the interests of both men, and ended up making both of them happy.
This can be a great approach for maintaining and even improving rela-
tionships because it focuses the negotiators’ efforts on ways to “attack
the problem”—figure out a good solution—without “attacking each
other” by fighting each others’ positions.41 Techniques for doing this
include:
• asking diagnostic questions (what problems does opening or
closing the window create for you?);
• sharing information about your own interests (the stuffiness in
here is making me uncomfortable; I have a cold and shouldn’t
sit in a draft);
• unbundling the issues or adding issues (is there a way for you
to get some fresh air without me sitting in a draft?);
• brainstorming about possible solutions rather than defending
established positions (let’s try to think of ways to satisfy both
of our needs).42
These techniques appeal to many women because they don’t put rela-
tionships in jeopardy—and can significantly decrease their anxiety
about negotiating. Women also appreciate this approach because work-
ing together and fostering cooperation are already things that many
women like to do and do well. Their childhood forms of play make
them skillful at these kinds of behavior and—this point is worth stress-
ing—make them comfortable with them. When women need to change
their behavior dramatically or act in ways that feel inconsistent with
who they are, this tends to ramp up their anxiety, not lessen it. Trying
to understand the needs, interests, and concerns of the other side often
allows women to get to know the other negotiators better. This doesn’t
124
F E A R O F A S K I N G
merely produce superior outcomes, it can actually improve their rela-
tionships. (We look more closely at the advantages women bring to
negotiation and how their cooperative approach can produce better re-
sults for all parties in chapter 8.)
But paying attention to the interests of the other side doesn’t mean
overidentifying with their needs. Susannah, the political strategist, be-
lieves that the intense anxiety she experiences going into a negotiation
comes in part from an exaggerated identification with the person on the
other side of the table. “I just feel so guilty,” she said. “I worry that I’m
putting them in a difficult situation, especially if I’m asking for some-
thing that I think will be hard for them to give to me. I’m just wracked
with guilt.” Heather, the pastor, remarked that in many cases women
have “negotiated themselves out of their position before they even open
their mouths. . . . Before even the get-go, we’ve decided not to ask for
something, because we’re worried that it’s going to be too much to ask.”
So another means of controlling anxiety when approaching a negotia-
tion is to trust the other negotiators to take care of themselves. Most
people have no trouble saying no when they can’t or don’t want to do
something, but they’re often eager to say yes if they can—and if they
know what you want.
A friend of Sara’s named Jane told Sara that she was hesitant to ask
for a big raise because she thought it would be hard for her boss to
give her so much. Sara asked Jane how she feels when one of her own
employees comes to her with a request, even one she can’t fully satisfy.
Without pausing to consider, Jane said, “Well, it’s my job to take care
of my employees, do what I can to keep them, and make them happy.”
When Sara pointed out the inconsistency of her response, Jane recog-
nized the contradiction. She also felt better about asking for as much
as she wanted—and got the raise she wanted.
Another useful strategy for women can be recognizing that they don’t
need to bar emotion from their negotiations completely. Many women
worry about becoming emotional in a negotiation and that this will be
a mistake. The key to expressing emotion in a negotiation is to use
appropriate emotions—emotions that can help achieve your ends. Ex-
pressing negative emotions (such as anger or frustration) by banging
on a table, yelling at the other side, or becoming defensive are rarely
effective in persuading another person to see your point of view. Burst-
ing into tears doesn’t usually work well either. But communicating posi-
tive feelings (such as cheerfulness) by smiling and speaking in a calm
125
C H A P T E R 5
voice can be enormously effective because emotions have been shown
to be contagious—one side can actually “catch” the emotions of the
other. So communicating a positive, let’s-work-together-to-figure-this-
out attitude can often reframe an interaction that starts out on a combat-
ive note and change both the mood of the other negotiator and the
overall tone of the negotiation.43 Research has also shown that people
in good moods think more creatively, are more likely to engage in coop-
erative strategies such as exchanging information, and find more inno-
vative ways to solve problems. They’re also less likely to resort to com-
petitive strategies and contentious tactics.44
Using humor can be another effective way to influence the tone of a
negotiation. Elaine, the district court judge, described relying on humor
both when she was a lawyer and now that she is judge because “humor
has a way of leveling things, not leveling exactly, but . . . it relaxes
people.” And when people are relaxed, the anxiety of everyone in the
room decreases.
