An Introduction to Four Viewpoints
The last forty years have seen women enter the workforce in increasing numbers and as of 2006, the Bureau of Labor statistics reported that women represent 46% of the total
Sunday, June 24, 2007
A Brief Exploration of Gender and Influence within Teams
In this essay I’ll explore some perspectives on gender, influence and functioning within teams. I will look at a working definition of a team, as a point of reference, although my examination will include insights drawn from work regarding both teams and groups. This exploration of groups/teams will be informed primarily by three perspectives: the conflict-power-status perspective, the feminist perspective and the social network perspective.
Teams
As defined by Katzenbach and Smith in their book The Wisdom of Teams, “a team is defined as small group of people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, performance goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable.” While this definition is a high bar for most groups, I present it here with the recognition that most groups and teams share some of the characteristics inherent in this definition but not all. The key defining characteristic for a team is the common performance goals, thus a group typically does not have common performance goals that require the contribution of all group members. The salient point for this essay is the “small number of people” factor. Here I take that to mean between three and twenty five, most often ten to fifteen people.
Feminism
The feminist perspective seems like a natural place to start and it will serve to aid our discussion of the other perspectives. The feminist perspective connects group dynamics and outcomes to differences in male and female motivations in socials situations as well as their views of groups and the different base of life experiences. Part of the assumption here is that social structures, language and content all lean in favor of a male standpoint and therefore bias both social science research as well as group output. The effect of this bias often results in a tendency by both researchers and group members to favor task-focused, rational concerns over relational and community concerns. Emotion, mood and affect are related concepts discussed in a companion essay. Considering inputs, processes and outputs, from the feminist perspective the most important input is the gender makeup of a group. One study – Leadership, Gender and Sense-making by Brisoni and Beeby, examined male only, female only and mixed groups looking at sense-making and power within meetings, among other factors. The central question of the researchers was “To what extent is leadership as a sense-making process impacted by gender?” Looking at ‘power over’ (traditional notion of power as domination, command, control & hierarchy), ‘power through’ (facilitative power of enabling, negotiating, empowering & supporting), and ‘power with’ (developing leadership by developing relationships) they found some interesting results. As might be expected, the all male group operated in a way consistent with ‘power over’, but interestingly their output was labeled as ‘power through’ and ‘power with’ and they self-identified with a ‘power with’ style of leadership. The women’s team operated consistent with ‘power over’ and ‘power through’ and to a lesser degree ‘power with’, and their output was labeled as ‘power over’ and ‘power through’ while they self-identified with the ‘power with’ leadership style. The mixed team exhibited all three forms of power while their output was labeled ‘power through’ and ‘power over’ and their leadership style ‘power with’. While not conclusive, this study suggests that as the trend toward a team-based approach in organizations continues, the gendered nature of groups and meetings may function to limit the expression of feminine forms of leadership.
Power and Status and Conflict – Oh My
A look at groups in terms of power, status, resources, social relationships and group structures is known as the conflict-power-status perspective. An assumption with this perspective is that inequalities exist and the perspective is interested in the resources, status and relative power of each group member. From this perspective, distribution of resources, negotiation, conflict management and influence are the processes focused on. Key inputs include status outside the group, power & status structures within the group, the interdependence of group members and resource distribution. Significant outputs include group performance, member satisfaction and changes in both status and resource control/distribution. Since status and resources are central to this view, initial conditions involved in the formation of a group are especially important and there is considerable attention paid to processes to see how these dimensions change and what causes those changes. As power and resources figure prominently in this perspective, conflict is expected to arise naturally out of a group and negotiation skills may develop accordingly. One could argue that this perspective is a gender-neutral version of the feminist perspective, with gender make up of the group being just one component of the power, status and resource structure as well as one input. I think the case would be made by those holding the feminist perspective that other perspectives are sufficiently unaware of the gender bias – researchers and group members alike – that the feminist perspective is required to bring the issue of gender to the fore and balance other findings.
