MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER SERIES R ESEARCH PAPER N O.

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

Women at the Bargaining Table: Pitfalls and Prospects

Catherine H. Tinsley, Associate Professor, The McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University (tinsleyc@georgetown.edu) Sandra I. Cheldelin, Vernon M. and Minni I. Lynch Professor, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University (scheldel@gmu.edu) Andrea Kupfer Schneider, Professor of Law, Marquette University Law School (andrea.schneider@marquette.edu) Emily T. Amanatullah, Assistant Professor, McCombs School of Business, The University of Texas at Austin (emily.amanatullah@mccombs.utexas.edu)

Abstract

Key Words negotiation, gender, identity, power, culture

1
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1397699

Women at the Bargaining Table: Pitfalls and Prospects Although great social strides have been made resulting in womens 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

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

2
Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1397699

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 plaintiffs 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, womens assertiveness (such as asking for resources) is met without any social or financial backlash. With this knowledge we then offer prescriptions to enhance womens 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

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 wayscaring, cooperative, and nurturing) or being perceived as competent (behaving in masculine waysself-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;

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

for backlash was eliminated and women were freed from normative expectations of selflessness. This suggests that womens 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 statusa Senior HR manager with a track record of successthe 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

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 otheradvocating 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 selfadvocating 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 wisethese 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.

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 childbearingnurturance, 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 stereotypes 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.

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 rolescapitalizing on societys 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 womens 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 womens 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.)

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 ones 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

10

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 reframing their request out of a need to support their families and provide security for their homesteads. This will affirm womens 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 managers 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 stereotypesthat women dont ask, that women are perceived as more cooperative should trigger the behavior necessary to overcome this.

11

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 selfadvocating, 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 ones 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 wouldnt be a very good lawyer/manager/owner if I didnt ask for more resources help to remind the other party of the position rather than the gender of the negotiator.

12

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 dont mean to be too demanding, and I normally wouldnt 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 multifaceted 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.

13

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 postnegotiation impression formation reports. In small group (3 or 4) students can reflect upon their behaviorsa safer place to explore their own biases than with the class-at-large.

14

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.

15

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 womens anticipated backlash and assertive bargaining. Under review. Amanatullah, E.T. and Tinsley, C.H., 2008a. Ask and ye shall NOT receive: Financial responses to womens 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: 4859. 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.

16

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: 520530. 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: 10491060. Fiske, S. T. and Taylor, S. E. 1991. Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

17

Gonsalkorale, K., Carlisle, K., and von Hippel, W. 2007. Intergroup threat increases implicit stereotyping. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy, 7: 189200. 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: 935942. 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: 143152. 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.

18

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: 158173. 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 womens 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): 439447. Schneer, J. A. and Reitman, F. 1995. The impact of gender as managerial careers unfold. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47: 290-315.

19

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: 6371. 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.!

20