Getting Help
There’s another way to deal with anxiety about damaging a relationship
by asking for too much: Get help when help is available. Eleanor, the
literature professor and biographer, negotiated the contracts for her first
two books by herself. The editor who bought them was extremely pow-
erful and well-regarded, and Eleanor’s fear of offending this editor made
her hesitate to push for too much money. “When it came down to it,”
Eleanor said, “I backed down because I didn’t want her to hate me.”
After Sara interviewed Eleanor and talked to her about our research,
Eleanor hired an agent to negotiate the contract for her third book,
something she’d been reluctant to do because she thought her editor
wouldn’t like it. Not only was the editor fine with Eleanor having hired
an agent, the agent negotiated an advance for Eleanor’s third book that
was more than ten times the amount she’d gotten for the second book. This gives us a pretty good idea of how much money her relationship concerns prompted her to leave on the table in those first two contract
negotiations. It also gives us a sense of how much women in general
sacrifice because they worry that pressing for what they want will dam-
age a relationship.
126
F E A R O F A S K I N G
Disarming the Tough Guys
But what about when you run into opposing negotiators who resist
taking a cooperative approach to the process—a particularly anxiety-
producing scenario for
many women? Roger Fisher and William Ury
then recommend resorting to what they call “negotiation jujitsu,” a term
derived from the ancient martial art of jujitsu. In jujitsu, combatants
“avoid pitting their strength against each other directly and instead try
to step out of the way and use their competitors’ strength to achieve
their own ends.”45 “Negotiation jujitsu” provides a way to defuse a con-
flict when other negotiators take a competitive approach, stake out an
inflexible position, or attack your position or you. In a situation like
this, a direct counterattack would most likely lead to an escalation of
conflict, with both sides degenerating into personal attacks, negative
emotions, and positional bargaining.46 Far more effective is to meet this
type of competitive approach by doing what William Ury calls “stepping
to their side.”47 Stepping to their side involves continuing to treat the
other negotiators with respect despite their combative attitude. It in-
volves listening to their arguments, acknowledging the legitimacy of
their opinions, and agreeing with them wherever you can. In addition
to reducing the conflict between you, it allows you to focus on their
interests rather than on their positions—and invites them to do the
same for you.
Here’s an example of how this can work. Suppose you want to reduce
your work week and work only Monday through Thursday, with Fri-
days off. When you ask your boss whether this will be possible, he
responds by yelling, “Absolutely not!” Rather than shouting back (as
many men might do) or becoming emotional and backing down (as
many women might), an effective strategy would be to change the tone
of the conversation by responding calmly or with humor: “Wow, you
really hate that idea! I guess it would create a lot of problems for you.”
In this way, you acknowledge your boss’s strong feelings and show that
you’ve listened to him. But you haven’t conceded; instead you’ve moved
from being an adversary to being on his side—you’re trying to see his
point of view. This is effective because it is hard to argue with someone
who is on your side.
The next step involves reframing the conflict from a “positions” ori-
entation to an “interests” orientation—getting your boss to think be-
127
C H A P T E R 5
yond his reflexive position (“absolutely not!”) so together you can search
for a solution that works for both of you.48 A good way to do this would
be to ask a question, such as: “What problems does my absence on
Fridays create?” This accomplishes two things: It gives you information
and it moves the interaction away from arguing and disagreeing and
toward problem solving. Once your boss has explained why he thinks
giving you Fridays off is impossible (“no one else with your expertise
is in on Fridays if we have an emergency”), a good response would be
to acknowledge your boss’s situation (“now I understand your reac-
tion”). Then follow up with a question that addresses your interests:
“But I want to spend more time with my children (or study for a test
that would qualify me for a higher position, or take a course that meets
on Fridays). Do you have any ideas about how I could get a little more
time away from work without causing you a lot of problems?” This
approach continues the process of “stepping to his side” while promot-
ing mutual cooperation and problem solving.
Although these techniques may not always get you what you want
(it just may not be possible for you to take time off without really harm-
ing your employer), they do protect your relationships while you’re
negotiating. In this example, both you and your boss can walk away
from the negotiation with an increased understanding of each other and
the knowledge that together you can try to solve problems cooperatively
and creatively. This can give a huge boost to your future working rela-
tionship.
