- Email: [email protected]
Women as negotiators
W o m e n as Negotiators Research has shown that women work well as negotiators. The authors suggest that this talent can be optimized if the role makeup o f the bargaining group is given consideration.
JAMES A. WALL, JR. AND ROBERT VIRTUE
James A. Wall, Jr., is a faculty member in administrative and behavioral studies and Robert Virtue is an MBA student at Indiana University.
In the past decade the number of women employed at all organizational levels has increased significantly, making optimal utilization of female talent a crucial concern for contemporary management. Present research indicates that such utilization would be facilitated by placing women in negotiation roles. Women perform commendably as negotiators and consequently should be considered as candidates for these positions. Yet their effectiveness is influenced by the sexual constitution of the surrounding environment. Therefore, this makeup should be considered before placing females in specific negotiation positions. The negotiation role is a crucial one because all organizations must enter into formal or informal negotiations to obtain resources from suppliers, to sell their products to customers and to coordinate their activities with those of other organizations. Even though their titles vary, the employees performing these functions--purchasing agents, salesmen, labor negotiators, lobbyists-are in
fact negotiators, for they negotiate with others to accomplish their goals. In their negotiations, these employees find themselves in an unenviable position. They must answer to a superior over whom they have little control and concomitantly negotiate with individuals outside of their organization over whom they also have no control. Negotiators also carry out important functions within the organization. Departmental negotiators must facilitate importation of goods and services from other departments, gain acceptance of their department's products and coordinate interdepartmental activities. R e c e n t studies demonstrate that women perform very well as negotiators under some circumstances. Optimal performance results when the female negotiator bargains with another female on behalf of other females, for example, when a female steward negotiates with a female foreman over a ~ievance submitted by a female worker. In such a case, the female negotiator enters the negotiation with a cooperative orientation, bargains in a reciprocal fashion and rather quickly reaches an acceptable a~eement.
BUSINESS HORIZONS
67
Women as Negotiators
68
A male negotiator bargaining with a male opponent on the behalf of other males usually is more competitive in his orientation. He bargains competitively with the male opponent and requires an excessive amount of time to reach agreements that are no better than those of the female. Females are more efficient negotiators because they bargain in an equitable fashion; that is, they concede when the opponent concedes but do not when the opponent fails to concede. Thus, the female's negotiation behavior tends to condition or reinforce the opponent's concession making, resulting in an expeditious, acceptable outcome for the female negotiator and the parties she represents. If females perform well when they negotiate with females on the behalf of other females, how well do they perform when males constitute part of the bargaining paradigm? Consider two cases: a female negotiator bargaining with and on the behalf of males a female negotiator bargaining with a male on the behalf of females. In the first case, the female negotiator enters the negotiation with a cooperative orientation, bargains in a reciprocal fashion, but deadlocks frequently. At first this behavior may seem inconsistent; the female negotiator bargains cooperatively and yet often deadlocks? The explanation, however, is reasonable. Both the female negotiator and the male she faces are willing to bargain cooperatively with each o t h e r - t o make reciprocal concessions-but neither is willing to make the final concession. To do so would entail a loss of face before the opposite sex. In the female's case, her final concession would result in a dual face loss, one before the male opponent and another before the males she represents. And for the male opponent, making the final concession would result in face loss before a female. Finally, the productiveness of the negotiation is further decreased when the opposing male represents females. In this case he is very reluctant to make the
APRIL 1976
last concession because his concession also would entail a dual face loss, one in front of a female opponent and another in front of the female constituency. A female negotiator bargaining with a male on the behalf of females is a rather tenacious bargainer. She bargains reciprocally and expeditiously with the male opponent, but frequently deadlocks, for she wishes to avoid any loss of face before the male opponent. However, she does reach agreement more often than does a male in this position because the male negotiator fears losing face in front of his female constituency. It is evident then that either sex risks potential face loss in such a bargaining paradigm, but it appears that the female negotiator is the more effective bargainer because the female constituency is more tolerant of her flexibility than it is of the male's. T h e female negotiator's performance is contingent upon the sexual makeup of the negotiation paradigm. Females bargain cooperatively and reach acceptable agreements quickly when they represent and bargain with females. Also, they are more effective than males when representing females in negotiations with males. However, they are ineffective in bargaining with males on behalf of males. Since the makeup of the bargaining group surrounding the negotiator has a potent influence upon the negotiator's behavior and the outcomes of his or her negotiations, management should consider its influence before filling each negotiator position. As an aid to management, the above findings can be translated into three operational suggestions: If the negotiator role requires the occupant to represent females and to negotiate with females, place a female in the position. If it involves representing females and negotiating with males, place a female in the position. If the position requires the negotiator to represent and bargain with males, place a male in the position.
