The Battle of the Sexes:
Do men and women really have different negotiating styles?

Many of us have had the experience of trying to get an agreement signed, or a deal closed, but the negotiations just kept going on and on and on. Oh, everybody was initially calm and polite, even earnest and respectful, in a distanced professional way. But the frustration levels continued to rise, and the desire to blame something for the slowdown intensified. So the unmentionables then started to be mentioned. You know, those based upon prejudice and discrimination ... and sex.

It’s gender actually, not sex. If you like making these kinds of distinctions, the term sex refers to the biological categories of male and female, and the term gender refers to the psychological aspects associated with each category.

Anyway, gender gets blamed for lots of things, including failed negotiations. When talks stall, or someone feels too many concessions are being made, a quick analysis of the situation might conclude that "it’s because she’s a bitch", or "he’s such a wimp". Certainly not helpful, but probably indicative of the gender expectations of some of the people involved.

It’s difficult to generalize that men and women negotiate differently because there are lots of individual differences within the male and female populations. Research on the topic has led to many opinions, but few reliable conclusions. Hundreds of experiments have yielded contradictory results.

Yet some researchers have persisted in trying to identify the different ways men and women approach negotiation and their findings are worth considering. One team of researchers (Kolb and Coolidge, 1991) found four basic areas of difference:

1. Relationships among the parties negotiating. Women are more inclined to view the broader situation and be concerned about the feelings and perceptions of those involved, whereas men are more inclined to resolve the matter at hand.

2. View of the negotiation. Men tend to regard a bargaining session as a finite, separate event, whereas women regard it as part of a larger relationship with the other party.

3. View of power. Women generally want to have everyone in the bargaining session to be equally empowered, whereas men use power to achieve their own goals.

4. Dialogue. Men are more likely to use dialogue to persuade the other party of their point of view, whereas women use it to achieve understanding.

While other researchers have come up with their own lists of differences, the woman’s style is still generally described as favouring deference, relational thinking and indirection. A man’s style is viewed as directive, impersonal, and full of linear arguments. Yet neither a man’s style nor a woman’s style is regarded as consistently better for negotiation, only different.

But there seem to be some exceptions where one style is favoured over the other.

In situations where trust, openness and long-term relationships are critical, a woman’s style may be more influential. In situations where conflict, competition and self-interest prevail, a man’s style may fare better.

Some research (Watson and Kasten, 1988) suggests that the way a woman approaches negotiation may be different from the way she performs when she’s actually in negotiation, especially if the negotiation table is surrounded by men. Many men have difficulty fully understanding a woman’s style. This may explain, in part, why women have been found to be treated differently, and often worse, than men in negotiations. In research conducted on women buying a car (Ayres, 1991) and negotiating a salary (Gerhart and Rynes, 1991), opening offers made to women were worse than those made to men, and the outcomes were worse for the women as well. Even when the women used the same negotiating tactics as the men, they appeared to be penalized for doing so.

The implications of this particular research are much debated. Perhaps the flexible, deferential style used by the women involved was perceived by the men as being weak and unclear. Or perhaps it was, as has been revealed in other studies (Champion, 1979; Loden, 1985) the women’s lower tolerance for antagonistic situations, and their tendency to try to smooth things over even if it means that they have to make a personal sacrifice.

Only further research and debate will determine whether the findings coming out of this research remain applicable.

In the meantime, we might be better off simply following a general rule of negotiation: be sensitive to the values, perceptions, concerns and moods of those with whom we are dealing, and adapt our behaviour accordingly. The more we get in step with the other person’s way of thinking, the more likely we’ll be able to work out an agreement.

And maybe we should try adopting a woman’s style if we’re negotiating with a woman, and a man’s style if we’re negotiating with a man, the next time our negotiations break down. ‘Cause sex (oops, gender) may have something to do with it.

---

A. Paul Mahaffy practises business law with Bennett Best Burn LLP of Toronto, with particular emphasis on purchase and sale agreements, technology transfers, joint ventures, strategic alliances and financing, and can be reached by e-mail at pmahaffy@bbburn.com

Copyright 1997, A. Paul Mahaffy. Reproduction by any means in whole or in part without the author's written consent is strictly prohibited.