Social Networks
The social network perspective treats groups not as independent, discreet entities but as interconnected structures, embedded in larger networks and associated with other groups and individuals (nodes). Inputs, from this perspective include network characteristics such as density, centralization, interdependencies, resource distributions and structural holes, and are accorded primary importance over process and outputs. Group properties and processes are thought of in terms of patterns of relations between group members and various attributes as well as the patterns of relationships between group members. Social networks, like computer networks are also thought of in terms of structures and structural patterns. From this perspective, the social networks of men and women, both within a company and external to a company, can and do influence the functioning, effectiveness and output of groups. A description of the relationships of group members can be revealing and is known as a mapping of the social network. An individual can be mapped to all the other individuals and groups they are connected and this can allow for the evaluation of that individual’s social capital. Social capital can be thought of as the ability to draw on the resources of the network(s) they are connected to. Think of the ‘good ole boy’ network and the resources that have been brought to bear at times in favor of a ‘member’.
Concluding thoughts
I have touched briefly on three perspectives of groups – the feminist perspective, the conflict-power-status perspective and the social network perspective – as a way to illuminate our thinking around gender and influence within groups. I have focused somewhat on the implications for women, yet the implications for men are equal if different. In organizations, as we continue to attempt to do more with fewer resources, sustaining performance is important to all workers, managers and leaders. If half of our resources on a project where being under-utilized we would want to correct that situation. The thought here is that half the population is women and they are under-appreciated and under-valued, then they contribute less than they could. This is often a traditional admonishment when examining issues related to women in the workplace. The implication is that because the dynamics of women in the workplace are not as well understood as the dynamics of men in the workplace, women are not viewed as and tapped as the resources that they are. Yet the potential that could be unleashed from a fuller examination, understanding and integration of these issues has performance issues significantly beyond that of tapping more fully into the under-appreciated and under-utilized power of women. As with many complex systems, and certainly human organizations are complex systems, when one resource is more fully utilized, unintended consequences develop. What untapped, under-appreciated qualities and contributions can emerge from men in a human system when the power of women is more fully tapped? As women become more fully appreciated and more fully engaged, their contributions will grow accordingly. This shift in the workplace (and in our culture at large) may release untapped and unnoticed qualities, and therefore, contributions from men as well. It seems there’s enough self-interest here to grab anyone’s interest.
Bibliography
Ethier, J. Current Research in Social Network Theory. Accessed:
Grisoni, L., Beeby, M. (2007), Leadership, Gender and Sense-making, Gender Work and Organization, Vol. 14 No. 3 May 2007
Katzenbach, J. R., Smith, D. K. (1999). The Wisdom of Teams.
Poole, M. S., Hollingshead, A. B., McGrath, J. E., Moreland, R. L., Rohrbaugh, J. (2004), Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Small Groups,. Small Group Research, Vol. 35 No. 1 Feb 2004 3-16
Women and Organizational Power
What is Power?
It is everywhere. You can see it, hear it, feel it and sometimes even smell it. Power is ubiquitous. Power is the influence of one person over others, derived from a position or role in an organization, from an interpersonal relationship, or from an individual characteristic (Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989). Power is the capacity or potential of changing others’ attitudes or behaviors. Power can be objective or perceived meaning that an individual may have formal power due to his/her role in the organization but may not be perceived by others as having power (Kaplowitz, 1978).
There are two types of power – socialized power and personalized power (Kinicki & Kreitner 2007). Socialized power is used to influence, to get things done, to achieve goals and for meeting the needs of others. Socialized power is not used for personal benefit. Personalized power is used to gain power to inflate oneself and to satisfy a strong need for esteem and status. An individual employing personalized power tends to exercise this power impulsively, have little inhibition and self-control and desire to dominate others.
Five Bases of Power
French and Raven (1959) developed a model of power that presents five bases of power: reward, coercive, expert, legitimate, and referent. These five sources can be categorized as either positional or personal in origin. The positional category of power is usually based on an individual’s position in the organization and is comprised of three of the five bases of power – reward, coercive and legitimate. Expert and referent power are in the personal power category as these two power bases are derived from individual characteristics.
An individual possesses Reward Power when others perceived that the individual has the ability to provide positive outcomes or can grant positive rewards or is able to remove negative ones. Coercive Power is the perceived ability to obtain compliance through threats of or actual punishment. While this type of power is often associated with management as is reward power, this form of power can be used by members of teams to control team members’ behavior and productivity. Legitimate Power is the capacity to influence others through formal authority, a social role that commands respect or authority, informal rules of conduct or because others feel a certain obligation to defer to that individual. The degree of legitimate power possessed by an individual is a function of the extent that others believe that he or she has the right to exert influence over others.
