How Women Can Negotiate More Successfully

Every one of us engages in negotiations several times a day, across both personal and professional settings. A negotiation starts whenever two or more people stake out opposing positions on a given issue. For example, one person might want to enjoy a quiet dinner at home, while their partner prefers going out to eat. One might dream of a beach vacation, while the other yearns for the mountains. An employee may be pushing for a raise, while their boss insists on a salary freeze, and so on.

This context also raises the topic of "gender-specific negotiation tactics," exploring whether and to what extent men and women negotiate differently or achieve different levels of success.

This phenomenon is explored in three sections as follows:

Section 1 werden sketches out the most recent insights from social psychology research.

Section 2 lays out the central piece of advice that emerges from these insights.

Section 3 is tailored to those with a keen interest in the (exclusive) expertise of professionals. It details how the central advice ties into the best practices of negotiation, outlines the sequence of conflict strategies that should be deployed, and discusses how female negotiators can effectively employ these strategies at the negotiating table.

Section 1: Recent Findings on Characteristically Female Negotiation Tactics

Dr. Julia Sophia Habbe, a lawyer from Frankfurt, has recently offered a compelling overview (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-24407-1) based on the latest developments in social-psychological research on negotiation. This work highlights four significant findings:

• Finding 1: There's a discernible difference in how men and women approach negotiations, with women often securing less favorable outcomes when leading negotiations.
• Finding 2: The tendency of women to achieve less favorable results is linked to their greater inclination towards avoiding conflicts rather than engaging in them, a trait more commonly associated with men. Thus, while men might lean towards a confrontational approach, women are more likely to adopt strategies of "Avoidance" or "Compromise".
• Finding 3: Women (who typically shy away from conflict) can see improved outcomes by reevaluating their perception of conflict, instead viewing it as a positive challenge and - despite this going against traditional gender norms - handling it with professional finesse in negotiations. However, this shift towards what is often seen as a 'masculine' approach can lead to social backlash and perceptions of unlikability. Given the importance of likability as a persuasive tool in negotiations (refer to Prof. Robert Cialdini's "Influence"; https://www.influenceatwork.com/principles-of-persuasion), it might be assumed that women who adopt a confrontational stance could be disadvantaged at the negotiation table. Nonetheless, the following finding suggests that such concerns may be unfounded.
• Finding 4: Women who leverage their feminine charm in their negotiation style (thorugh expressive body language, frequently maintaing eye contact, and offering compliments) tend to be perceived as more assertive and are therefore more likely to reach their goals. Interestingly, men often perceive such charming behavior merely as an expression of friendliness (see Habbe).

Section 2: Central Piece of Advice for Female Negotiators

The key piece of advice for women leading negotiations is as follows: To navigate the negotiation table successfully, you should (i) confront conflicts (the very essence of negotiations) with a positive mindset, ensuring that these conflicts are clearly defined early on in the discussion, and (ii) counter any potential social backlash by strategically employing feminine charm.

Be sure to keep the following formula in mind:

"Embracing conflict + feminine charm = optimal approach to any negotiation."

Regarding the aspect of "Embracing Conflict", it's crucial to distinguish between your behavior and your mission: First, always treat everyone at the negotiation table with respect and keep a calm demeanor. Second, boldly present your demands and persist in your initial stance, rather than conceding too quickly for the sake of regaining favor, for example. Collaboration should come only after you and your negotiation partner have jointly outlined all the conflicts.

For further details, refer to Section 3.

Further Helpful Strategies

Moreover, employing the following two strategies can be advantageous: (i) negotiate as though you are representing someone else (even if you are advocating for just yourself) and (ii) reflect on a recent moment of empowerment just before entering into negotiations (as suggested by Habbe).

Section 3: Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Cornerstone of the Best Practices

For those delving into the (exclusive) expert knowledge, here are some explanations structured as questions and answers.

‍

Question 1: Do women tend to avoid conflicts more than men?

