 2 – Concessionary behavior during negotiation mediated by fear of backlash  Behavior of Perceivers  Study 3 – Social Backlash  Study 4 – Replication of Backlash
  12. 12. Study 1: Method 115 Executive MBAs (74% male) Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument  The innovation  Focusing the questions on conflicts in which respondents were Self- vs. Other-advocacy  Distributive Index = Competing – Accommodating Recent large-sample study found women score lower on competing than men at all organizational levels (Thomas et al. 2006)  Does other-advocacy moderate this effect?
  13. 13. Study 1: Results 3 2Distributive Index 1 0 Male -1 Female -2 -3 -4 Self Other Advocacy Context
  14. 14. Your Data: Negotiation Self-Efficacy 75Confidence in Negotiation Ability 70 65 60 55 Self-Advocacy 50 Other-Advocacy 45 40 35 30 Distributive Self-Efficacy Integrative Self-Efficacy
  15. 15. Study 2: Method 59 subjects (53% male) Computerized negotiation experiment  Same counterpart for each subject  Computer-simulated male counterpart  Hiring manager always same male  Gender made salient with digital photos  Presented counterparts with side by side photos Dependent variable  Concessionary behavior Mediating variable  Fear of anticipated backlash  2-item measure (r = .91)  “How much do you think you can reasonably ask for without causing the hiring manager…  …to perceive you to be a pushy person?”  …to punish you for being too demanding?”  Lower score indicates greater fear of backlash
  16. 16. Study 2: Results Anticipated Backlash 52000Anticipated Backlash 50000 48000 46000 Male 44000 Female 42000 40000 38000 Self Other Advocacy Context
  17. 17. Study 2: Results Concessionary Behavior 52000Round 1 Counteroffer 50000 48000 46000 Male 44000 Female 42000 40000 38000 Self Other Advocacy Context
  18. 18. Study 2: Results Mediation Anticipated Backlash Backlash only: β = .75*** β = .45* Combined model: β = .66*** Counteroffer Gender * Role Gender*Role only: β = .45* (Round 1) Combined model: β = .16Note: * p < .05; *** p < .001
  19. 19. Study 2: Concessionary Behavior500004800046000 Male - Self44000 Male - Other42000 Female - Self Female - Other400003800036000 1 2 3 4 5 Round of Negotiation
  20. 20. Outline of Studies Effect on Outcomes  Pilot Study – Salary negotiation exercise Psychological Mechanisms  Behavior of Targets  Study 1 – Conflict resolution style preference  Study 2 – Concessionary behavior during negotiation mediated by fear of backlash  Behavior of Perceivers  Study 3 – Social Backlash  Study 4 – Replication of Backlash
  21. 21. Study 3: Method 52 MBA students Salary negotiation exercise  During class focused on value claiming tactics  Students encouraged to be aggressive No differences in salary across gender/role  But did self-advocating women suffer backlash at the cost of financial gain? Asked counterparts how negative/positive of an impression they formed of their partner after the negotiation (scale from 1 to 7)
  22. 22. Study 3: Results 6Impression Formed by 5.5 Counterpart 5 Male 4.5 Female 4 3.5 3 Self Other Advocacy Context
  23. 23. Study 4: Method 226 undergraduate subjects (50% male) 2 x 2 x 2 Factorial Design  Gender of Target: Male or Female  Behavior of Target: Assertive or Non-assertive  Advocacy Context: Self or Other Dependent Variable  Measured Social Backlash
  24. 24. Study 4: Results 5 4.8Social Acceptance 4.6 4.4 4.2 Male 4 Female 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3 Self Other Self Other Assertive Non-Assertive
  25. 25. Gendered Attributions Double bind: Warmth vs. Competence  Likable & incompetent OR competent & unlikable Greater nuance in injunctive norms  Prescriptive  How men/women “should be”  Men – “Competent”  Women – “Warm”  Proscriptive  How men/women “ought not be”  Men – “Weak”  Women – “Dominant”  Arguably greater sanctions for these violations
  26. 26. Follow-up Study: Attributions 532 students Watched video of a negotiation  Hiring manager was static  Manipulated Sex, Behavior, Advocacy of Target Measured  Likelihood to backlash against target  Social backlash  Leader backlash  Gendered attributions  Prescriptions – positive masc/fem attributes  Proscriptions – negative masc/fem attributes(For brevity, results from Female Targets only)
  27. 27. Attribution Study: ResultsNegative Masculine Attributions 5.00 4.50 (Dominant/Arrogant) 4.00 3.50 Self-Advocate Other-Advocate 3.00 2.50 2.00 Assertive Non-Assertive
  28. 28. Attribution Study: Results 3.80 3.60Negative Feminine Attributions 3.40 3.20 (Weak/Naive) 3.00 Self-Advocate 2.80 Other-Advocate 2.60 2.40 2.20 2.00 Assertive Non-Assertive
  29. 29. Negotiating for a group Us-advocacy  What is more salient?  Self-interested motives – Inconsistency → backlash present  Other-interested motives – Consistency → backlash absent Can a woman avoid social sanctions AND reap financial value IF negotiating for a group to which she belongs?
  30. 30. Us-Advocacy: Your Frequency Data - again 4Extremely 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 Frequency 3 Comfort 2.8 Success 2.6Not at all 2.4 2.2 2 Self-Advocacy Other-Advocacy Us-Advocacy
  31. 31. Follow-up Studies: Us-Advocacy Negotiation vignette  Financial hardships leaves annual bonuses smaller than usual  Subordinate requests larger bonus  Manipulated target gender & advocacy (self vs. group) Post-vignette questionnaire  Social backlash: N = 344 (259 MBA + 85 Undergraduate)  Impression formed about target  Financial backlash: N = 185 Undergraduate  Likelihood to increase bonus  Likelihood to decrease bonus
  32. 32. Results: Social Appraisal 3.90 3.70Social Acceptance 3.50 3.30 Male Female 3.10 2.90 2.70 2.50 Self-advocacy Us-advocacy
  33. 33. Results: No Reward Differences 3.4Likelihood to INCREASE Bonus 3.2 3 2.8 Male Female 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 Self-advocacy Us-advocacy
  34. 34. Results: Penalty Levied! 2.9 2.7Likelihood to REDUCE Bonus 2.5 2.3 Male Female 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 Self-advocacy Us-advocacy
  35. 35. Summary of Findings Self-advocating women  Fear social backlash for behaving assertively  And do incur backlash when behaving assertively!  Seen as overly dominant/arrogant  Others less likely to want to interact with them  Negotiate less assertively  Agree to monetarily worse outcomes Other-advocating women  Do not fear social backlash for assertiveness  Negotiate assertively  Agree to monetarily better outcomes (for others)  BUT…can incur backlash if not assertive enough!  Seen as weak/naïve/gullible  Others do not want them as leaders
  36. 36. Take-aways & Remedies Individual-level  Blaming vs. Empowering the Victim  Framing of the negotiation  Reframe self-oriented negotiations as other- advocacy  Or as us-advocacy! Organizational-level  Implementation of compensation systems not dependent on employee self-promotion  Objective criteria  Peer evaluations
  37. 37. The Female Advantage Women tend to take a more co-operative approach to negotiations than men.  Share information.  Take flexible positions.  Seek to understand both parties’ goals: Listen! Women are more likely than men to act as if a negotiation has win/win potential.  Don’t suffer from the “mythical fixed-pie bias.”  This is especially good for repeated interactions.

×