Women at the Bargaining Table: Pitfalls and Prospects

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1397699

MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER SERIES RESEARCH PAPER NO. 09-19

WOMEN AT THE BARGAINING TABLE: PITFALLS AND PROSPECTS

25 NEGOTIATION JOURNAL 233 (2009)

Catherine H. Tinsley

Associate Professor, The McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University

Sandra I. Cheldelin Vernon M. and Minni I. Lynch Professor, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University

Andrea Kupfer Schneider Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School

Emily T. Amanatullah Assistant Professor, McCombs School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin

(April 2009)

This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1397699.

Andrea K. Schneider Professor of Law

Marquette University Law School Sensenbrenner Hall

P.O. Box 1881 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201-1881

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1397699

1

Women at the Bargaining Table: Pitfalls and Prospects

Catherine H. Tinsley, Associate Professor, The McDonough School of Business, Georgetown

University ([email protected])

Sandra I. Cheldelin, Vernon M. and Minni I. Lynch Professor, Institute for Conflict Analysis and

Resolution, George Mason University ([email protected])

Andrea Kupfer Schneider, Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School

([email protected])

Emily T. Amanatullah, Assistant Professor, McCombs School of Business, The University of

Texas at Austin ([email protected])

Abstract

Key Words

negotiation, gender, identity, power, culture

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1397699

2

Women at the Bargaining Table: Pitfalls and Prospects

Although great social strides have been made resulting in women’s near equal

representation in the U.S. workforce (projected 48% for 20081), empirical evidence robustly

documents the economic disadvantage of women relative to men in the workforce. Despite

organizational benefits for promoting women, such as increased return on equity and return to

shareholders (Catalyst 2004), as well as increased diversity which can promote creativity

(Nemeth and Wachtler 1983) and better problem solving (Jackson 1992; Nemeth and Kwan

1987), women are consistently under-represented in upper management (Catalyst 2007; Gutek

1993; Wells, 2001) and receive less compensation when controlling for career type, level, age,

education, etc. (Schneer and Reitman 1995; Stroh, Brett, and Reilly 1992). For example,

although women make up nearly half of the nonagricultural workforce, they hold only 16.4% of

corporate officerships in the Fortune 500, 14.7% of Fortune 500 board seats, and 1.6% of

Fortune 500 CEO positions (Catalyst 2007a). Moreover, college educated women between the

ages of 21 and 30 earn 89% 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 an 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 (Eagly and Karau 2002; Kent and Moss

1994; Rudman 1998; Tharenou 2001). Specifically, the values and behaviors expected of

effective managers are highly correlated with masculine characteristics such as independence,

assertiveness, self-reliance, and power (Moore 1984; Schein 2001; Schein and Mueller 1992) and

inconsistent with feminine characteristics such 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 leads evaluators to assume 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

1 Howard Fullerton, Jr., Monthly Labor Review OnLine, November 1999, Vol. 122, No. 11

3

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 and Okimoto 2007; Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, and Tamkins 2004).

This negative social reaction people have towards women engaging in the masculine behaviors

(such as independence and assertiveness) has been termed the backlash effect (Rudman 1998).

For example, in the court case, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, Ms. Hopkins was denied

partnership at the firm Price Waterhouse, partly because she was 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 (The Supreme Court held

that when gender plays a motivating part in an employment decision, the defendant is liable for

discrimination unless they can prove they would have made the same decision not taking the

plaintiff’s gender into account.)

Further, this potential for social backlash can lead women to anticipate a social

disincentive, and therefore inhibit them from behaving in independent and assertive manners

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. The

incongruence of the core feminine stereotype with managerial effectiveness can result in women

being perceived as competent but unlikable, or as likeable but incompetent.

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 likeable), an economic backlash against women

(being less likely to grant their resource requests), and studies showing the former leading to the

latter. However, 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.

2 490 U.S. 228 1989

4

Do Women Face a Double Bind?