Expert Power is based on an individual’s ability to influence others based on one’s distinct knowledge, skills, ability or information. Referent Power is power acquired through charisma or personal attraction. It is based on the individual and is derived through a sense of connection with another.
Contingencies of Power
The perceived and objective degree of power of an individual can be affected by several contingencies of power (McShane, & Glinow, 2003). The contingencies of power are substitutability, centrality, discretion, visibility and networking. Substitutability is the degree to which one’s power can be substituted with an alternative. An employee with expert power due to her knowledge on a subject would find her level of expert power lowered if another employee gained equivalent knowledge on the subject. Centrality represents the interdependence between the powerbroker and others that depend upon him. The restaurant manager has legitimate power with a high degree of centrality as patrons and employees are dependent upon him to open the restaurant for business. Discretion embodies the degree to which a powerbroker has the freedom to make exercise judgment and make decisions. A first level manager may be perceived as having formal legitimate and reward power but, in truth, is very restricted by management above her. Visibility refers to the extent that a powerbroker gets noticed and is identified for their power. Expert power is clearly affected by visibility. What good does it do to be a gifted speaker if the opportunity to give speeches and have your abilities noticed never arises?
Consequences of Power
The use of leadership power has three possible outcomes – compliance, resistance or commitment. Compliance is gained through the use of reward, coercive and negative legitimate power (Kinicki & Kreitner 2007). Resistance on the part of another is usually a result of using coercive power. The target opposes the demands of the powerbroker and actively tries to avoid following through with any requests. Commitment is generated through the use of expert, referent and positive legitimate power. Leadership should seek for commitment from employees as it intrinsically motivated rather than settle for compliance as it may be given grudgingly.
Women and Power
While a description of power and its associated elements is fairly straight forward, a review of women and organizational power is more convoluted. Research has linked career advancement, access to benefits and resources and wage equity to an effective use of power within organizations (Ely, 1995; Kanter, 1977). Men and women differ in their ability to influence others which is directly related to gender differences in power. These gender differences in the use and perception of power cause social power inequities for women. Evidence shows that women are perceived differently than men based on gender role stereotyping.
Women in leadership roles face numerous challenges based upon gender congruencies associated with power. The gender congruency theory of power associates expert, legitimate and coercive power to men and reward power to women (Johnson, 1976). When women assume a leadership style that is gender-role incongruent, they are viewed negatively by both men and women. These gender-role incongruent styles – direct, autocratic, unemotional, and assertive – are consider masculine and therefore, not perceived acceptable for women to use in any role within the organization.
Men are perceived as having greater social or interpersonal power than women due to structural or external advantages. Men possess higher levels of coercive and reward power because men have more opportunities and resources with which to reward or punish others, greater legitimate power because of their role in the organization or informal authority, and are perceived to have greater expert power than women (Johnson, 1976). For example, in group settings, men are given more opportunities to speak than women because women are presumed to be less competent than men. Group members will agree more often with men and will defer more to the opinions of men than those of women (Berger, Fisek, Norman, & Zelditch, 1977).
Because women are perceived as being less competent with lower levels of expertise, women have to outperform men for others to consider them equally competent as men (Foschi, 1996). While men and women will judge themselves more critically in interactions with a man, they feel more competent in interactions with a woman suggesting that they have a lower perception of the competence on the part of the woman. Even if a woman is perceived as being competent, she may not be as influential as a man due to lower legitimate power. Legitimate power is associated with the right to exert influence and to command respect and authority. Unfortunately, many women do not command the same degree of respect and authority that men do nor do they use legitimate power as much as men do. Therefore, a woman is considered not as deserving of status as a man is. In a group setting, this has a huge impact in as group members may ignore her ideas, give her limited opportunities to participate and are resistant to her attempts to influence within the group dynamics.
If a woman appears to be too assertive, too interested in influencing others, or too confident, she is violating expectations about appropriate behavior for women and other low-status individuals and is censured as a result (Meeker & Weitzel-O'Neil, 1985). In fact, modest women are considered more acceptable than self-promoting women; the exact opposite of men. Men were more trusting of modest women than women that display confidence and assertiveness.
