Let me start by saying that it is risky to label the behavior of an entire group of individuals, whether by gender, race, culture, or let’s say… eye color. One may find that the differences within a group far exceed the difference between groups. Good negotiators know that they should avoid stereotyping, and instead, should depend on information and experience to evaluate a person’s conflict management style. If we look at where individuals lie on measures of two attributes: concern for self and concern for others, research suggests that there are, in fact, slight differences between men and women in these respects. Women have been found to generally more cooperative. Additionally, other studies suggest that a woman’s point of view brings benefits to the negotiation process through a focus on relationships, the skills of empathy, and the ability to manage conflict and collaboration, all of which are seen to be advantageous in negotiations. It would seem that women are well-equipped to achieve winning result in value-creating negotiations. And in simulated situations, they often do.
While in a program I attended at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, I practiced my skills through several simulations and role-playing exercises. In one particular exercise, where there were several opportunities to “expand the pie” through recognizing and creating value, women negotiating with women consistently ended up with better outcomes for both parties than men negotiating with men. So, it seems that the answer to the question, “Who is the better negotiator?” is… who knows? Women certainly possess all the natural traits to produce winning outcomes for themselves.
Except for the fact that, often in the real world, the results imply something different. So why don’t these skills that work so well in simulated situations, not translate to better outcomes in the real world? I would like to suggest that it because of the “anchoring effect.” People tend to set their expectations, and their goals, by benchmarks that are given to them, whether these measures are valid or not. How does this affect women? I believe that in general, women set their goals lower than men because of precedents and external anchors that have been set in the societies where they live.
One of the most important factors affecting the outcome of a negotiation is how high your goals are set from the onset. Negotiators who aim higher simply get more. Women may not be getting the piece of the pie they deserve because they don’t expect to. They anchor their goals based on the achievements of other women in their society, often without ever realizing it. And in cultures where women have less status than in America, that benchmark is set even lower.
One other factor to consider is that certain situations do not call for a “collaborative” approach to negotiating. Where the stakes are high, and the potential for future relationships is low, a more competitive approach may be more effective. Young boys are conditioned to be more “competitive” throughout their development, and this characteristic can serve them well in those situations. Additionally, taking a “cooperative split the difference” approach can often result in quick resolutions, yet leave unrecognized value on the table.
Women, it seems, have the natural attributes to be better value-creating negotiators than men. They need to be able to recognize when to shift from a cooperative style to a competitive style if the situation calls for it, but use their innate collaborative attributes to create value whenever the stakes and relationships are high. Most importantly, they need to ignore the anchors set by society, and set their goals and expectations ambitiously high. Many women are uncomfortable with the whole idea of negotiating in business, but are very proficient in their personal lives.
The challenge is simply to apply those skills to their careers.