Many organizations may remain what 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 differences

between men and women on these traits (Heilman, Block, and Martelli 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%

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

(behaving in “feminine” ways—caring, cooperative, and nurturing) or being perceived as

competent (behaving in “masculine” ways—self-confident, independent, and assertive). One

experiment demonstrated exactly this sort of constraint. Tinsley, Gavio, Walker, Stoever, and

Griffin (2008) constructed a series of videos in which a Finance Director (alternatively a man or

a woman) has to choose between tending to a work crisis (an IT system crash) and a family

emergency (a sick child). Respondents watched one of these four videos (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 likeable. On the other hand, the choices male Finance

Directors made did not matter--they were always judged 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 Director. Moreover, the female Director was essentially forced to

choose between being seen as likable or competent. Assuming both competency and likability

are necessary for career progression, we see how a gendered work environment might create

unique barriers for women.

Other studies of varying methods have found that assertive and self-confident women are

evaluated more negatively than men who behaved in equivalent ways (Butler and Geis 1990;

5

Costrich, Feinstein, Kidder, Marecek, and Pascale 1975; Heilman, Block, Martell, and Simon

1989). 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, resulting in lower hireability

ratings (Janoff-Bulman and Wade 1996). This same pattern of women engaging in

counterstereotypic behaviors, being 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, Bersoff, Borgida, Deaux, and Heilman 1991; Heilman 2001;

Lyness and Judiesch 1999; Sonnert and Holton 1996). 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 are more female-friendly. (Moss 2004)

Related Negotiation Research

In negotiation, gendered expectations have a striking influence on social, and perhaps

financial, penalties women face relative to men. For example, results from one study where

participants viewed a negotiation transcript of a job applicant, found that when the female

potential new hires asked for more compensation they were judged significantly more

demanding and less “nice” than when a male potential new hire engaged in the same behavior

(Bowles, et al. 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 male counterparts who behaved in the exact same

manner (Amanatullah 2007). Similarly, when a Human Resources manager is negotiating for a

refund on unused hotel space, the HR manager is judged more offensive and is less likely to

receive a refund when she is a female than when he is a male (Amanatullah and Tinsley 2008a).

Interestingly, both male and female evaluators are equally likely to engage in this social and

financial backlash against female negotiators.

In an unpublished manuscript, Wade (1995) found that when making salary requests in a

public context, where the potential for evaluation and subsequent backlash was present, women

requested lower salaries than when requests were made in a private context, where the potential

6

for backlash was eliminated and women were freed from normative expectations of selflessness.

This suggests that women’s reticence to assert their self-interests stems from an anticipatory

response designed to avoid backlash.

Backlash as a Context Dependent Phenomenon

Yet, this backlash story 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 that comparing female

targets to an activated female stereotype may be a necessary condition for evaluators to socially

and financially sanction assertive behavior in women. Thus, aspects of the situation which elicit

or suppress stereotype usage either amplify or attenuate the likelihood of backlash.

First, Amanatullah and Tinsley (2008a) found that when resources are so plentiful that

the refund request is not threatening to the respondent, then backlash is attenuated. Threats tend

to heighten negative stereotypes against both individuals (Fein and Spencer 1997), and other

social groups (Gonsalkorale, Carlisle, and von Hippel 2007). Accordingly, Amanatullah and

Tinsley (2008a) found that when resources were low (threats high) 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.

A second situation where backlash is reduced depends on the status or role of the women.

The researchers hypothesized and found that when the female was described as being of high

status—a Senior HR manager with a track record of success—the backlash against her was

diminished. A possible explanation for this effect of status on the potential for backlash is that

women who occupy a position of high status (especially one that is externally conferred such as

organizational role) are no longer perceived as a challenge to the status quo if their behaviors

violate traditional gendered expectations. In other words, her assertive behavior is attributed to

her position rather than her gender and because successful executives are expected to assert

themselves, this behavior is no longer perceived as a violation of expectations. Senior HR

7

mangers who have an established track record of success may be less bound to rules about

“being nice.”

Finally, it may be 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 2008; Schneider 2002).3 When

acting as lawyers, these women were not sanctioned even though they were rated higher in

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 mangers 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 2008b). Acting as an other-advocate not only aligns assertive

negotiation behavior with 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 non-assertively 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, Bowles, Babcock, and 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 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.

3 Although these women were seen as less creative, less smooth, and less wise—these differences were small

relative to the number of adjectives on which they were rated similar to their male counterparts. In addition, the

women lawyers had, on average, practiced fewer years than the men and so were objectively less experienced.