Women possess higher amounts of referent power than men as it involves building and maintaining good relationships and is more congruent with gender role expectations for women. Those possessing referent power are perceived as socially skilled, pleasant and agreeable. Research has shown that people consider women to be warm, expressive, understanding, compassionate and concerned about others’ feelings (Williams & Best, 1990). Given their low levels of expert and legitimate power, women use less direct and assertive influence strategies than men and rely more on interpersonal warmth and agreeableness to wield power and influence.
The essence of any truly successful leader is the ability to use a variety of leadership styles based on the requirements of the situation (Symphony Orchestra Institute, 1998). Men are able to exhibit incongruencies without consequences and have more opportunities to use different leadership styles. Unfortunately, women leaders are not afford the same latitude in deploying leadership styles. They can either act in accordance with gender-role expectations or be subject to negative reinforcement from peers and subordinates.
How do organizations and its leadership (hopefully comprised of both genders) deal with the dilemma associated with the inequalities in social power, gender biases and women? Leaders need to reflect on their own leadership styles and identify their internal biases. As well, the organization as a whole should assess the organization work environment to identify stereotypic biases and then implement measures to remediate these biases. Some remediation tactics would include providing the resources, tools, and training for employees to gain a greater understanding of diversity and the effects of stereotyping of gender roles. Furthermore, organizations should provide mentoring for women to help with building social networks, to understand the effects of different leadership styles, and to prepare them to advance within the organization.
Bibliography
Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., & Zelditch, M., Jr. (1977). Status characteristics and social interactions: An expectation states approach. New York: Elsevier Science.
Ely, R. J. (1995). The power in demography: Women's social constructions of gender identity at work. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 589-634.
Foschi, M. (1996). Double standards in the evaluation of men and women. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 237-254.
French, R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kaplowitz, S. A. (1978). Towards a systematic theory of power attribution. Social Psychology, 41. 131-148.
Kinicki, A. & Kreitner, R. (2007). Organizational behavior.
Johnson, P. (1976). Women and power: Toward a theory of effectiveness. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 99-110.
McShane, S.L. & Von Glinow, M.A. (2003). Organizational behavior.
Meeker, B. F., & Weitzel-O'Neil, P. A. (1985). Sex roles and interpersonal behavior in task-oriented groups. In J. Berger & M. Zelditch (Eds.), Status, rewards, and influence (pp. 379-405). Washington, DC: Jossey-Bass.
Ragins, B. R., & Sundstrom, E. (1989). Gender and power in organization: A longitudinal perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 51-88.
Symphony Orchestra Institute (1998). Gender and leadership: A review of pertinent research: An interview with Alice Eagly. Harmony, 6, 1-12.
Williams, J. E., & Best, D. L. (1990). Measuring sex stereotypes: A multinational study. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Women and Affect in the Workplace
What is Affect
Affect describes the range of feelings that individuals experience. It includes feeling states, which are shorter-term moods and emotions, and feeling traits, also referred to as ‘dispositional affect’, which are ingrained tendencies to feel and act in certain ways.
Feeling states are comprised of distinct emotions and moods. Distinct emotions are short lived and target-focused feelings. Moods are not focused on a specific cause, are a generally positive or negative feeling, and can have a longer duration. A feeling trait is related to one’s “usual” state, or outlook towards life. It is a product of attitudes, beliefs, and experiences. (Barsade & Gibson, 2007).
Separate from Affect in definition, but important in how emotions are interpreted and expressed is emotional intelligence, the management of one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions (Salovey &Mayer, 1990). Emotional intelligence encompasses self awareness, self regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skill (Goleman, 1998).
Why Does Affect Matter? The Impact on the workplace
Because we bring it with us. Affect is part of everyday work environment. We interact with our and others’ affect, or feeling states, at all times during our work and private life. In the workplace in particular, affect matters because people’s traits, moods, and emotions are brought to their activities and interactions, and their affective experiences and expressions influence others (Barsade & Gibson, 2007).
