Introduction
Negotiation is one of the most skills in the corporate world. It is a skill that would be needed in every department of the firm. As Downs (2008) notes, an organization cannot move if it lacks individuals who are able to properly negotiate on its behalf. Internally, various departments may need to negotiate over various issues.
The marketing department would need to convince the finance unit to allocate it enough finance to support various financial obligations it has to undertake. Similarly, the production unit would need a close coordination with the procurement and logistics unit on the flow of raw materials into the firm, and transportation of the manufactured products to the desired destinations.
Individuals within the firm would also need to negotiate when they find themselves in competitive situations. Externally, organizations are involved in negotiations almost on a daily basis.
The procurement unit must negotiate for quality raw materials at a cheaper price, while the marketing department would look for a better market for the firm’s product. It would require success from all the departments and individuals concerned for the organization to ensure overall success in its endeavors.
Negotiation has seen a shift from what it used to be before. According to Adam and Healy (2000), unlike before when most negotiation’s ultimate end would be a win-lose situation, currently negotiations are aimed at a win-win scenario.
Both parties involved should come out of the negotiation with what he or she desired, or a compromise that would be satisfactory to them. However, most discussions today still end in a win-lose situation, a fact that has seen many organizations focus on having the best team to negotiate their dealings.
Both men and women comprise such team of negotiators. According to Fifield (2007) the society has changed from what used to be a highly patriarchal world, to a more liberal one where both genders feel equal to each other. Many women have since become as successful in the corporate world as men. Despite these positive changes, the two genders still exhibit differences in many set ups.
The notion that men are the dominant group over women is still held in various quarters. Many individuals still believe that men still have more authority than women in most of the decision making practices.
Ward (1999) singles out Saudi Arabia where women have to seek permission from men before making serious decisions in life. Inasmuch as the Saudi case is extreme, many societies, even in the developed democracies still have a difficulty in accepting that the two genders are pretty much equal when it comes to issues about decision making.
In negotiations, both the genders have registered marked differences in their ability to make dealings that are beneficial to them. There have been divergent views as to which gender is more superior in decision making and what each uses to ensure that they are successful in their decision making processes. Different scholars have different ideas as to which of the two genders are better positioned to negotiate successfully for the firm.
This paper seeks to investigate differences in negotiation between men and women.
Literature Review
Negotiation as a skill in the corporate world has raised a lot of concern from different quarters. This has seen scholars focus their attention to it. Of interest has been the difference in negotiation between the two genders.
According to Weiss (1994) men are better placed to negotiate than women. This scholar says that men have the advantage of the perception the society has towards them. Many societies still believe that men are superior to women. For this reason, they have a strong basis to negotiate, as compared to women.
Anderson (2004) supports this idea. According to this scholar, women are still chained by the manacles of inferiority that was placed on them by the society of the aging population. Although the current population is more liberal and treats both genders equally, it is still evident that women have remained the inferior sex. They get into the negotiation knowing that they would lose if they are to face a man.
The society has taught them to be submissive towards men, and this would be the mentality they transfer to such discussion. As such, they become more relaxed and prone to accepting the demands of the other party at their own expense.
Bruce and Pepitone (1998) say that men are very aggressive and therefore better positioned to win negotiations. Men, unlike women, always believe in getting what they want. They would get into the negotiation table ready to grab any opportunity that would make him win the negotiation. They do not care what happens to the other party, and are less concerned if such success would break the good relationship that existed between them.
Women are different, as Goel (2008) observes. This scholar says that women treasure relationships. They would rather lose the bargain but ensure that they retain positive relationship between her and the other party.
As such, it would be easy to take advantage of them and win a negotiation over them. The moment negotiation becomes emotional, they would tend to relax and give in to the demands of the other party. This makes them less effective negotiators.
Men are risk takers. In a negotiation, this is a very important skill. As Griffin and Moorhead (2009), negotiation requires one to be a risk taker. They should be ready for any eventuality. According to these scholars, men would get on the negotiation table with a clear mind and ready to lose the anything but win the negotiation. Women behave contrary to this. Before anything else, their dignity matters.
Anything that would jeopardize this would be avoided at all cost. When they get into the negotiation, they would always remember to be decorum and avoid scenarios that would make her be seen as too aggressive. This scholar refers to them as risk averters. When the debate gets too hot, they would rather be fence sitters, than face the whole process heads up.
However, other scholars have had different opinion to the above scholars. These scholars believe that women are better negotiators than women.
