It shouldn’t be news. I posted about it in March.
Sheryl Sandberg sold women some very bad advice. As a
negotiating strategy, leaning in often backfires.
Yesterday, Maria Konnikova drew the same conclusion from the
same unfortunate experience. You may recall the case of the young woman who,
having just been hired for a tenure track position at Nazareth College chose to
apply the lessons of leaning in to her negotiation.
Before even accepting the job, she sent off a series of
demands, couched as negotiating positions. The college, wisely, rescinded the
job offer. I hope that Sandberg can find her a position at Facebook.
So far, so good.
Next, Konnikova went me one better: she consulted with experts
in the field of negotiation and gender. What she found was not what Sandberg
was selling.
In her words:
Hannah
Riley Bowles, a senior lecturer at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and
the director of the Women and Power program,
has been studying gender effects on negotiation through laboratory studies,
case studies, and extensive interviews with executives and employees in diverse
fields. She’s repeatedly found evidence that our implicit gender perceptions
mean that the advice that women stand up for themselves and assert their
position strongly in negotiations may not have the intended effect. It may even
backfire.
In four studies, Bowles
and collaborators from Carnegie Mellon found that people penalized women who
initiated negotiations for higher compensation more than they did men. The
effect held whether they saw the negotiation on video or read about it on
paper, whether they viewed it from a disinterested third-party perspective or
imagined themselves as senior managers in a corporation evaluating an internal
candidate. Evenwomen penalized
the women who initiated the conversation, though they also penalized the men
who did so. They just didn’t seem to like seeing someone ask for more money.
And also:
It’s
not that men are immune from being seen as tough or unlikeable when they make
aggressive demands. Attempting to negotiate can make anyone seem less nice,
Bowles repeatedly found. But it’s only women who subsequently suffer a penalty:
people report that they would be less inclined to work with them, be it as
coworkers, subordinates, or bosses. The effect is especially strong, Bowles has
found, when people observe women who engage in salary negotiations. “Money in
particular seems to be a hot one,” she says.
One suspects that the problem is not in the negotiation, but
in negotiating like a man. No one will respect you for pretending to be
something you are not.
Konnikova explains:
Women
are potentially being evaluated according to different criteria, even if the
person doing the evaluation doesn’t realize it. Julie Phelan and her colleagues
at Rutgers have
found that, when women are already in the hiring or promotion
process—that is, when their credentials have already been screened and they are
in the interview phase—the focus shifts away from their competence and toward
their social skills. That effect is absent for male candidates.
Then, unfortunately, Konnikova began to follow her experts and blamed sexism:
Female
leaders who try to act in ways typically associated with male
leaders—assertive, authoritative, directive—are seen far more negatively than
males.
She also writes:
Women
who don’t negotiate may not be refraining because they are shy. They may,
instead, be anticipating very real attitudes and very real reactions that are
borne out, time and again, in the lab and in the office.
She concludes that this all proves that discrimination still
exists, but that it has become more implicit.
Of course, for the argument to stand, one would have to say
that men and women are fundamentally the same, but that cultural stereotypes are forcing people to see them differently.
Dare we say, this argument defies science.
Surely, Sandberg’s telling women to lean in is not a new
idea. In the past women were told to be more assertive. Unfortunately, Sandberg
is more the problem than the solution.
If Sandberg frames the choice between negotiating like a man
and not negotiating at all, most women will choose the latter.
As it happens,
it’s a false choice.
One may take Sandberg’s point and say that women should
negotiate, but one must add that a woman can and should be able to negotiate effectively
while not pretending to be something she is not.
Why is it that feminists still believe that the only way a
woman can succeed in business is by pretending to be a man?
3 comments:
Interesting research. If we've discovered an innate gender bias, it could be taken further, including a racial bias, and I although wonder about a height bias, or voice quality in men.
I think its interesting to observe bias, for your own self-awareness rather than to be shamed.
I like the idea we can recognize a sort of rational ideal which we aspire, and then compare it to "instinctual" reality of things we are not entirely aware.
I admit I'm not convinced "being assertive" is categorically male, but if we're going to generalize, you can consider that masculine also can mean "failing a lot", so if you have a chance to ask out 1000 women you don't know on a date, you can afford to make a fool of yourself 980 times, and then take lessons from the 20 success cases of what works.
So if women give up "leaning in" because of one failure, because the formula didn't work, then that's not very masculine behavior, and not worthy of the 784th attempt that finally succeeds. But who wants to fail that much? Are there any rewards to women that they'll work that hard to become BS artists?
I've only skimmed the Bowles study, but for starters I have to question whether a random selection of university students, or a random selection of adults in general, is at all representative of the experienced executive and managers who actually make real-life hiring decisions.
Maybe there are times to lean in, and maybe there are times to back off. Or do nothing.
Tip
Post a Comment