Mercy, 51, the director of space management for a large state univer-
sity in the Southwest, described how this approach has worked for her:
With a number of vice presidents here on campus . . . they initially
came in demanding and expecting to get instantly whatever they re-
quested, and they’d heard the nasty word “no.”. . . After negotiating
with them and finding some sort of solution for them, not nearly
what they wanted, but certainly a viable solution, there have been a
number of times where they. . .walked away with a sort of new re-
spect or a different level of understanding of my job, and respect
comes with that. They didn’t get what they wanted, but they were
happy with the outcome.
Sara had a similar experience when she worked at a consulting firm.
As the senior editor and writer working on a large-scale training pro-
gram that included video scripts, case studies, workbooks, and teaching
manuals, Sara had to rely heavily on the firm’s word processing depart-
128
F E A R O F A S K I N G
ment for rapid turnaround on several sets of revisions. Shortly before
the deadline for the materials to be delivered to the client, the word
processing department made a sizable mistake that delayed delivery.
After the problem was sorted out and the materials were completed,
Sara asked for a meeting with the head of the word processing depart-
that the two of them were steeled for a fight, expecting her to blame
them entirely for the mishap. Rather than staking out a strong negative
position such as “you screwed up and made me look bad,” Sara pre-
sented her interests in a calm, conciliatory voice. She needed to under-
stand what had gone wrong so that she could explain it to the consultant
who was running the project, she said, and she wanted to figure out
what both she and the word processing department could do differently
next time in order to avoid making a similar mistake. As soon as the
other two realized that she wasn’t going to attack them, they relaxed.
The three of them talked back and forth about possible process changes
and without raised voices or hard feelings reached an agreement about
how to do things differently in the future. Not only did this improve
the production process, it improved Sara’s relationship with the head
of the word processing department and made her future working inter-
actions with him more pleasant and productive.
Although taking a cooperative approach to negotiating can eliminate
some of the causes for women’s anxiety, even when women negotiate
well they often get less than a man might get in the same situation. This
is because women often don’t ask for as much as they can get, and
because people on the other side of the table often resist conceding as
much to a woman as they might concede to a man under identical
circumstances. We look at these factors impeding women—the pres-
sures that prevent women from setting higher goals for themselves and
the limits so
ciety places on how much a woman can get in a negotia-
tion—in the next two chapters.
129
6
Low Goals and Safe Targets
Men acquire more economic resources than women—they earn
higher salaries, own more property, boast bigger stock portfolios,
and leave behind larger estates when they die. Women also fare badly
when it comes to noneconomic resources, such as leisure time. One
study shows, for example, that even when both spouses work full-time,
a huge percentage of women do most of the housework and childcare,
leaving them little time for themselves.1 Although we can point to deep
historical and sociological reasons for women coming up short both
economically and otherwise, we’re convinced that negotiation also plays
a critical part in this seemingly universal phenomenon. Not only are
women less likely than men to ask for more than they have—they usu-
ally come away with less than men even when they do negotiate. This is
particularly true in single-issue, or “distributive,” negotiations, in which
only one item, such as a salary increase or the price of a car, is being
discussed.2 Even among Ivy League MBA students conducting negotia-
tions, a group you might expect to include some of the toughest, most
capable (and competitive) young women in America, Linda, Hannah
Riley, and Kathleen McGinn found that women produce worse results
than those produced by men (on average 30 percent worse).3
In the introduction, we described how much women can lose over
the course of their careers by neglecting to negotiate their starting sala-
ries. But just negotiating isn’t always enough—how well they negotiate
and how much they’re able to get also make a big difference. In a study
demonstrating this, the business school professors Barry Gerhart and
Sara Rynes looked at the salaries obtained by more than 200 students
130
L O W G O A L S A N D S A F E T A R G E T S
graduating from an Ivy League MBA program. They found that the men
negotiated starting salaries that were 4.3 percent higher on average than
the original offers they received while women negotiated increases that
were only 2.7 percent higher than their first offers.4 This means that the
men’s payoff for this single negotiation was 59 percent greater than the