8

A different way of examining the core feminine stereotype found another potential

advantage for women. When both men and women flirted in the negotiation, women were

perceived as more likable (Kray and Locke, 2008). As the researchers noted, because the flirting

may fit more closely with the perceived stereotype of women, the women may have benefited

more from this behavior. Furthermore, the flirting had no impact on the measure of perceived

competence of the negotiator.

Persistence of the Core Feminine Stereotype

It is natural to ask, of course, how the core feminine stereotype was constructed in the

first place, and why it persists. While we do not discount the biological bases for gendered roles,

we argue that patterns of socialization have a profound influence on the gendering of society.

Although the boundaries of gender have become more permeable and flexible over the years

(e.g., women are not sanctioned for wearing pants) there are still strong reinforcements starting

in early childhood pushing boys to play with trucks and girls to play with dolls. We suggest the

core feminine stereotype may have had an evolutionary value, as its characteristics have obvious

relationships to childbearing—nurturance, caring. When the female role is dominated by child

rearing, this stereotype is both descriptive and perhaps prescriptive.

Yet, in societies where both men and women are equal contributors to the professional

work environment, this stereotype’s usefulness is more limited. Why, then, is it still held so

strongly? Because stereotypes operate, for the most part, on a subconscious level,4 their elusive

nature makes them more difficult to discuss. We speculate that social constructions like these

core gender stereotypes help people to define their identity and those of others in their social

world, as well as to work through the complexities of their social world.

To manage complexity, people categorize their social world into groups (ie., social

categorization theory), and we derive our identity by our membership in (or exclusion from)

these social groups (social identity theory). To simplify, we tend to aggregate people into a

dichotomous structure where there is an other who is not like me/us. There are in-groups (who

define my identity) and out-groups (who are the antithesis of it). That is, we set up “categories

4 In our studies, both men and women penalized assertive women, and when confronted with the results, participants

expressed no awareness that they had judged female targets more harshly.

9

of difference.5” The frames we use to understand the other are organized into binary spheres.

Though these are not absolute categories, they are conceived as dichotomous.6

Gender may still be a powerful diacritical marker because it is a naturally dichotomous

category and one that is often easily observable. There are men and not men (women).

Therefore it may be important to protect the gendered categories of difference as a way of

protecting the “male” and “female” identities. Hence we see the strong backlash against

powerful, assertive females, particularly those that are “breaking the barriers” (i.e., the carefully

crafted social constructions).

Negotiating Change

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 stereotype is not likely to yield positive results. As with other de-biasing

attempts, success at undoing gender biases simply by telling people they exist is likely to be

rather elusive.

So what are females to do at the bargaining table? What emerges from the research

above are a number of insights. First, women should work with the core feminine stereotype

when possible. Women might try to work within their prescribed roles—capitalizing on

society’s expectations of the nurturing female. Second, when women cannot (or choose not to)

work within the confines of prescribed roles, they need to 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.

1) Working within the core feminine stereotype. If the core feminine stereotype sees

women as nurturing and protecting of others, then efforts to align women’s assertive bargaining

5 Susan Moller Okin, Gender, the Public, and the Private. in Feminism and Politics 116, 117 (Anne Phillips, ed.)

1998. 6 Emily B. Mawhinney, Eyewitness to Gendercide: A Critical Feminist Analysis of Rape as a Tool of War in Bosnia

and Rwanda 13, (March 4, 2005) available at http://www.isanet.org (offering other modernist binaries: center vs.

periphery, push vs. pull, homogeneity vs. heterogeneity, consumption vs. production, and workers vs.

cosmopolitans.)

10

moves with this nurturing behavior will be fruitful for garnering economic gains while avoiding

social costs. The research on advocacy suggest 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 or to support her

family) rather than self-interested. Using specific references in the negotiation to the team,

client, or family 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 for their client were successful and clearly this win would help their own career as

well. Moreover, Amanatullah and Tinsley (2008b) 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 Kray, Reb, Galinsky, and Thompson (2004) has also found, consistent with

past research, that women succumb to stereotype threat, negotiating more poorly when cues to

stereotypes are subtly activated. However, when stereotype cues are blatantly activated, female

negotiators react against the norm and negotiate more effectively. It is possible this reaction to

overt stereotyping may be a result of female negotiators treating the situation as a negotiation on

behalf of their social group as a whole (defending women in general) rather than merely for

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 is crucial for avoiding backlash.