Because it’s contagious. One way in which feelings impact the work environment is through emotional contagion and collective affect. Emotional contagion is the transferring of emotions among people. Similar to the common cold, the “sniffles” we may bring with us to the work environment are often transferred to others by means of facial expressions and voice. When your boss is having a “bad day”, you might be more likely to be influenced by her behavior and be more somber yourself. A collective affect is a group emotion or mood, and might emerge from a combination of emotional contagion, individual’s traits, or group norms (Barsade & Gibson, 2007). Emotional contagion and tendency for collective affect are usually stronger among highly cohesive teams, specific character tendencies, and as a response to leaders’ affect.
Because positive/negative affects impact performance. In general, positive emotional traits, or dispositions, and emotional intelligence have been shown to be key ingredients for excellent performance, especially in the higher levels of the company. People who are able to manage their feelings and impulses are able to create an environment where politics and infighting are reduced and trust and productivity are high (Barsade &Gibson, 2007,Goleman, 1998).
Emotional States can impact several elements, such as decision making, creativity, turnover, pro-social behavior and conflict resolution. There are conflicting views on whether positive or negative affect influence effective decision making. On the one hand, negative affect can cause heightened awareness to a problem or create an extra “push” to try and resolve an issue or examine it in more detail. On the other hand, positive affect has been found to relate to more careful, systematic decision making and higher likelihood of incorporating new information and reaching out for more information. (Barsade & Gibson, 2007). Creativity, pro-social behavior, and conflict resolution are enhanced by positive affect because of the openness and trust formed by both the affector and affectee (Lyubomirsky, King & Diener, 2005).
Women and Affect
When reviewing this material, the first question that came to my mind was whether women are more emotionally intelligent than men (I assumed they might be more emotionally aware), and how well they control their emotions (I assumed they didn’t). Apparently that question/assumption in itself is what creates much of the challenge for women in creating positive affect in the workplace.
Stereotypical biases place an additional strain on women in the workplace. Due to gender expectations, the same leadership style that would be described as assertive in a man could be described as abrasive in a woman both by women and men. These perceptions influence the trust and willingness to follow women leaders (The Double Bind Dilemma, 2007) and indicate that the degree to which women have to manage conflicting personal relationships might be higher than men. An interesting study comparing traits and emotional intelligence by gender (Lyusin, 2006) reflects that no gender distinctions are evident for emotional self awareness, but that women do manage their emotions and control expressions to a lesser degree than men. As a result of these stereotypes and the gender penalization for nonconformance informal women leaders often emerge, in agreement with stereotypical female behavior, when tasks require greater levels of social interaction (Neubert & Taggar, 2004).
Conclusions on affect and how to leverage it
Affect matters because emotions are part of our understanding and internalization process, are different from our rational, cognitive understanding, and have the potential to rapidly move and direct behavior and involvement. Emotions are often overlooked in the work environment, though they do permeate all perceptions and behaviors (Fox & Amichai-Hamburger, 2001). Understanding emotions and being able to control them by developing emotional intelligence allows people to work more effectively with others. Understanding emotions and being able to control them also allows the development and leveraging of social capital needed to promote effectiveness in achieving one’s goals, resolving differences and allowing individuals to move forward towards consensus and compromise (Perrewé, Ferris, Frink and Anthony, 2000). Emotional intelligence and political skills are especially important for women to display considering the barriers they still face to effective interactions with others at the workplace.
So what are ways to shape emotions? Realizing that emotions are different from cognition and reason, some of the ways emotions can be shaped are by changing emotional contexts - the emotional meanings, modes, settings, and people. Emotional meanings engage words with emotional connotations or metaphors. Examples can be seen in statements such as “winning the war”, or “taking the market by storm”. Emotional modes involve using appropriate methods to link emotions and cognition, such as images, music, slogans, and humor. Settings can channel emotions through ceremonies, group dynamics, and an atmosphere that is conducive to calm, open discussion and work. People can also shape emotions by providing a personal example, adhering to moral and ethical principles, being open, competent, and concerned (Fox & Amichai-Hamburger, 2001). Using these techniques, combined with emotional awareness and control, women can greatly increase their effectiveness in the workplace.
Bibliography
Barsade, S. G. & Gibson, D. E. 2007. Why does affect matter in organizations?
Fox, S. & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. 2001. The power of emotional appeals in promoting organizational change programs.
Goleman, D. 2004. What makes a leader? Harvard Business Review, 82(1): 82
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131(6), 803–855.
Lyusin, D. B (2006). Emotional Intelligence as a Mixed Construct: Its Relation to Personality and Gender. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology, Vol. 44, p54-68.
