1. Prescriptive gender stereotypes.
In addition to individual factors that lead women to be reluctant to ask for more
83
One researcher proposed that “sex categorization is deeply rooted in the cultural rules that organize interaction” (Ridgeway, 1997, p. 219). This continual reinforcement of presumed gender differences results in, among other things, the cueing of certain gender
stereotypes such as the devaluation of women’s jobs, and differences in men and
women’s reward expectations that are sufficient to create and maintain gender inequality in wages. And women, as much as men, appear to buy into these assumptions. (See also
Prentice and Carranza (2002) for a discussion of prescriptive gender stereotypes).
Various explanations have been proposed for the role of stereotypes, including
that they simplify the demands of the perceiver (Macrae et al., 1994); make information
processing easier; emerge in response to environmental factors such as different social
roles (Eagly, 1995), group conflicts (Robinson et al., 1995), or differences in power
(Fiske, 1993); justify the status quo (Jost & Banaji, 1994); or emerge in response to a
need for social identity (Hogg & Abrams, 1988).
Because sex is a strong social cue that prescribes different behaviors for males
and females, strong expectations for appropriate gender-based behavior form the basis of
gender stereotypes. Because these stereotypes can influence expectations of what men
and women can and should do, they greatly influence both individual and group behavior
(Eagly, 1987).
Wade (2002) argues that society’s expectations that men will act agentically
(advocate for their own interests), and women communally (on behalf of other’s
interests), may help explain why so many women find it so difficult to engage in self-
advocacy. An illustration of the impact that stereotyping can have, in this case the
84
Lyness and Thompson (1999) who showed that women are more likely to be promoted
into management as opposed to being hired into management, suggesting that rather than
assuming that women are deserving, management expects them to have to prove
themselves first.
Another study found that women were significantly more likely than men to say
that their job requires that they work very hard (Gorman & Kmec, 2007) even when
variables such as job and family responsibilities and individual qualifications (education
and skills) were accounted for. The researchers concluded that while neither actual
differences in job characteristics, nor family responsibilities, accounted for this perceived
gap in effort, it did help to explain women’s perception that they were being held to
stereotypically higher performance standards than men.
Gender stereotypes can be evidenced in other ways as well. Two studies (Ayers,
1995; Ayres & Seigelman, 1995) found that new car dealers offered female shoppers
higher prices than males, and as much as forty percent higher in the case of white females
versus white males. Ayres terms this process the “search for suckers.” He posits that
revenue-based discrimination turns solely on the seller’s assumption about the maximum
amount a given group member would be willing to pay. It’s not difficult to see parallels
in salary negotiations, i.e., the seller’s (recruiter) offer (starting salary) is influenced by the seller’s belief about the minimum amount a group member (female job candidate) would accept. So, if the seller believes that a woman would accept a lower salary than a
similarly qualified male, the recruiter may feel comfortable offering the female candidate
85
Steele (1997) showed that perceived gender-based stereotype threats dramatically
depress the standardized test performance of women. Might not this same inability to
perform under pressure, then, diminish women’s performance in another pressure-packed
situation like negotiation? See also Kray and Thompson’s review of the literature on
gender stereotypes and negotiation performance (Kray & Thompson, 2006).
Matheson (1991) studied the impact that gender has on interpersonal expectations.
She found that females who were to negotiate with another female expected her to be
fairer, more cooperative, and less exploitative (but not as competent or strong). If,
however, the female was unaware of the gender of her counterpart, she expected the other
woman to be uncooperative. In other words, it appears that because uncooperativeness
and competitive behavior is seen as masculine, women seem to adopt the stereotype that
negotiation is a “masculine” and “competitive” process.
2. Prescriptive gender-linked norms: modest, selfless, likeable.
There is no form of human excellence before which we bow with profounder deference than that which appears in a delicate woman…and there is no deformity in human character from which we turn with deeper loathing than from a woman forgetful of her nature, and clamorous for the vocation and rights of men
(Bledsoe, 1856, p. 224).
Individuals are criticized when they act either in violation of what others expect
of them, or in ways that disconfirm stereotypes. These individuals can pay a high social
price for such non-conforming behavior, and the costs are even higher when it’s gender-
based expectations that are violated. So, when a woman asserts her own self-interests
(i.e., in a manner more consistent with expected male behavior), she is perceived to be
86
Unlike gender stereotypes which are expectations of behaviors, gender norms
play out when there is an audience. Because in most business contexts male behavior has
come to be considered the norm (“normative”), when a woman acts masculine, she is
seen to be more competent, but less likeable. Apparently, one of the strongest gender-
based norms is that women should be modest and selfless, i.e., downplay their own
needs. Therefore, while we may find it acceptable for women to ask on behalf of others,
it is not acceptable when they try to do the same for themselves. As a result, women who
highlight their accomplishments in job interviews run the risk of having the interviewer
see her as competent, but not particularly likeable (Wiley & Crittenden, 1992).
A study examining the reasons behind the dearth of women in STEM professions
pointed out that being seen as both competent and well-liked was particularly difficult for
women to achieve in science and engineering fields (AAUW, 2010). Undergraduates
were asked to rate the competence and likeability of a male and a female candidate in a
stereotypically male job (such as STEM). While the male and female employee were
rated equally competent when their prior success was known, when that information was
not known the female candidate was rated significantly less competent than the male
87
Figure 34. Competence and likeability of men and women in “male” professions.
Note: Retrieved from http://www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/whysofew.pdf.
Raiffa (1982) identified the following traits of an effective negotiator: assertive,
rational, decisive, constructive, and intelligent. On the flip side, Lax and Sebenius (1986)
identified the traits of an ineffective negotiator: weak, emotional, irrational, and overly
conciliatory. Studies have confirmed that traits associated with effective negotiators are
more often perceived to be “masculine,” while traits associated with ineffective
negotiators are seen to be characteristically “feminine” (Williams & Best, 1982).
Unfortunately, this presents female job candidates with a dilemma; when they resist “acting like a man” and behave in conformity with societal expectations of what it means to be “feminine,” they run the risk of being perceived as ‘ineffective” negotiators and receive lower salary offers. But if they exhibit traits associated with effective negotiators
88
(by acting “more like a man”), they run the risk of facing opprobrium for appearing “unfeminine.”
3. Self-promotion as a risk factor.