Researchers argue that the backlash effect is not a reaction to women behaving too masculine but

rather is a sanction against women who are not behaving feminine (Heilman and Okimoto,

2007). As such, learning to balance and monitor ones self-presentation as both competent

(masculine) and likeable (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

11

pulling their hair back, wearing pantsuits instead of skirts, and rejecting femininity for

masculinity). Yet as Deborah Hopkins might attest, this strategy seems destined to lead to

criticism that the woman is “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 will facilitate the ascent up the corporate hierarchy.

These prescriptions suggest that women should affirm 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 are:

a. When negotiating a starting salary, bonus or promotion, instead of requesting

more resources out of personal entitlement or desire, women might consider re-

framing their request out of a need to support their families and provide security

for their homesteads. This will affirm women’s perceived communality and

concern for others.

b. Similarly, when negotiating for seemingly self-interested resources, women

should make requests based on a desire to be best equipped to do their job for

their team, department, or organization as a whole, thereby affirming their

positions as team-players interested in the performance and success of the group

rather than their own personal ambition.

c. Another way 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 instantiated

as an organizational norm.

d. When no other external constituencies are present to defer self-interested pursuits,

women should mentally reframe the negotiation as one on behalf of the larger

social group, e.g., women as a whole, and argue on behalf of gender equity

concerns. Reminding oneself of the typical stereotypes—that women don’t ask,

that women are perceived as more cooperative— should trigger the behavior

necessary to overcome this.

12

2) Minimizing activation of the core feminine stereotype. It may not always be possible

to reframe a situation to 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, creating situations where assertive behavior can be deflected away from

one’s identity as a woman will result in a lower likelihood of backlash. The above research

shows that 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:

a. Women should try to time their battles. Evaluate when requests are going to be

perceived as less rather than more threatening. Under benevolent conditions,

people will be more open to self-advocating females.

b. 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 not threatening because it is seen as

simply forwarding a shared vision and goals.

c. Women should affiliate as part of a team. To the extent that they are one member

of a gender diverse team they may focus evaluators’ attention on them as a team

member more so than as a female. As a team member it is acceptable to assert

oneself; thereby, being evaluated based on this referent is ideal relative to being

evaluated based on a gendered referent.

d. Similarly, if they happen to occupy the position of a team leader, as above,

requests on behalf of the team as a whole may be seen as stereotype-consistent

behavior (nurturing).

e. Women might consider providing explanations or social accounts for 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 remind the other

party of the position rather than the gender of the negotiator.

13

3) Negotiating to move the boundaries of acceptable behavior. 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 they are

irrelevant for judging her in this context. This means, in essence, confronting and re-negotiating

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. Women should acknowledge the gendered expectations of her evaluator and that

her assertive behavior may appear “out of the norm” but offer social accounts 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, claiming that this instance of behavioral non-conformity is not a

challenge to that gendered norm will mitigate the potential for backlash. 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.”

b. To help destabilize the dichotomy or required unidimensionality that exists for

each gender, women might add to their own complexity and multidimensionality

by presenting simple and acceptable social accounts. For example, women could

highlight her role as an employee of the firm, manager of the team, community

member, devoted wife, loving mother, golf enthusiast, etc. creating a multi-

faceted and complex identity of the individual whereby she can no longer be

evaluated simply as a woman against traditional gender norms.

c. Women should cultivate powerful allies that 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.

14

Teaching about Subconscious Biases

Our experience is that instructors teaching about these gender effects will meet some

amount of 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 very 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 prefer to insist upon a world that is

racially blind and ungendered, possibly because avoiding the issue is easier than finding

solutions for it. Or alternatively, some have confided that to discuss gender issues appears

“radical” or “feminist” to their peers, and they do not wish those labels. Still others shy away

from the discussion feeling like somehow they are the ones with the problem if people are

treating them differently. Finally, since many of these gender biases are subconscious, they

operate out of the awareness of conscious thought.

We have found that the most effective way to discuss gender biases is with 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 where counterpart is male and the other half the same scenario

where counterpart is female and have them rate their counterpart. 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 post-

negotiation impression formation reports. In small group (3 or 4) students can reflect upon their

behaviors—a safer place to explore their own biases than with the class-at-large.