Neubert, Mitchell J, Taggar, Simon (2004). Pathways to informal leadership: The moderating role of gender on the relationship of individual differences and team member network centrality to informal leadership emergence. Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15, p175-195.
Perrewe, P. L., Ferris, G. R., Frink, D. D., & Anthony, W. P. 2000. Political skill: An antidote for workplace stressors.
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185–211.
The Double-Bind Dilemma for Women in Leadership: Damned if You do, Damned if You Don’t.(2007).Catalyst.
Women and Negotiation
Negotiation, as defined by the free dictionary on the web (Negotiation defined, 2007) is the process where interested parties resolve disputes, agree upon courses of action, bargain for individual or collective advantage, and/or attempt to craft outcomes which serve their mutual interests. A more simplistic description states “negotiation is taking place any time two people are communicating, where one or both parties have a goal in mind” (McRae, 1998). Given that definition, our life is full of negotiating opportunities; from negotiating with our kids about their bed time to selecting a restaurant to determining our rate of pay at a new job. We are constantly negotiating with our family, friends, co-workers, bosses, vendors, and customers.
Many people think of negotiation in terms of labor negotiations. But it is more than that. It is negotiating agreements, negotiating to solve problems, and negotiating to resolve conflicts. Knowing how to negotiate effectively is empowering.
What is Negotiation?
Negotiation is a process in which two or more parties seek to reach an acceptable agreement in a situation characterized by some level of disagreement (Shani & Lau, 2004). In an organization environment, negotiation may take place (1) between two people, (2) within a group, and (3) between groups.
Negotiations are made up of at least four elements. First, some disagreement or conflict must exist. Second, there must be some form of interdependence between the parties that makes them want to negotiate with each other. Third, each party has both the means and desire to attempt to influence the other (opportunistic interaction). And fourth, there must be some possibility of agreement. If not, there cannot be a positive resolution to the negotiation.
Negotiation Styles
The process of negotiation can be classified broadly into two different bargaining styles, distributive or integrative. The major difference between the two styles is the degree of concern which the negotiators show themselves and the degree of concern they show the opposing party.
In distributive bargaining there is the mindset of a fixed pie or zero-sum. The implicit assumption is that there are limited resources and the negotiation is taking place to determine who will receive the resources. In the end there will be a winner and a loser. Win/lose negotiation is very common. It is characterized by competitiveness, confrontation, and looking out for one’s own best interest. Generally distributive bargaining takes place where negotiations involve a single issue such as buying a car.
Integrative negotiation or win/win negotiation is more collaborative. The parties seek to reach an agreement that offers both parties more than a simple compromise. This is particularly true when parties interest in various issues can be negotiated in different ways to permit tradeoffs (“logrolling”), or when new issues can be introduced that permit both parties to benefit more than simply dividing fixed resources (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). Integrative negotiation produces high mutual benefit and often serves to strengthen the relationship between the parties.
Increasing Negotiation Effectiveness
There is no right/wrong or best way to negotiate that fits every situation. The specific negotiation strategy used is dependent upon a number of variables such as the nature of the issues being negotiated, the context in which the negotiations are taking place, and nature of the desired outcome. The desired outcome is a critical factor in the negotiation process.
Desired outcomes can be distinguished as either substantive or relationship outcomes. Substantive outcomes have to do with more with how the specific issue is settled. A substantive outcome would be to get the bigger piece of the pie. Relationship outcome is to focus on negotiating in such a way as to maintain a good relationship, irrespective of the substantive result.
Dutch management practitioner, Willem Mastenbroek, designed a model for increasing negotiating effectiveness. His comprehensive model focuses on four key activities:
- Obtaining substantial results. This activity focuses on the content of what is being negotiated. Negotiations must stay constructively focus on the real issues in order to achieve the desired results.
- Influencing the balance of power. The final outcome of negotiations is almost always directly related to the power and dependency relationships of the negotiators. Achieving subtle shifts in the balance of power through the use of persuasion, facts and expertise is the most effective.
- Promoting a constructive climate. These activities help minimize the tensions and animosity between parties so that they can continue to cooperate and work with each other to find the best solution.