According to Wong (2000), women are better listeners. They would take their time to listen to what the other party is saying. They would internalize it before coming up with its response. This makes them better party in a logical argument. Should they be faced by an individual who is in a rush to reach conclusion, she can use the other parties own words to win the negotiation.
Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias (1992) agree with this scholar. They say that men are always in a rush. They want things done their way, but in a quick-fix manner. As such, they may make binding statements that can easily be used against them. They would lose the negotiation not because they are not good negotiators, but because are always in a rush to win the debate.
Fisher, Ury and Patton (1991) argue that with the focus of negotiation changing to a win-win process, women stand a better chance of winning a negotiation than men. Women would always get into a negotiation with the aim of building relationships. They treasure relationships so much and their ultimate goal is to develop a bond that would last for a long period.
Men on the other hand, aim at winning the negotiation at all costs. This would be at the expense of the good relationship that would have been developed if both parties were to leave the negotiation table satisfied. Lewicki, Barry and Saunders (2009) support this idea. They say that the current world needs a sustainable relationship with other firms if they are to succeed in the operation.
The world is changing from antagonistic kind of competition to a collaborative competition. Firms need to cooperate with each other. Internally, departments and individuals must work collaboratively if they expect good results from their combined force.
The moment one party manipulates the other and emerges the winner in a negotiation, trust would be lost, and the party that lost the negotiation would avoid any activity that would bind it to the other party. If this happens within the firm, it would risk a stalemate as there would be no cooperation.
If this was between one firm and another (supplier or the customer), the relationship would be broken completely and there would be no chance of developing any gainful relationship.
Women have one feature that Ury (1991) observes that may make them win many negotiations. According to this scholar, women are ‘flowery’, a fact that has seen them easily win some tough debates. This scholar says that debates are not won through tough talking and commanding voice.
However, it is won by wining one’s heart, by making one relax his or her stand, by making an individual be able to let go some of the demands he or she had, and letting them appreciate that there is need to have both parties satisfied with the outcome of the negotiation. Men lack this ability by nature. They would like to be seen as the superior party, always pushing their agenda without paying attention to the needs of the other party.
This may only have the effect of intimidating the other party, and if the other party fails to get intimidated, then possibilities of the discussion running into a stalemate is very high. A woman on the other hand, will come with a calm disarming voice that would make the other party drop his guard.
At such circumstances, it would be easy to manipulate the other party, but because they always have the need to develop lasting relationship in their mind, they would ensure that they have as much as they think the other party should have.
Discussion
Negotiation is a very important tool in the current society. The ability to negotiate over various issues is one of the most important tools that an organization must have in the current corporate world. The corporate world has gotten more competitive. In every sector, there is competition.
Even organizations that were previously thought to be immune to competition like non-profit making organizations currently find themselves in a neck break competition. They are competing to position themselves as the better providers of the services they provide in order to win the heart of the financers, and the acceptance of the receivers of their service.
As such, negotiation is a tool that cannot be neglected at whatever cost, irrespective of the organization, or at a personal level.
Both men and women are differently positioned to win a negotiation based on different factors. Without considering other factors that both genders may have in common for example age, education level, income level, experience in the concerned field, authority commanded, and such other factors, the two genders would have different capabilities to negotiate.
They both have some inherent characteristics that would make them pass as either poor negotiators or otherwise.
Men as Successful Negotiators
Men for a long period have been the dominant gender. In a negotiation process, there are several characteristics that would be required of a negotiator is they are to win the negotiation. One such characteristic is emotional control. Men are able to control their emotions.
In a discussion, at times tempers may rise during the deliberation. One party would feel that the other is deliberately avoiding the focus of discussion and shifting to irrelevant things that would yield them unfair advantage. In such cases, tempers may rise and heated exchanges may arise. This is a very delicate process that requires deed emotional control if the process is to be ultimately successful.
Men are able to control, and then compose themselves, ready for a successful process to be started. This is contrary to what women would do. Should such serious exchanges occur, and in case the exchanges involved abusive language or actions, they would completely be withdrawn to themselves, and it would be nearly impossible to bring them back to the negotiation again.
Men believe in themselves. This is a very important tool in a negotiation process. In a negotiation, the most important thing is to make the other party convinced that one’s argument is correct and beneficial to all. To make the other party believe that what one is saying has validity and that it is not a wild guess or a trial and error kind of a thought.