JAMES A. WALL, JR. AND ROBERT VIRTUE
James A. Wall, Jr., is a faculty member in administrative and behavioral studies and Robert Virtue is an MBA student at Indiana University.
In the past decade the number of women employed at all organizational levels has increased significantly, making optimal utilization of female talent a crucial concern for contemporary management. Present research indicates that such utilization would be facilitated by placing women in negotiation roles. Women perform commendably as negotiators and consequently should be considered as candidates for these positions. Yet their effectiveness is influenced by the sexual constitution of the surrounding environment. Therefore, this makeup should be considered before placing females in specific negotiation positions. The negotiation role is a crucial one because all organizations must enter into formal or informal negotiations to obtain resources from suppliers, to sell their products to customers and to coordinate their activities with those of other organizations. Even though their titles vary, the employees performing these functions--purchasing agents, salesmen, labor negotiators, lobbyists-are in
fact negotiators, for they negotiate with others to accomplish their goals. In their negotiations, these employees find themselves in an unenviable position. They must answer to a superior over whom they have little control and concomitantly negotiate with individuals outside of their organization over whom they also have no control. Negotiators also carry out important functions within the organization. Departmental negotiators must facilitate importation of goods and services from other departments, gain acceptance of their department's products and coordinate interdepartmental activities. R e c e n t studies demonstrate that women perform very well as negotiators under some circumstances. Optimal performance results when the female negotiator bargains with another female on behalf of other females, for example, when a female steward negotiates with a female foreman over a ~ievance submitted by a female worker. In such a case, the female negotiator enters the negotiation with a cooperative orientation, bargains in a reciprocal fashion and rather quickly reaches an acceptable a~eement.
BUSINESS HORIZONS
67
Women as Negotiators
68
A male negotiator bargaining with a male opponent on the behalf of other males usually is more competitive in his orientation. He bargains competitively with the male opponent and requires an excessive amount of time to reach agreements that are no better than those of the female. Females are more efficient negotiators because they bargain in an equitable fashion; that is, they concede when the opponent concedes but do not when the opponent fails to concede. Thus, the female's negotiation behavior tends to condition or reinforce the opponent's concession making, resulting in an expeditious, acceptable outcome for the female negotiator and the parties she represents. If females perform well when they negotiate with females on the behalf of other females, how well do they perform when males constitute part of the bargaining paradigm? Consider two cases: a female negotiator bargaining with and on the behalf of males a female negotiator bargaining with a male on the behalf of females. In the first case, the female negotiator enters the negotiation with a cooperative orientation, bargains in a reciprocal fashion, but deadlocks frequently. At first this behavior may seem inconsistent; the female negotiator bargains cooperatively and yet often deadlocks? The explanation, however, is reasonable. Both the female negotiator and the male she faces are willing to bargain cooperatively with each o t h e r - t o make reciprocal concessions-but neither is willing to make the final concession. To do so would entail a loss of face before the opposite sex. In the female's case, her final concession would result in a dual face loss, one before the male opponent and another before the males she represents. And for the male opponent, making the final concession would result in face loss before a female. Finally, the productiveness of the negotiation is further decreased when the opposing male represents females. In this case he is very reluctant to make the
APRIL 1976
last concession because his concession also would entail a dual face loss, one in front of a female opponent and another in front of the female constituency. A female negotiator bargaining with a male on the behalf of females is a rather tenacious bargainer. She bargains reciprocally and expeditiously with the male opponent, but frequently deadlocks, for she wishes to avoid any loss of face before the male opponent. However, she does reach agreement more often than does a male in this position because the male negotiator fears losing face in front of his female constituency. It is evident then that either sex risks potential face loss in such a bargaining paradigm, but it appears that the female negotiator is the more effective bargainer because the female constituency is more tolerant of her flexibility than it is of the male's. T h e female negotiator's performance is contingent upon the sexual makeup of the negotiation paradigm. Females bargain cooperatively and reach acceptable agreements quickly when they represent and bargain with females. Also, they are more effective than males when representing females in negotiations with males. However, they are ineffective in bargaining with males on behalf of males. Since the makeup of the bargaining group surrounding the negotiator has a potent influence upon the negotiator's behavior and the outcomes of his or her negotiations, management should consider its influence before filling each negotiator position. As an aid to management, the above findings can be translated into three operational suggestions: If the negotiator role requires the occupant to represent females and to negotiate with females, place a female in the position. If it involves representing females and negotiating with males, place a female in the position. If the position requires the negotiator to represent and bargain with males, place a male in the position.