- Obtaining procedural flexibility. These activities help increase and keep on the table the number of options available to each party. Multiple issues are dealt with simultaneously and kept on the table to facilitate as many different options as possible.
Negotiating - Men vs. Women
As women continue to make strides in the traditionally male dominated business world and more women assume management roles within companies, the question often comes up, “Are women able to negotiate as well as men?” Does gender play a role in the effectiveness of the negotiations?
There are few definitive findings regarding the impact of gender on negotiation (Eckel and Grossman, 2001). However, women are less likely than men to negotiate for themselves. In fact a study of MBAs who recently graduated from Carnegie Mellon found that eight times as many men as women had negotiated for a larger salary than women (Babcock, Laschever, Gelfand & Small, 2003). Other studies comparing the number of times that men and women negotiate back the notion that men place themselves in negotiation situations and regard more of their interactions as potential for negotiation. One reason given that women do not negotiate as often as men is that they are socialized from an early age to focus on the needs of others instead of their own. Also, many company’s cultures discourage women from being assertive and such women are often labeled as bitchy or pushy.
Generally men and women approach negotiation very differently. Women tend to use a “relational” negotiating style, while men tend to adopt a “competitive” style (Miller and Miller, 2002).
Women tend to place importance on the relationship between the parties while negotiating. They make an attempt to connect on some basis. They will talk about personal issues before they get begin to negotiate. Women value relationships and want to work cooperatively. They are interested in working out solutions that satisfy everyone (integrative negotiation).
As compared to women, men appeared insensitive to the relationship between parties and more oriented toward maximization of outcomes (Karakowsky and Miller, 2006). Men tend to be competitive and may view negotiations as a sport. They get down to the business at hand quickly. It is acceptable to be adversarial and confrontational with little regard to the feelings of the other party (distributive negotiation).
Women as Effective Negotiators
Negotiation is a critical competency. However, women are often not perceived to be as effective negotiators and in reality many times pass up the opportunity to negotiate. How can women become better negotiators?
First, negotiate in a way that is consistent with who you are. That doesn’t mean you cannot change to make yourself a better negotiator or adjust your approach when you are negotiating with someone who has a different style (Miller & Miller, 2002). However negotiating like a man, if that is not your style, can create a negative a stereotype.
Be prepared. Know your goals and determine your bottom line. Identify the other party’s interest. Be willing to walk away. No deal at all is better than a bad deal.
Ask for it. “Women often don’t get what they want and deserve because they don’t ask for it.”(Babcock & Laschever, 2003). They assume that they will be recognized and rewarded for working hard and doing a good job.
Don’t give in too soon. Women’s tendency to have a high concern for other’s welfare may lead them to concede too quickly to the other party’s requests. Resisting the other party’s early demands may force both parties to explore other possibilities for collaboration and high mutual benefit.
Practice, practice, practice. Try different techniques and get comfortable with negotiation. Try them on your family and friends. Act confident. Confidence is the secret weapon in negotiating.
In conclusion, studies regarding the impact of gender on negotiation have been inconclusive. However, if women want to be more effective in the business world, they must make an effort to negotiate more often. As they negotiate more often using proven techniques, they will become more comfortable and empowered, and see more opportunities to negotiate.
Bibliography
Babcock, L. & Laschever, S. (2003). Women don’t ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide.
Babcock, L., Laschever, S., Gelfand, M., & Small, D. (2003). Nice girls don't ask - Women negotiate less than men - and everyone pays the price. Harvard Business Review, 81(10): 14-+.
Eckel, C.C. & Grossman, P.J. (2001). “Chivalry and solidarity in ultimatum games”, Economic Inquiry, Vol. 39, 171-188.
Negotiation explained (2007). Retreived
Karakowsky, L. & Miller, D. L., (2006). Negotiator style and influence in multi-party negotiations: Exploring the role of gender. Leadership & Organization Journal, Vol. 7, No. 1, 50-65.
McRae, B., (1998). Negotiating and influencing skills: The art of creating and claiming value.
Miller, L.E. & Miller, J.,(2002). A woman’s guide to successful negotiating: How to convince, collaborate, and create your way to agreement. McGraw-Hill.
Pruitt, D.G., & Rubin, J. Z., (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement.
Shani, A.B. & Lau, J.B., (2004). Behavior in organizations: An experimental approach (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