15

An exercise that can be insightful is to have students play opposite gender roles in a

gendered situation (for example, 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 10-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 being

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 that

we make about others.

The key for instructors is using 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 begin to challenge the status quo and alter society

expectations to mitigate the unequal social constraints impeding the success of women.

Conclusion

Research reveals that women need to work with the core feminine stereotypes when

possible. However, women should try to minimize the likelihood of the core feminine

stereotypes being activated. 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 which are

holding women back illuminates remedies for managing these issues in the present and hopefully

changing gendered expectations in the future.

16

REFERENCES

Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and

Society, 4(2), 139-158.

Amanatullah, E. T. 2007. Negotiating gender role stereotypes: The influence of gender role

stereotypes on perceivers' evaluations and targets' behaviors in value claiming

negotiations and situational moderation by representation role. Ph.D. dissertation,

Columbia University, United States -- New York. Retrieved October 9, 2008, from

Dissertations & Theses: Full Text Database. (Publication No. AAT 3285036).

Amanatullah, E. T. and Morris, M. W. 2008. Negotiating gender roles: Advocacy context

moderates women’s anticipated backlash and assertive bargaining. Under review.

Amanatullah, E.T. and Tinsley, C.H., 2008a. Ask and ye shall NOT receive: Financial responses

to women’s negotiation attempts and moderation by status-based threat. Working Paper,

Georgetown University.

Amanatullah, E.T. and Tinsley, C.H., 2008b. Accepting assertive advocates: The moderation of

the backlash effect against assertive women due to advocacy. Working Paper,

Georgetown University.

Barron, L. A. (2003). Ask and you shall receive? Gender differences in negotiators' beliefs about

requests for a higher salary. Human Relations, 56(6), 635-662.

Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., and Lai, L. 2007. Social incentives for gender differences in the

propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103: 84-103.

Bowles, H. R., Babcock, L., and McGinn, K. L., 2005. Constraints and triggers: Situational

mechanics of gender in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89:

951-965.

Broadbent, D. E. 1971. Decision and Stress. London: Academic Press.

Butler, D., and Geis, F. L. 1990. Nonverbal affect responses to male and female leaders:

Implications for leadership evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

58: 48–59.

Catalyst. 1996. Women in corporate leadership: Progress and prospects. New York: Catalyst.

Catalyst. 2004. The bottom line: Connecting corporate performance and gender diversity. New

York, NY: Catalyst.

17

Catalyst. 2007. Catalyst census of women board directors of the Fortune 500. New York:

Catalyst.

Chapman, J. B. 1975. Comparison of male and female leadership styles. Academy of

Management Journal, 18 (3): 645-650.

Cialdini, R. B., and Trost, M. R. 1998. Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and

compliance. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske and G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social

psychology (4 ed., Vol. 2, pp. 151-192). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Costrich, N., Feinstein, J., Kidder, L., Marecek, J., and Pascale, L. 1975. When stereotypes hurt:

Three studies of penalties for sex-role reversals. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 11: 520–530.

Cotter, D. A., Hermsen, J. M., and Vanneman, R. (2004). Gender Inequality at Work. In R.

Farley and J. Haaga (Eds.), The American People: Census 2000. New York: Russell Sage

Foundation.

Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., and Steele, C. M. (2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates

the effects of stereotype threat on women's leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 88(2), 276-287.

Duffy, E. 1962. Activation and Behavior. New York: Wiley.

Eagly, A. H. 1987. Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Eagly, A. H. and Karau, S. J. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.

Psychological Review, 109(3): 573-598.

Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., and Klonsky, B. G. 1992. Gender and the evaluation of leaders:

A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111: 3-22.

Eysenck, M. W. 1976. Arousal, learning, and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 83: 389-404.

Fein, S. and Spencer, S. J. 1997. Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through

derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73: 31-44.

Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., and Heilman, M. 1991. Social science

research on trial: Use of stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. American

Psychologist, 46: 1049–1060.

Fiske, S. T. and Taylor, S. E. 1991. Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

18

Gonsalkorale, K., Carlisle, K., and von Hippel, W. 2007. Intergroup threat increases implicit

stereotyping. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 7: 189-

200.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., and Schwartz, J. L. K. 1998. Measuring individual

differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.

Gutek, B. A. 1993. Changing the status of women in management. Applied Psychology: An

International Review, 42: 301-311.