It is commonly asserted that women are more inclined to avoid conflicts rather than (stereotypically associated with men) confront them. Ob Frauen typischerweise Konflikten durch die Anwendung der beiden Konfliktlösungs-Strategien „Vermeiden“ oder „Nachgeben“ aus dem Weg gehen, kann ich aus eigener Erfahrung nicht bestätigen. Meine Verhandlungspartnerinnen waren immer sehr „tough“. Habbe, however, reports that many women feel as follows: "Negotiations do arise in my life. However, I try to avoid them because I'm not confrontational and not a good negotiator. I often let others 'win' to avoid an unpleasant dispute. The quicker a confrontational situation is over, the better. The outcome is of secondary importance to me."

From my own experience, I cannot confirm that women typically evade conflicts by resorting to "avoidance" or "yielding" strategies, as my female negotiation counterparts have invariably been quite "tough", so to speak. Habbe, however, reports that many women feel as follows: "Negotiations do arise in my life. However, I try to avoid them because I'm not confrontational and not a good negotiator. I often let others 'win' to avoid an unpleasant dispute. The quicker a confrontational situation is over, the better. The outcome is of secondary importance to me."

In an experiment recounted by Habbe, participants conceded in the initial negotiation round out of fear of negative repercussions, leading to results that were on average nearly 20% below their initial objectives.

Question 2: Why are women more prone to avoiding conflicts than men?

This begs the question: Why is this the case? Why are women more inclined to steer clear of conflicts than men? Is this fear of conflict simply a result of "women's nature"? According to our current scientific understanding, this is not the case. Rather, it is more about how individual role perceptions are influenced by others. A woman might for example think, "Being confrontational makes me unappealing. I don't want to be perceived that way, so I will avoid conflict." This is referred to as the "backlash effect," where behavior that deviates from traditional gender roles leads to social disapproval, thus triggering the behaviour of conflict avoidance.

Question 3: How does a woman act as a professional decision-maker?

In professional settings, negotiations are invariably team efforts. Within a negotiation team, a woman may take on roles such as the decision-maker, determining the course of action, or as the primary negotiator, directly engage at the negotiation table, which will be further explored in Question 4. (see Question Nr. 4).

When a woman in the negotiation team serves as the Decision Maker, that is, the one who makes the decisions, she must inevitably engage with conflict resolution strategies. This is because, in essence, negotiation is about resolving conflicts. In other words, without conflicts, meaning opposing positions, negotiations do not take place.

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, a widely recognized framework (https://kilmanndiagnostics.com/overview-thomas-kilmann-conflict-mode-instrument-tki/), identifies five primary strategies for conflict resolution, applicable also applicable in negotiations.

• Competing: This approach involves striving to prevail and win, showing little willingness to cooperate with the negotiation counterpart. Those who consquently adhere to this strategy throughout a negotiation might adopt the mindset of: "It's either my proposal or nothing at all" (Take it or leave it). Utilizing this strategy from the outset enables the negotiator to vigorously defend their stance. Should the (male or female) negotiator encounter difficulties in upholding these positions, they may choose to temporarily suspend the contentious issue to achieve a thorough grasp of all pertinent matters. In such instances, the decision-maker might suggest their negotiator communicate, "We seem to have reached a deadlock on this matter; let's place it on our list of pending items and move on to address the other topics."
• Avoiding: This strategy involves sidestepping the conflict entirely, opting not to engage directly. It's a tactic of playing for time with a mindset of "Not now." Thus, as a decision-maker, you would not send anyone to the negotiation at all.
• Accommodating: You fully yield without obtaining any concession in return. This is the direct opposite of Competing. Thus, you do not achieve your negotiation goal. As the Decision Maker, you think, "We will do exactly as the negotiation partner demands." You then instruct your (male or female) negotiator, to follow this specific directive.
• Collaborating: On one hand, you pursue your own goals and interests. On the other hand, you empathetically immerse yourself in your negotiation partner's perspective, striving to understand their interests. You seek creative solutions to ensure both parties are fully satisfied with the outcome. This strategy requires ample time and an experienced (male or female) negotiator, whom you have appointed. You continuously experiment with various concepts in conjunction with the psychologically effective principle of reciprocity (Give and Take).

