Constraints and triggers: situational mechanics of gender in negotiation.

John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Impact Factor: 5.08). 01/2006; 89(6):951-65. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.951
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The authors propose 2 categories of situational moderators of gender in negotiation: situational ambiguity and gender triggers. Reducing the degree of situational ambiguity constrains the influence of gender on negotiation. Gender triggers prompt divergent behavioral responses as a function of gender. Field and lab studies (1 and 2) demonstrated that decreased ambiguity in the economic structure of a negotiation (structural ambiguity) reduces gender effects on negotiation performance. Study 3 showed that representation role (negotiating for self or other) functions as a gender trigger by producing a greater effect on female than male negotiation performance. Study 4 showed that decreased structural ambiguity constrains gender effects of representation role, suggesting that situational ambiguity and gender triggers work in interaction to moderate gender effects on negotiation performance.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Women receive lower monetary compensation than men in all occupations and across all ranks. For managers, this gender pay gap is substantially higher than in average working populations. The goal of this chapter is to enhance our understanding of the managerial gender pay gap and its particularities. We first outline the problem using archival evidence of the gaps in male and female managers’ pay around the world, considering the role of gender differences in human capital characteristics and the structural forces that lead to pay inequality. Then we present experimental evidence from psychological research in order to shed light on the underlying mechanisms that lead to gender disparities in managers’ pay. Considering the perspective of both pay allocators and receivers, we explore psychological processes such as the impact of gender stereotypes on biased evaluations of women’s performance and gendered moral standards, as well as the impact of stereotypes on gender differences in attitudes and negotiation behavior. Finally, we present suggestions for legislators, organizations, and women to prevent and counteract the gender pay gap in management, and we discuss potential pitfalls of such interventions. We conclude that gender dynamics affecting managerial pay are not straight forward. Therefore, research as well as interventions have to go beyond a mere consideration of gender differences in pay and negotiation behavior, and react upon a complex interaction of structural forces, pay allocators, and receivers.
    Auswahl und Beurteilung von Frauen und Männern als Führungskräfte in der Wirtschaft – Herausforderungen, Chancen und Lösungen, Edited by Isabell M. Welpe, Pricia Brosi, Lisa Ritzenhöfer, Tania Schwarzmüller, 08/2015; Springer.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study experimentally examined how power and gender affect negotiation behaviors and how those behaviors affect negotiated outcomes. One hundred and forty-six dyads, in four combinations of power and gender, negotiated compensation agreements. In line with gender stereotypes, male negotiators were more dominating and females more obliging and somewhat more compromising. However, partially challenging the common association of power and masculinity, high-power negotiators were less dominating and more collaborating, obliging and avoiding than their low-power opponents. Generally, feminine and high-power behaviors induced agreement while masculine and low-power behaviors enhanced distributive personal gain. The study also assessed patterns of behavioral reciprocity and used sophisticated analytic tools to control for dyadic interdependence. Therefore it helps to elucidate the negotiation process and the role that power and its interplay with gender play in it.
    Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 02/2015; 8(1). DOI:10.1111/ncmr.12045 · 0.76 Impact Factor
  • The Journal of Education for Business 03/2014; 89(3):149-155. DOI:10.1080/08832323.2013.794121

Preview (2 Sources)

Available from