Heilman, M. E. 2001. Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's

ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57: 657-674.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., and Simon, M. C. 1989. Has anything changed?

Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 74: 935–942.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., and Martell, R. F. (1995). Sex stereotypes: Do they influence

perceptions of managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 237-252.

Heilman, M. E. and Okimoto, T. G. 2007. Why are women penalized for success at male tasks?:

The implied communality deficit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 81-92.

Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., and Tamkins, M. M. 2004. Penalties for success:

Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83(3): 416-427.

Jackson, S. E. 1992. Team composition in organizational settings: Issues in managing and

increasingly diverse workforce. In S. Worchel and W. Wood and J. A. Simpson (Eds.),

Group process and productivity: 138-173. Newbury Park: Sage.

Janoff-Bulman, R., and Wade, M. B. 1996. The dilemma of self-advocacy for women: Another

case of blaming the victim? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15: 143–152.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Kent, R. L. and S. E. Moss, Self-monitoring as a predictor of leader emergence. Psychological

Reports 66 (1994), pp. 875-881.

Kray, L. J. and Locke C. C. 2008. To Flirt or Not to Flirt? Sexual Power at the Bargaining

Table. Negotiation Journal, 24 (4): 483-493.

19

Kray, L. J., Reb, J., Galinsky, A. D., and Thompson, L. 2004. Stereotype reactance at the

bargaining table: The effect of stereotype activation and power on claiming and creating

value. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 399-411.

Leonhardt, D. (2006, December 24). Scant progress on closing gap in women's pay. The New

York Times, p. 1.

Lyness, K. S., and Judiesch, M. K. 1999. Are women more likely to be hired or promoted into

management positions? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54: 158–173.

Moore, D.P. 1984. Evaluating in-role and out-of-role performers. Academy of Management

Journal, 27 (3): 603-618.

Moss, S. 2004. Women Choosing Diverse Workplaces: A Rational Preference with Disturbing

Implications for Both Occupational Segregation and Economic Analysis of Law,

Harvard Women's Law Journal, 27 (1) 1-88.

Nemeth, C. J. and Wachtler, J. 1983. Creative problem solving as a result of majority vs.

minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13(1): 45-55.

Nemeth, C. J. and Kwan, J. L. 1987. Minority influence, divergent thinking and detection of

correct solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 19(9): 788-799.

Roberts, S. (2007, September 3). For young earners in big city, gap shifts in women’s favor. The

New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com.

Rudman, L. A. 1998. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of

counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74(3): 629-645.

Rudman, L. A. and Fairchild, K. 2004. Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of

backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 87: 157-176.

Schein, V. E. 2001. A global look at psychological barriers to women's progress in management.

Journal of Social Issues, 57: 675-688.

Schein, V. E. and Mueller, R. 1992. Sex role stereotyping and requisite management

characteristics: A cross cultural look. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(5): 439-

447.

Schneer, J. A. and Reitman, F. 1995. The impact of gender as managerial careers unfold. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 47: 290-315.

20

Schneider, A. K. 2002. Shattering Negotiation Myths: Empirical Evidence on the Effectiveness

of Negotiation Style. Harvard Negotiation Law Review 7; 143-233.

Schneider, A. K. 2008 Gender and Negotiation. Marquette Law School Working Paper.

Sonnert, G., and Holton, G. 1996. Career patterns of women and men in the sciences. American

Scientist, 84: 63–71.

Staw, B., Sandelands, L. E., and Dutton, J. E. 1981. Threat rigidity effects in organizational

behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: 501-524.

Stroh, L. K., Brett, J. M., and Reilly, A. H. 1992. All the right stuff:

A comparison of female and male career patterns. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 251-516.

Tharenou, P. (2001). Going up? Do traits and informal social processes predict advancing in

management? Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 1005-1018.

Tinsley, C.H., Gavio, B., Goroski, A.W., Stoever, K., and Griffith, E. (2008). Should I stay or

should I go? Gender, work-life crisis, and predictability. Working paper, Georgetown

University Women's Leadership Initiative.

Wade, M. E. 1995. Gender and advocacy: Requests for the self and other. Poster presented at the

Seventh Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Society, New York, NY.

Wells, S. J. 2001. A female executive is hard to find, HR Magazine, Vol. June.!