Women and Negotiation: �Mitigating Gender Differences in a Key Leadership Skill

Taryn L. Stanko

California Polytechnic State University

Patty C. Dahm

The University of Kansas

Cade Creason

California Polytechnic State University

​

July 1, 2025�International Conference on Women in Leadership�

Introduction

• In 2024, only 10.4% of Fortune 500 companies had female CEOs. https://fortune.com/2024/06/04/fortune-500-companies-women-ceos-2024/

​

• This raises many questions about women and leadership

​

• Researchers have referred to the challenge of understanding the relationship between women and leadership as the “labyrinth of leadership” (Eagly & Carli, 2007)

​

Proportion of Women in Work Roles

Data from State of Women in the Workforce 2024 study by McKinsey & LeanIn.org and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_women_CEOs_of_Fortune_500_companies

​

​

Negotiation skills will be an important driver of success in my career.

Women in Business Leadership Academy 2019

I feel prepared to excel in my future negotiations at work.

Women in Business Leadership Academy 2019

Challenges in Negotiation

• “That I will come across as too aggressive”
• “Not seeing my self worth, both personally and professionally.”
• “That I will cave in and not stand up for myself.”
• “That they'll view me in a negative light for asking for more”
• “Losing the offer if I ask for too much.”

​

​

Women in Business Leadership Academy 2019

Historical Gender Differences in Negotiation

• Gender differences are pervasive in negotiation (Mazei et al., 2014; Elfenbein, 2015)
• Women are less likely to initiate a negotiation than men (Gelfand et al., 2007)
• Women have worse outcomes than men when they do negotiate (Mazei et al., 2014)

​

Why? Context Matters

• Contextual factors trigger gender stereotypes (Mazei et al., 2014; Elias, 2025)
• Framing: as an assessment of negotiation skill vs. learning tool (Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001)
• Ambiguity: Ambiguous whether negotiation is appropriate vs. receiving a clear invitation to negotiate (Leibbrandt & List, 2015)

​

Recent Revelations

• Yet, recent research suggests that gender differences in propensity to ask are decreasing (Kray, Kennedy, & Lee, 2024)
• And women may have a collaborative advantage (Ma, de Leon, & Rosette, 2024)

​

What helps mitigate these differences?

• When women have more negotiation experience (Mazei et al., 2014)
• When women receive an invitation to negotiate (Leibbrandt & List, 2015)
• When women negotiate on behalf of others (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010)

​

Research Questions

Given recent research suggesting a reduction in gender differences in propensity to ask, do gender differences in negotiation performance still exist?

​

If so, can women overcome gender differences in negotiation performance by taking on an “other-advocacy” mindset in a classically self-interested negotiation?

​

​

Methods: Study 1 Archival Data

• Archival data
• Used Car Negotiation
• N= 406 individuals from 9 sections of undergraduate and 3 sections of graduate Negotiation courses
• Measures
• Buyer, seller gender (Female=1)
• Negotiation outcome: price of car
• Bargaining range: initial offer, target, reservation point

​

Study 1 - Correlations

Study 1 – Results

Study 1 - Results

Study 1 - Results

Study 1 - Results

Study 1 – Summary of Findings

• Gender was a significant predictor of both the goals that negotiators set for themselves as well as the outcomes achieved
• However, these differences were only seen for the sellers and not for the buyers in this context
• Women sellers set lower (worse) initial offers, targets, and reservation points than men

​

Study 2

Study 2 – Research Question

Can we mitigate gender differences in negotiation outcomes by priming women to take on an other-advocacy mindset?

​

Hypothesis: When women are primed to negotiate on behalf of others, their performance will be on par with men’s performance.

​

What helps mitigate these differences?

• We know that when women negotiate on behalf of others they perform on par with men (Amanatullah & Morris, 2010)
• Can we harness this idea when women are negotiating for themselves?
• We prime women to use an other-focused approach even in a negotiation that is classically self-focused

​

Study 2 – Methods

• Experimental data
• Used Car Negotiation
• N= 166 pairs from 8 sections of undergraduate and graduate level classes
• Measures
• Buyer, seller gender (Female=1)
• Negotiation outcome: price of car
• Bargaining range (IO, target, reservation point)
• Manipulation check

​

Methods: Manipulation

• Seller: Other-focused
• “The point of this exercise is to learn practical skills around negotiation. This is important not only for your own outcomes, but also for the benefit of others. For example, negotiating a higher salary for oneself better enables you to provide for many others, often family members. Thus, individuals who learn to negotiate well often find that other people in their lives are far better off as a result.”
• Seller: Self-focused
• “The point of this exercise is to learn practical skills around negotiation. This is important for your own outcomes. For example, negotiating a higher salary for yourself better enables you to achieve career success and live the life you envision. Thus, individuals who learn to negotiate well often find that their lives are better off as a result.”