To achieve this, there is need to demonstrate to the other party that one has a deep understanding of the issue at hand and that what he or she is talking about is an assurance on its own. This would call for confidence on the side of the negotiator. As Watkins (2002) says, other people should be able to read confidence in the face and speech of the negotiator.
They should be convinced that what is being put forth has the benefits they claim to offer. Women are a little poor in this as compared to men. They would appear timid, or in some cases, a little in doubt. If subjected to tough questions, they can easily lose focus of the discussion because they lack composure. This would make them vulnerable.
Men are risk takes, as noted in the above review of literature. As such, they stand better chance of engaging in discussion that may appear to harbor some risks in case one looses the discussion. They are persevering and easily forgiving. This puts them at a better chance of winning a debate.
Men as Poor Negotiators
Men may also pass as poor negotiators. One main undoing of men in a negotiation process is their attempt to emerge the winner at whichever cost. This may involve becoming manipulative, a fact that may make the other party harden their stance. Anyone would want to be tougher if they realize that the other party in a negotiation is trying to be manipulative.
They would make the conditions harder and this would break up the entire negotiation process. Men also lack patience. In a negotiation process, an individual should exercise some degree of patience and be willing to listen to the other party if both are to meet at a compromise.
Women as Good Negotiators
Women are becoming more and more relevant in the corporate world. They have been considered as better negotiators than men because of their ability to give other parties a listening ear. This is a very important tool in winning a negotiation. Women has the ability to be patient and listen to what the other party has to say. This would ensure that they absorb and weigh the other party’s basis of reasoning against their own.
This would ensure success in the discussion in the discussion because they would try to be rational in the entire process of discussion. The other party would see that this party is making an effort to make the process a success, and they would try to reciprocate. The ultimate result would be a success in the entire process.
The corporate world currently requires a collaborative approach to discussion. In a negotiation, there is need to have both parties satisfied with the outcome in order to build a lasting relationship.
Women are better position to do this because they always approach such discussions with open minds. They always aim at building relationship in such discussions; their discussions would always result in a lasting relationship with the other party.
Women as Poor Negotiators
Although they exhibit good negotiation skills, women have some characteristics that may see them pass as poor negotiators. One such characteristic is that they are emotional. They may take issue at personal level during negotiations.
They can easily get emotional during the process of negotiation, thereby breaking the whole process of communication. Women are also not assertive. In most of the cases, they lack self confidence that would see them win such discussions.
Conclusion
Negotiation is one of the most important tools in the corporate world. Individuals need this skill in order to succeed in various aspects of life. In the set up of an organization, negotiation would be needed both within the organization and outside. There has been a shift in the approach to negotiations. Unlike before when negotiation was a win-lose scenario, current negotiations would always end in a win-win situation.
Men and women have different capacities to communicate. They both have their weaknesses and their strength that make them either poor communicator. As at now, it would be true to say that on a comparative basis, men are better negotiators than women.
However, with the shift moving to the need to create a lasting relationship from the negotiation, women would stand a better chance of being better negotiators for they always have in their mind the need to develop relationship from such discussions.
References
Adam, F. & Healy, M. (2000). A Practical Guide to Postgraduate Research. Dublin: Blackhall Publishing.
Anderson, P. (2004). Research Methods in Human Resource Management, Chattered London: Institute of Personell Management Publishing.
Bruce, A. & Pepitone, J. (1998). Motivating Employees. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Downs, L. (2008). Negotiation Skills Training. New York: American Society for Training and Development.
Fifield, P. (2007). Marketing Strategy: The Difference between Marketing and Markets. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann.
Fisher, R., Ury, W. & Patton, B. (1991).Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, Issue 4. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C. & Nachmias, D. (1992). Research Methods in the Social Sciences. London: Edward Arnold.
Goel, D. (2008). Performance Appraisal and Compensation Management: A Modern Approach. New Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd.
Griffin, W. & Moorhead, G. (2009). Organisational Behaviour: Managing People and Organisations. Mason: Cengage learning.
Lewicki, R., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. (2009). Negotiation. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Ury, W. (1991). Getting Past No: Negotiating Your Way from Confrontation to Cooperation. New York: Bantam Books.
Ward, K. (1999). Cyber-ethnography, and the emergence of the virtually new community. Journal of Information Technology. 14: 95-105.
Watkins, M. (2002). Breakthrough Business Negotiation: A Toolbox for Managers. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Weiss, R. (1994). Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. New York: The Free Press.
Wong, R. (2000). Motivation: A behavioural Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.