Letters to the Editor
-
Where is the "Why" Analysis
I find it interesting that this article does not attempt to explain why women were treated differently. Of course when a study is done by a women in a gender studies department her predilection is pretty obvious. Was there any attempt to determine if there was a different method of negotiation between men and women, no let's not try to explain it ! It's gender ! It's the patriarchy ! These type of studies would gain a lot more creditability if done by a neutral source. Just look at Ms Bowles quotes, "men were always less willing", "they always preferred", etc. Is she saying that the results were unanimous, I doubt it, but her bias is clear. What about the fact that women were more likely to penalize both genders ? What does that say? If I were a man in a Men's studies department, maybe I would say, "Women are control freaks, they can't stand anyone to challenge their authority, women always blah blah...."
-
my second go at this topic, but...
Having recently become a manager, it's actually interesting to look at things from both sides (I've been a non-manager employee for much longer). I work for a large corporation, so to some extent my hands are tied by policies and "ranges". I'm more likely to look favorably on a person coming to me for more $$ who is sensitive to that fact.
As far as I'm concerned, 2 major factors enter into the discussion--fairness and performance. By fairness, I mean what are people in comparable jobs both inside and outside the company making, and by performance I mean are you distinguishing yourself enough from others to merit getting more money than others? Knowing what your job is worth in the market is an important tool. I also found it interesting that female managers don't like it when *anyone* negotiates. Nobody has made much of that, but I wonder why that is? Is that because women generally don't like the process of negotiating salaries, regardless of what side they are on? On reflection, I think it's true of me. I would probably be annoyed with anyone who tried to negotiate too aggresively or without sufficient justification.
Then there is performance. Most discussions seem to assume that everyone performs about equally and most individuals who respond to complain about their evil bosses start with the assumption that they performed well enough to "deserve" more compensation. But in the real world, that's not always true. Some people in fact don't perform well, but don't realize it (and those people coming in asking for a raise or promotion can lead to an awkward situation), or you can have a situation where everyone is performing at a high level, but in order to stand out enough to get more money than your peers, you would have to perform better than they do. Not everybody gets that. However, I suspect that the people who do get it don't have all that much trouble with negotiation.
As far as performance and salary negotiation, unless the person in question is a known quantity (someone you've worked with before or who has a rock-solid reputation in the field), you don't have a whole lot of performance data to go on when you make an offer. Thus, I have a hard time seeing why one would offer someone more because they asked unless you were pretty sure of the results. Although again the company ties my hands on this a little, I would personally prefer to tell that person that if they perform well once they have started working, they will get an appropriate raise, but it's hard to justify the increase when I haven't seen them perform yet.
-
Dear skeptic
I don't know why I'm bothering, because every time I kid myself into believing you are a rational interlocutor, you start calling me names. But here goes.
Your focus on negotiating skills is a red herring. The negotiators were not the subjects of the study. The negotiators were actors; presumably they have a handle on affecting various skill sets, which is why the people doing the study chose to hire them.
The real subjects of the study were the would-be bosses. The study found that, despite watching the SAME actors making the SAME case, male and female "bosses" reacted differently. It is their reaction that is at issue, not the negotiating skills of the actors. Female "bosses" penalized everyone who asked for more money, regardless of their sex or concomitant negotiating skills. Male "bosses" penalized only women. So the study does inherently attempt to account for differences in individual negotiating skills, by attempting to make them irrelevant.
Which brings me back to the point I have been trying to get across. You can learn all the great skills you like, but you will still be presenting them to someone in power. And some people in power are star-bellied sneetches who won't be able to see past the lack of a star on your belly to all those great skills. I couldn't agree with you more that getting obsessed with that fact is counterproductive. But it is a known, systemic problem that you can't solve by changing your mannerisms.
It is good to be skeptical, but a true skeptic questions the validity of a study AFTER reviewing its merits, not before.
-
Dear Melthough
Before you go hunting for truffula trees, did you not see the reference to the "other studies with conflicting conclusions" or the Cornell study which said there were little difference between male and female MBA students ? I tend to dismiss any studies coming out of "gender relation" university programs, since their bias is so obvious. Sounds like you are ready to accept anything that fits your preconceived notions,and dismiss everything else.
-
h0tr0d
"These type of studies would gain a lot more creditability if done by a neutral source."
You mean that secret race of androgyne scientists we've been hatching? HOW DID YOU FIND OUT???
My problem with this study and all studies of gender is that there IS no neutrality. For me, the "why" is, "Why are you asking this question?" But I don't write them all off just because they attempt to address gender differences. One has to look at them case by case and attempt to judge them on their merits rather than their conclusions.