Search results

The study tested the effects of gender on negotiation initiation in three topics: salary, work-role and work-home balance; and on employee's perceptions of Covid-19 as inhibiting or enhancing negotiation initiation in these topics.

The authors employed a mixed-methods approach in a sample of 387 Israeli employees (189 female). Analyses of variance tested for gender differences in negotiation initiation and in Covid-19's perceived effects. Participants' additional written explanations, specifying how the pandemic inhibited or enhanced negotiation initiation, were inductively analyzed.

Compared to male, female employees were less inclined to initiate negotiation in all three topics, and more likely to perceive Covid-19 as inhibiting salary and work-role negotiations. Qualitative explanations demonstrated gender-role-consistent motives for avoiding or initiating salary negotiations during Covid-19. They also suggested that the pandemic increased the legitimacy and significance of work-home balance negotiations, across gender.

The study provides new evidence on gender differences in negotiation initiation, particularly over work-role and work-home balance, and is among the first to test these differences in Israel. Moreover, it sheds light on the effects that Covid-19, as a world-wide crisis, had on employees' negotiations in general, and gender equality in employees' negotiations in particular.

Based on gender role theory, this study aims to test a moderated mediation model in which gender, mediated by shame, affected salary negotiation initiation and writing pay raise justifications before the negotiation moderated gender effects, by boosting women’s negotiation initiation and lowering their shame.

Mixed-methods approach: in a scenario experiment, participants (N = 172; 92 women) imagined initiating salary negotiations with real employers, and shame and the inclination to actually initiate the negotiation were measured. About half the sample wrote pay raise justifications as part of the task. In the qualitative phase of the study, justifications were analyzed.

The model’s predictions were not supported. Women were neither less inclined to negotiate nor reported higher shame than men. Across gender, shame related to lower negotiation initiation and was alleviated by justifications’ preparation. Writing justifications did not affect men’s negotiation initiation, but lowered women’s. The qualitative analysis revealed that while all participants preferred communal themes in their justifications, women used themes of confidence, entitlement and power less than men.

The study provides original evidence in negotiation literature, on the effects of shame, on the practice of preparing pay raise justifications and on specific patterns in justifications’ content.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether women encounter more social resistance than men do when they attempt to negotiate for higher compensation, and whether the gender and personality of the interviewer moderates that resistance.

The authors conducted an experiment to explore how gender and personality jointly influence interviewers’ decision making in job negotiations.

The authors found that: first, female interviewees who initiate negotiations in a job interview are penalized by both male and female interviewers; second, more agreeable interviewers are “nicer” than less agreeable ones to interviewees who ask for more pay, even after controlling for the interviewers’ gender; and third, more extraverted interviewers are “tougher” than less extraverted interviewers toward interviewees who initiate salary negotiation. These phenomena are more pronounced when interviewees are male as opposed to female.

Some limitations need to be brought to the reader’s attention. First, the participants of this study are undergraduate students. While most of them have job interview experience as an interviewee, few have any experience as an interviewer. In order to minimize this effect, we used human resources management students who previously had a course on hiring and selection in this experiment. Second, the order of the interviewees evaluated by participants, acting as interviewers, could cause an “order effect.”

This study contributes to the gender, personality, and negotiations literature, and “fills the gap” on the joint effect of gender, personality, and hiring decision making. Gender discrimination during job interviews suggests that business needs to address discrimination and diversity issues earlier. It may be wise for management to consider the potential bias of an interviewer’s gender and personality on their hiring decisions before the organization makes a final decision on which interviewee should be hired and how much salary should be offered.

To the best of the knowledge of the authors, no prior studies have explored the joint effect of gender and personality on negotiation behavior in a job interview setting from an interviewer’s perspective.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the salary and promotion negotiation practices of female and male school psychology practitioners and university instructors of school psychology practitioners in order to determine whether salary differences exist between male and female employees in the field of school psychology, which has become a female‐dominated profession.

A total of 191 female and 115 male faculty members and 148 female and 56 male school psychologists completed a survey regarding salary, negotiation practices, and job satisfaction.