Those who initiate negotiations with this strategy typically send their negotiator (male or female) into the fray armed with proposed solutions. This is a classic mistake, as it involves jumping to the resolution phase (the second step) before conducting a thorough analysis of the conflict (the first step). Professionals, therefore, always start with Competing and initially clarify the conflicts through destructive criticism (see Gerhard Schwarz, Conflict Management, 9th Edition). Only after analyzing the conflicts through destructive criticism do they attempt to find solutions through constructive criticism.

In the Collaborating phase, for example, after analyzing all conflicts, you might have your negotiator (male or female) say: "We share many commonalities and both want this deal to succeed. Besides, we only have three open issues. Do you think that it would possible for us to put together the following package: It seems particularly important to you that the price is 3% lower for item 1. If you could accommodate me by extending the contract duration (18 months) for item 2 and by speeding up the payment (2 weeks) for item 3, I might consider reducing the price by 1%."

Compromising: You are willing to make concessions, and so is your partner. Rather than taking the time to delve deeper, you opt for a quick solution, driven by a desire to avoid effort. As a result, you settle for a compromise that leaves both parties only partially satisfied. You might instruct your negotiator (male or female) to propose: "We have three unresolved issues; let's just meet halfway on each: You are asking for a 3% discount, I will offer you 1.5%. You want a contract term of 6 months, I prefer 18 months, so let us settle on 12 months. You wish to pay within 6 weeks, I prefer 2 weeks, so let us both just agree on 4 weeks."

The distinction between Collaborating (as the method of choice after Competing) and Compromising is clear: In a compromise, everyone takes the easy route and ends up somewhat dissatisfied. With Collaborating – through perseverance and skill – a consensus is reached that satisfies all parties.

‍

Conclusion for Practitioners: A professional Decision Maker always begins by employing the "Competing" strategy, enabling her to then (after the reporting from the negotiator) precisely comprehend and delineate all conflicts. Once all conflicts have been thoroughly analyzed, she pauses to deliberate with her team on the subsequent strategy to employ. If preserving the relationship with the opposing party is a priority, she will transition to "Collaborating." In doing so, she aims to achieve her goals (play to win) while ensuring the other party is content with the outcome (create satisfaction). This is typically accomplished through the traditional "give and take bargaining," approach, leveraging the psychological tactic of reciprocity. Please note: It is essential to embrace the "Play to win – create satisfaction" philosophy. The goal is to prevail as the Decision Maker, but it is sufficient for the counterpart to (merely) be satisfied with the result. A counterpart's satisfaction can also stem from making concessions. This is something the (male or female) negotiator has to evaluate at the negotiation table.

The approach outlined here, derived from the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, is what I refer to as the ABC strategy (A for Analyze Open Points, B for Break for Change, and C for Concessions Package Procedure or Collaborating).

Question 4: How does a woman act as a professional lead negotiator?

When a woman takes her place at the negotiation table as the lead negotiator, she should embrace conflict and proactively offset any potential social rejection her negotiating partner might be experiencing by using her natural feminine charm.

Additionally, you can mentally fortify yourself with the following tactics: If you are also the Decision Maker (so essentially a one-person team) you can imagine that you are negotiating on behalf of others (e.g. your entire family). Social psychological research has shown that women negotiate more assertively when they advocate for others. This is attributed to the societal expectation that women are more likely to act altruistically than selfishly (see Habbe).

Furthermore, recalling a recent experience of empowerment and using this memory to mentally prime oneself is advantageous. In an experiment with both male and female participants, women who motivated themselves by recalling an empowering experience negotiated just as effectively as men. In contrast, women who were not primed with a memory of empowerment achieved less favorable outcomes on average (see Habbe).