​

Methods: Manipulation Checks

• Manipulation Check - Original
• The outcome of this negotiation was important for someone other than me (e.g., my significant other or family member). (OTHER)
• I negotiated hard to get a good price for the car in order to help others in the long run. (OTHER)
• The outcome of this negotiation was important for my own success. (SELF)
• I negotiated hard to get a good price for the car in order to help myself in the long run. (SELF)

Methods: Manipulation Checks

• Manipulation Check – Adapted from Grant’s (2008) prosocial motivation scale
• This negotiation provided opportunities to substantially improve the welfare of others. (MAGNITUDE)
• This negotiation provided the opportunity to have positive impact on others on a regular basis. (FREQUENCY)
• A lot of people could have been positively affected by how well I negotiated. (SCOPE)

​

Study 2 – Manipulation Check Results

• Members of the other-focused group reported significantly higher levels of belief that the outcomes of the negotiation mattered for others (original and magnitude, scope, and frequency)

​

Study 2 – Means, SD, Correlations

Study 2 - Results

Study 2 – Intriguing Initial Results

• SELF-FOCUSED CONDITION: T-Tests revealed that indeed, there were significant gender differences between men and women in the “self-focused” condition, where men negotiated significantly higher price (t=2.61, S.E.= 322.46, p<.05) (Avg. Diff: $841.86)

​

• OTHER-FOCUSED CONDITION: T-Tests revealed that, there were NO significant differences in car price between men and women (t= -.06, S.E.= 228.84, p=ns) (Avg. Diff: $14.04)

Study 2 – However…

• MEN: T-Tests revealed that there were significant differences in performance between men in the “self-focused” condition vs. “other-focused”, where men negotiated significantly higher price in the “self-focused” (t=-2.7, S.E.= 319.52, p<.00) (Avg. Diff: $866.40)

​

• WOMEN: T-Tests revealed that, there were NO significant differences in performance between conditions for women (t= -.05, S.E.= 216.66, p=ns)

Study 2 - Results

Study 2 – Average Price of Car

Study 2 – Next Steps

• Priming may not have been specific enough to trigger behavioral changes in women
• Language in control setting might also have been too strong and triggered self-focused competitive behavior in men
• A new prime that is more specific regarding the benefits for others and a new control that is less triggering of the importance for self may help address these issues

​

​

Study 3 – Methods

• Experimental data
• Used Car Negotiation
• N= 380 pairs from 20 sections of undergraduate and 5 graduate level classes
• Measures
• Buyer, seller gender (Female=1)
• Negotiation outcome: price of car
• Bargaining range (IO, target, reservation point)
• Manipulation check

​

Methods: Manipulation

• Seller Manipulation: Other-focused
• “Other people have the potential to benefit from your experience in this negotiation. Specifically, your little sister is waiting to hear how this goes and you want to set an example of how to negotiate the best price for yourself. She and her group of friends are just about to learn how to drive and will be negotiating the price of their own cars soon. Showing your little sister and her friends how it is done could help empower them to negotiate well for themselves when the time comes.”

​

• Seller Control
• No additional language was included

​

Study 3 – Manipulation Check Results

• Members of the intervention group reported significantly higher levels of belief that the outcomes of the negotiation mattered for others (original and scope, but not magnitude or frequency)

​

Study 3 – Means, SD, Correlations

Study 3 - Results

Study 3 – Once again…

• CONTROL: T-Tests revealed significant gender differences between men and women in the control group, where men chose higher:
• Initial offers (t=-2.63, S.E.= 258.5, p<.01) (Avg. Diff: $678.24)
• Targets (t=-2.81, S.E.= 185.85, p<.01) (Avg. Diff: $521.82)
• Reservation points (t=-3.39, S.E.= 94.33, p<.0) (Avg. Diff: $319.74)

​

• OTHER-FOCUSED CONDITION: T-Tests revealed that, there were no significant differences between men and women for the bargaining range and only marginally significant differences in car price (t= -.06, S.E.= 228.84, p=.07) (Avg. Diff: $250.06)

Study 3 – Men Only

• T-Tests revealed that there were significant differences in negotiation goals between men in the control group vs. “other-focused”, where men chose significantly higher initial offers, targets, and reservation points in the control group
• Initial offer (t=-3.16, S.E.= 252.2, p<.001) (Avg. Diff: $797.69)
• Target (t=-2.56, S.E.= 180.84, p<.01) (Avg. Diff: $463.66)
• Reservation point (t=-2.19, S.E.= 102.16, p<.05) (Avg. Diff: $223.55)

​

Study 3 – Women Only

• T-Tests revealed that, there were NO significant differences in negotiation goals or performance between conditions for women
• Initial offer (t=-.57, S.E.= 237.67, ns) (Avg. Diff: $135.62)
• Target (t=-.03, S.E.= 131.56, ns) (Avg. Diff: $5.34)
• Reservation point (t=-.01, S.E.= 61.00, ns) (Avg. Diff: $1.74)

​

Study 3 – Follow-on Analyses

• Gender🡪Unmitigated Communion🡪Target🡪Outcome
• Unmitigated Communion Scale (Fritz & Helgeson, 1998)
• I always place the needs of others above my own.
• I never find myself getting overly involved in others’ problems.
• For me to be happy, I need others to be happy.
• I worry about how other people get along without me when I am not here.
• I have no trouble getting to sleep at night when other people are upset.
• It is impossible for me to satisfy my own need when they interfere with the needs of others.
• I can’t say no when someone asks me for help.
• Even when exhausted, I will always help other people.
• I often worry about others’ problems.

Study 3 – Next Steps

• Prolific study
• Informed by Study 3
• Test a new prime

New Priming Ideas

1. Prime with higher power – point to strong female example
2. Normalize a competitive approach
3. Practice actual language to use during the negotiation
4. Give instructions that the participants must disclose the ways the outcome will help others as justification during the negotiation in order to minimize anticipated backlash
5. Ask participants to independently brainstorm and list down at least three tangible ways the outcome of this negotiation will help other people

​