Results suggest that females earn less than male colleagues, controlling for years of experience and degree attainment. No gender differences were found regarding faculty participants' willingness to negotiate for increased salary; however, males were more likely to negotiate for promotion. Likewise, no gender differences were evident in practitioners' salary and promotion negotiation attempts, although none were expected, given the salary schedule constraints unique to occupations in the field of education.

The paper is limited to one profession, albeit both university faculty and school psychology practitioners, and was conducted in the USA, so the findings may have limited generalizability to other professions and/or in other countries.

The paper demonstrates that gender pay differences exist despite no differences in males' and females' willingness to negotiate for salary. Consequently, it is likely that pay differences between men and women are due to reasons other than individuals' education levels, years in position, and negotiation practices.

This is the first paper that tracks salaries and the negotiating practices of school psychologist trainers and practitioners. It also finds that male/female salary differences carry over into a female‐dominated profession.

Based on the social role theory, role congruity theory and gender role conflict theory, this paper aims to investigate the mediating role of “relationship conflict” in the association between traditional gender role (TGR) endorsement and objective and subjective negotiation outcomes.

Two experimental negotiation studies (n1 = 138, n2 = 128) were conducted at a US university.

This paper presents three original and noteworthy findings: One, in mixed-gender negotiations, as a dyad’s TGR endorsement increases, final agreements become significantly more likely to favor men than women. Two, in mixed-gender negotiations, TGR endorsement is significantly associated with a decreased ability to establish a pleasant, mutually satisfactory and successful business relationship, resulting in a possible future economic cost due to lost opportunity. Three, the heightened relationship conflict during the negotiation mediates the negative association between TGR endorsement and women’s economic outcomes.

Empirical findings support social role theory, role congruity theory and gender role conflict theory. The use of a distributive negotiation case and laboratory research methodology may limit the generalizability of findings.

Findings about the detrimental effects of TGR in mixed-gender negotiations magnify the importance of becoming aware of our TGR orientations and their potential negative consequences on our long-term collaborations. Also, it is necessary to provide negotiation trainings to both genders with regard to gender-driven conflicts and offer tools to prevent or tackle such conflicts.

Negotiations are among the most consequential of social interactions as their results have a substantial impact on individuals’ careers and financial outcomes. Understanding the effect of TGRs is paramount to improve female representation, participation and effectiveness in management and leadership. Mixed-gender negotiations such as collective equality bargaining, workplace social interactions, work-life balance discourse are critical to establishing gender equality and fairness in organizations and societies.

Understanding how gender influences negotiation processes and outcomes and using the findings to improve both genders’ negotiation success are crucial to establishing fairness and equity in society and business. This research attempts to close a gap in the literature by focusing on the potential function of gender role orientation in explaining gender differences in negotiation.

The extant literature suggests that men and women do not necessarily possess identical negotiating styles. However, unfortunately the literature has yet to clearly identify the role that gender plays in the negotiation context and in the behaviours of male and female negotiators. This paper aims to contribute to understanding of this topic.

Conceptual/theory paper (with relevant literature reviews).

Perceived power in a multi‐party negotiation can be affected by numerical status, as well as social status with the result that a minority female in a group dominated by males will act differently from a male in a female‐dominated group.

This paper draws on theories of proportional representation, social roles and perceived status, in order to identify a number of factors that can affect the degree of influence exerted and the behavioural style adopted among male and female negotiators in mixed‐gender, multi‐party business negotiations.

This paper explores a very practical question – do men and women behave differently at the “bargaining table”? And how does gender play a role in multi‐party negotiations?

This study is highly original, given the lack of theory in this area.

The main aim of this paper is to analyze the effect of gender differences on negotiation behaviour choice and, consequently, on its outcome. The analysis undertaken is first defined by distinguishing between sex and gender role. It gender role and not biological sex the factor that can have a direct impact on behaviour. With a contextual perspective, we have chosen the negotiation processes of strategic alliances as our contextual framework of analysis.

The paper adopts a qualitative methodology, particularly case study analysis.

A higher degree of complexity increases the perception of ambiguity, which then leads to the influence of gender in the negotiation. Androgynous profiles act favourably in nurturing clearly integrative behaviour, whilst when the profile more closely resembles the masculine stereotype, behaviour tends to be more competitive, though attenuated. Acting in the best interests of the firm, and the fact that negotiators normally belong to the higher echelons of management, favours the adoption of this integrative behaviour. Lastly, it can be observed that competitive behaviour results in less favourable outcomes than an integrative approach in a cooperation agreement.

