I often find that when people discuss studies they rarely get beyond the abstract (and sometimes not even past the title!)
Just to get you started and maybe entice you to read the paper, the abstract says: "We observe interesting data patterns. For example, we find that when there is no explicit statement that wages are negotiable, men are more likely to negotiate than women. However, when we explicitly mention the possibility that wages are negotiable, this difference
disappears, and even tends to reverse. In terms of sorting, we find that men in contrast to women prefer job environments where the ‘rules of wage determination’ are ambiguous. This leads to the gender gap being much more pronounced in jobs that leave negotiation of wage ambiguous."
One interesting result that's not in the abstract: even when the wage was explicitly negotiable, only about 25% of people bothered to negotiate! (This is for an "administrative assistant" style job.)
Saying explicitly that it's negotiable means to me that there's more available and I only have to say a few words or pretend not to be interested in order to get that money.
I also learned early on in my career that when taking a job it's better to push for a higher salary at the beginning, because raises always seem to be based on what you're getting now, and targeted at just enough to stop you going elsewhere.
i didn't read this, but i always wondered if women's salaries are lower on average because of a reluctance to negotiate. (thus citing that women's salaries are lower than men's has nothing to do with gender bias?)
I'm not trying to say that discrimination is ok, I'm just saying that the typical system requires you to ask for money, you're not just given it out of the kindness of your employers heart.
I recall (can't find them now) there are studies which basically explain away the entire wage-gap between men and women as two factors:
1) women negotiate less
2) women take more time off for children, thus advance more slowly
Basically showing that there is no inherent gender discrimination on wages in the US, in the aggregate -- that it's entirely due to choices made by women, not any kind of discrimination whatsoever.
On the other hand, there are also blind studies testing resumes in certain areas, which show that employers perceive resumes with male names to be stronger than identical resumes with female names. And on the other other hand, I feel like every engineering place I've worked would always hire an equally-qualified woman over a man, since there are so few of them to begin with.
Maybe that typical system has a gender bias then :)
Perhaps if women are implicitly required to negotiate, and choose not to, then they will be recruited by another organization who is willing to pay them more without negotiation. You've just lost out on a good engineer - the employer has done themselves a disservice.
It might be a contributing factor, but I doubt it's the only thing going on. There was an interesting study recently showing a gender bias in academic science [1].
I don't think it's just a problem for women. Most of us enter adulthood with terrible negotiation skills, especially in engineering. I certainly did. The percentage of people who are decent negotiators is small and, empirically, most of them seem to be men.
Successful people negotiate everything: job title, compensation, authority in hierarchical companies, project allocation. If turned down for a raise, they get a better project or a "meaningless" title that improves the CV. They're resilient against rejection (an inevitable outcome of negotiation) but they keep trying and working to improve. The rest, who don't, get mediocre results-- male or female. In software, there are a lot of people who don't know how to negotiate-- at all.
In school, we live in an artificial environment where everyone is assessed on similar projects and grades are fairly objective. So negotiating for a better result-- a B rather than a C-- is seen as dishonorable and weak. You should have studied harder. This no-negotiation zone is reasonable in a world where grades are (in comparison to workplace performance reviews) exceedingly fair and 90-95% get passing grades. If you're on the threshold (a 'D' student) it means you were a weak performer who managed to squeak by.
But in the real world, for promotions and favors and work autonomy and VC funding, pass rates are << 50% and if you don't have it in you to negotiate for a better outcome, you're screwed.
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I also think you're kind-of side stepping the issue that the paper sought to quantify.
Yes its not just a problem for women, but there's a lot more pressure on women to avoid confrontational negotiation[1] because they'll be branded much more negatively (ie "Bitchiness" or some other term), and if they are, then they risk being taken less seriously.
Men don't have the same problem, as culturally strong/pushy personalities (that might fare better in negotiation or negotiate more) are seen as less of a cultural negative. It's something explicitly expected of one gender and seen as more repulsive in the other, and that becomes a big deal for things like salary negotiation.
In software, there are a lot of people who don't know how to negotiate-- at all.
Excellent points.
