REVIEW ASSIGNMENT GENDER AND NEGOTIATION

Disusun oleh:

Alexander David G

NIM. 125120407121040

FAKULTAS ILMU SOSIAL DAN ILMU POLITIKDEPARTEMEN HUBUNGAN INTERNASIONAL

UNIVERSITAS BRAWIJAYA2014

Popular stereotypes embraced many people say that women are more cooperative and pleasant in negotiations than men. However, men are found able to negotiate better outcomes than women, although the difference is relatively small. It is assumed that this is probably due to differences in men and women put different values on the outcome of negotiations.

Research shows that managers who do not have the power not much, regardless of gender, tend to try to please their opponents and use gentle persuasive techniques rather than direct confrontation and threats. In situations where men and women have the same power, it is not significant difference negotiation style. But if the popular stereotypes (woman is fun, man is tough) is activated again what happens is the fulfillment of this prophecy, which reinforces stereotypical gender differences.

Female manager shows a lack of confidence in anticipation of negotiations and more dissatisfied with their performance after the negotiation process is completed, even when the results achieved together with the results of men. Women tend to be successful in negotiating if using her feminine charms, including the seducing, seductive, or friends. The study conducted by researchers at the University of Berkeley, California-USA, by lead researcher Dr. Laura Kray who perform four different observations. Kray and colleagues looked at 22 different negotiation situations from day to day experience of the participants. He also observed the ratio of women who negotiate with using her feminine charm and which are not. Based on his observations, the level of success of the negotiations between men and women is one in three, which seduce and friendly attitude is an important instrument of successful negotiation of female participants. Women who use feminine charm tend to get a bigger discount when shopping. According to Kray, “feminine charm is a behavioral strategy that aims to make the other person you can agree with your desire”.

It is said that women are stereotypically more cooperative and relationally oriented than men, which is supposed to translate into disadvantageous outcomes in negotiating. The popular press is full of anecdotes about women being at a disadvantage in purchasing cars and in negotiating salaries relative to males in similar situations.

However, many academic studies have yielded little or no evidence of statistically significant differences between the negotiating style of males and females. Other studies that have found gender-related differences have been countered by other studies with opposing results. Some of the evidence addressing gender differences in cooperativeness, aspirations, frequency of negotiations, and biases involved in negotiating with women is addressed below.

Initially gender was considered in negotiation as a stable set of individual characteristics leading research to a direct effect model neglecting the influence of

contextual variables in the interaction. The gender differences would become predictive of specific bargaining behaviours, strategies and even outcomes.

But, differences in outcomes can be expected due to differences in perceptions, behaviours and contextual factors. To them even if men and women have different negotiating styles, the effect of these discrepancies on the outcome is unclear. The effectiveness of a specific behaviour is linked to the context and the constraints of a specific negotiation. More than this, not all females behave the same way just as all males don’t.

A previous study found that women have a tendency to demonstrate more cooperative behaviours than men but according to the authors, the choice of competitive or cooperative behaviours vary mostly depending on the constraints of the negotiation context. In a study about the effects of gender and motivation on negotiation showed that even if female pairs obtained during the experiment lower joint profit than the male ones, it was only when the external motivation to be concerned by both their own and their counterpart profit was low. According to them, it would be wrong in these conditions to conclude that men are more effective negotiators than women.

Therefore gender differences are likely to interact with other situational factors. Some researchers have praised for a contingency approach with a situational perspective but such situational interactions are difficult to identify due to the vast display of contextual variations that characterize negotiation. Gender differences are more influential in vague and confusing negotiation situations because it requires improvisation and reveals personality traits. In that sense, some situational variables can moderate or on the opposite amplify those differences.

Kray and Thompson in their writings identify five main theoretical perspectives:

1. Men and women initially differ in the way they consider negotiation (competition vs cooperation) in their bargaining styles, in how they handle conflict and negotiation but also how gender impacts the degree to which negotiators focus on interests, rights, and power in resolving disputes.

2. On the contrary, men and women don’t differ fundamentally but rather the negotiating partners hold different expectations about men and women that lead them to be treated differently. Negotiators adjust their behaviour depending on their counterpart gender and they perform differently as a result of their opponent behaviour. Gender would then affect the way negotiators are expected to behave but also the way they are treated.

3. Negotiators have different expectations depending on their counterpart gender that they communicate deliberately or negligibly causing behaviours that are consistent with these expectations and creating a self-fulfilling effect. The power or the negotiator’s expectations produces a behaviour confirmation.

4. The situation is a primary determinant of any behaviour. Men and women are inherently similar if not identical in their approach of negotiation but external and situational factors create the appearance of gender differences and contribute to related behaviours. In that sense, the balance of power and how power is expressed can be a determinant and an explanatory variable of the expression of gender differences during negotiation.

5. Depending on the situation, the impact of gender issues on the negotiation process and outcome can be moderated. Either the situational context will lead to the activation of stereotypes, presumably negatives, which will have an effect on the process and will amplify gender differences by reducing reality to simple traits or, normative contextual cues will force the participants to adopt a standardized behaviour. In strong situations (high level of stakes for example), accurate behaviours are more clearly defined while in weak situations there is a lack of behavioural indications leading to the expression of individual differences that can be related to gender ones.

These five perspectives bring several challenges for any research. Kray and They recommend a systematic change between situations where presumed situational asymmetries within a group across negotiators are present or absent; For example how women and men respond differently in single-sex versus mixed-sex contexts. But this doesn’t take care of personal differences within male and female populations, considering that all personalities are homogeneous so are their behaviours. With this conflicting body of evidence, it is difficult to draw conclusions on what differences men and women have in negotiating styles, let alone estimate the consequences of those differences. Furthermore, most of the studies addressed thus far test the ramifications of gender differentials in an experimental setting. Few studies measure negotiation performance in negotiations where "real" situational power and status actually do differentiate the negotiators. Most of the literature on consequences of gender differences could be better characterized as compilations of anecdotes.