The proposal bring to the attention of managers the importance of choosing the individuals that are going to negotiate the strategic alliance correctly, in order to achieve better outcomes and to smooth the path towards good performance in the future.

The purpose of this paper is to present how previous research has shown that, in negotiations that have integrative potential, men negotiate greater outcomes than do women. The primary purpose of this set of studies was to determine whether gender difference could be attributed to more effective performance in dividing value, more effective performance in creating value, or both.

In study 1, participants negotiated a case situation that had integrative potential. Participants were randomly assigned to a side of the case and to a negotiation counterpart. This provided a comparison of all possible dyad gender combinations – female‐female, female‐male, and male‐male. Statistical tests included actor‐partner interdependence model (APIM) analysis, ANOVA, χ², and t‐tests. Study 2 replicated a sub‐set of the study 1 tests using a different sample and a different negotiation case situation.

Male‐male dyads created more value than female‐female dyads in both study 1 and study 2. No differences were found in the proportion of the negotiation “pie” claimed by men versus women. These combined results indicate that, in mixed‐motive negotiations, gender differences in individual‐level outcomes are a function of the amount of value created by the dyad, not in differences in the division of value.

The paper extends research regarding gender and negotiation performance by pinpointing that, while men obtain greater outcomes than women in negotiations that have integrative potential, the difference in outcomes emanates from differences in creating value, not from differences in dividing value.

The current studies examine the relationship between negotiation performance and negotiation self‐efficacy of both the focal negotiator and the negotiating counterpart. This paper seeks to further examine the possibility that these relationships are moderated by contextual ambiguity. It proposes that contextual ambiguity is asymmetrical with regard to gender: that a given situation is less ambiguous to the stereotype‐consistent gender and more ambiguous to the other gender.

Two negotiation cases are constructed. One was a feminine‐stereotyped situation and the other was a masculine‐stereotyped situation. Study participants negotiated one of the two cases. The primary statistical analysis was moderated regression analysis.

Results show that both focal negotiator self‐efficacy and counterpart self‐efficacy are significant predictors of focal negotiator performance. However, for both men and women, counterpart self‐efficacy had a stronger association with performance in negotiation situations of higher contextual ambiguity (stereotyped to the other gender) than in negotiation situations of lower contextual ambiguity.

In these studies, the paper responds to recent calls to include negotiation counterpart variables in negotiation research. Further, this study extends research regarding gender and negotiation performance by examining two previously unexplored topics: gender‐based asymmetrical contextual ambiguity and the moderation by gender of the relationship between negotiation self‐efficacy and negotiation performance.

The current study aims to examine couples' conjoint negotiation with a third party, testing the effects of asymmetrical contextual ambiguity, gender stereotypes' priming and egalitarianism. It predicted differences in the processes of decision making between egalitarian and traditional couples, reflected in choices of female or male negotiator.

Egalitarianism levels were measured by the Altrocchi and Crosby Marriage Questionnaire. The asymmetrical contextual ambiguity was manipulated through two newly constructed negotiation cases – one feminine‐stereotyped and the other masculine‐stereotyped, based on Miles and LaSalle. Priming of gender stereotypes was manipulated using two passages inducing explicit or implicit priming, based on Kray, Galinsky and Thompson. Primary statistical analysis was χ² test for equal proportions.

The hypotheses were by and large supported: as expected in all four experimental conditions, traditional couples chose men as their negotiator. By contrast, egalitarian couples tended to nominate their negotiator depending on the situation (feminine, masculine, and under implicit priming). In addition, under explicit priming their selection was in the predicted direction but not significant.

This study provides insights with respect to effective ways to conduct conjoint negotiations. In addition, it indicates the need to enhance women's negotiation self‐efficacy, so that they can become more active in negotiation processes.

The current study explored real‐life couples' conjoint negotiation with a third party, rather than examining couples' internal negotiation processes or individuals' dyadic negotiation, which prevailed in extant research. Future research should adopt the focus on genuine couples' conjoint negotiation, employed in this study.