Many "computer people" are really good at what they do because they leveraged their introversion into uncommonly high levels of programming skill. In such an environment, the interpreter is "fair", the compiler is "fair" (although often uncompromising and unforgiving).
Once you get the "right" answer, it stays right and doesn't change unless external circumstances change (e.g. new compiler, new hardware, something breaks).
On the other hand, the human world is not always "fair", and it's often possible to push back against a judgment, using only high confidence and a loose but passionate argument.
Belief that the human world operates with the same exact logic and precision as the computer world is a source of many misunderstandings.
"Everyone sucks at negotiating, though men are slightly more likely to try" is supported by the study. See page 10. When salaries weren't explicitly listed as negotiable, only 10.6% of men and 8.2% of women even tried to negotiate. Even when they were explicitly negotiable, only about 22% of men and 23.9% of women tried.
This is definitely cultural, by the way. Where I grew up in India, everyone negotiates for everything, even very cheap trinkets.
Since the paper provided clear evidence that this problem is worse for women. But then I kept reading and learned that you believe
> The percentage of people who are decent negotiators is small and, empirically, most of them seem to be men.
So that clarified to me that actually you a) believe women are inferior and b) that you did not read even the article's abstract which clearly stated that
> We observe interesting data patterns. For example, we find that when there is no explicit statement that wages are negotiable, men are more likely to negotiate than women. However, when we explicitly mention the possibility that wages are negotiable, this difference disappears, and even tends to reverse.
Implying that women's failure to negotiate arises from being socialized not to raise a fuss about wages rather than a difference in intrinsic ability.
All in all pretty standard for a top comment about gender issues on HN.
That entire comment read like an internal monologue that I frequently have with myself. :-(. I couldn't have worded it any better or differently. And, no I don't think you sidestepped anything or claimed that A is inferior to B or some such thing either.
But in the real world, for promotions and favors and work autonomy and VC funding, pass rates are << 50% and if you don't have it in you to negotiate for a better outcome, you're screwed.
I already had a bad day and shouldn't have read that line in the end. I am going to go and crawl into a foetal position until daybreak! :-(
Salary negotiations - they should probably teach this at school. My company has a 'comp day' where you head into a room with a couple of managers and they tell you what you're getting. But I've got no idea what the protocol is for disagreeing. Presumably it's their for negotiating otherwise they would you send you a letter and skip the meeting. A lot of people, when they don't know the protocol of a situation, will just nod and be swept along.
[+] [-] mherdeg|13 years ago|reply
Just to get you started and maybe entice you to read the paper, the abstract says: "We observe interesting data patterns. For example, we find that when there is no explicit statement that wages are negotiable, men are more likely to negotiate than women. However, when we explicitly mention the possibility that wages are negotiable, this difference disappears, and even tends to reverse. In terms of sorting, we find that men in contrast to women prefer job environments where the ‘rules of wage determination’ are ambiguous. This leads to the gender gap being much more pronounced in jobs that leave negotiation of wage ambiguous."
One interesting result that's not in the abstract: even when the wage was explicitly negotiable, only about 25% of people bothered to negotiate! (This is for an "administrative assistant" style job.)
[+] [-] Nursie|13 years ago|reply
Saying explicitly that it's negotiable means to me that there's more available and I only have to say a few words or pretend not to be interested in order to get that money.
I also learned early on in my career that when taking a job it's better to push for a higher salary at the beginning, because raises always seem to be based on what you're getting now, and targeted at just enough to stop you going elsewhere.
--edit-- male, for the record.
[+] [-] christopherslee|13 years ago|reply
I'm not trying to say that discrimination is ok, I'm just saying that the typical system requires you to ask for money, you're not just given it out of the kindness of your employers heart.
[+] [-] crazygringo|13 years ago|reply
1) women negotiate less 2) women take more time off for children, thus advance more slowly
Basically showing that there is no inherent gender discrimination on wages in the US, in the aggregate -- that it's entirely due to choices made by women, not any kind of discrimination whatsoever.
On the other hand, there are also blind studies testing resumes in certain areas, which show that employers perceive resumes with male names to be stronger than identical resumes with female names. And on the other other hand, I feel like every engineering place I've worked would always hire an equally-qualified woman over a man, since there are so few of them to begin with.
So, who knows...
[+] [-] sses|13 years ago|reply
Perhaps if women are implicitly required to negotiate, and choose not to, then they will be recruited by another organization who is willing to pay them more without negotiation. You've just lost out on a good engineer - the employer has done themselves a disservice.
[+] [-] juridatenshi|13 years ago|reply
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109.abst...
[+] [-] michaelochurch|13 years ago|reply
Successful people negotiate everything: job title, compensation, authority in hierarchical companies, project allocation. If turned down for a raise, they get a better project or a "meaningless" title that improves the CV. They're resilient against rejection (an inevitable outcome of negotiation) but they keep trying and working to improve. The rest, who don't, get mediocre results-- male or female. In software, there are a lot of people who don't know how to negotiate-- at all.
In school, we live in an artificial environment where everyone is assessed on similar projects and grades are fairly objective. So negotiating for a better result-- a B rather than a C-- is seen as dishonorable and weak. You should have studied harder. This no-negotiation zone is reasonable in a world where grades are (in comparison to workplace performance reviews) exceedingly fair and 90-95% get passing grades. If you're on the threshold (a 'D' student) it means you were a weak performer who managed to squeak by.
But in the real world, for promotions and favors and work autonomy and VC funding, pass rates are << 50% and if you don't have it in you to negotiate for a better outcome, you're screwed.
[+] [-] simonsarris|13 years ago|reply
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I also think you're kind-of side stepping the issue that the paper sought to quantify.
Yes its not just a problem for women, but there's a lot more pressure on women to avoid confrontational negotiation[1] because they'll be branded much more negatively (ie "Bitchiness" or some other term), and if they are, then they risk being taken less seriously.
Men don't have the same problem, as culturally strong/pushy personalities (that might fare better in negotiation or negotiate more) are seen as less of a cultural negative. It's something explicitly expected of one gender and seen as more repulsive in the other, and that becomes a big deal for things like salary negotiation.
[1] See Women Don't Ask: The High Cost of Avoiding Negotiation - http://www.amazon.com/dp/0553383876/
[+] [-] theorique|13 years ago|reply
Excellent points.
Many "computer people" are really good at what they do because they leveraged their introversion into uncommonly high levels of programming skill. In such an environment, the interpreter is "fair", the compiler is "fair" (although often uncompromising and unforgiving).
Once you get the "right" answer, it stays right and doesn't change unless external circumstances change (e.g. new compiler, new hardware, something breaks).
On the other hand, the human world is not always "fair", and it's often possible to push back against a judgment, using only high confidence and a loose but passionate argument.
Belief that the human world operates with the same exact logic and precision as the computer world is a source of many misunderstandings.
[+] [-] SatvikBeri|13 years ago|reply
This is definitely cultural, by the way. Where I grew up in India, everyone negotiates for everything, even very cheap trinkets.
[+] [-] jvm|13 years ago|reply
> I don't think it's just a problem for women.
Since the paper provided clear evidence that this problem is worse for women. But then I kept reading and learned that you believe
> The percentage of people who are decent negotiators is small and, empirically, most of them seem to be men.
So that clarified to me that actually you a) believe women are inferior and b) that you did not read even the article's abstract which clearly stated that
> We observe interesting data patterns. For example, we find that when there is no explicit statement that wages are negotiable, men are more likely to negotiate than women. However, when we explicitly mention the possibility that wages are negotiable, this difference disappears, and even tends to reverse.
Implying that women's failure to negotiate arises from being socialized not to raise a fuss about wages rather than a difference in intrinsic ability.
All in all pretty standard for a top comment about gender issues on HN.
[+] [-] Surio|13 years ago|reply
But in the real world, for promotions and favors and work autonomy and VC funding, pass rates are << 50% and if you don't have it in you to negotiate for a better outcome, you're screwed.
I already had a bad day and shouldn't have read that line in the end. I am going to go and crawl into a foetal position until daybreak! :-(
[+] [-] Tycho|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HelloMcFly|13 years ago|reply