Introduction
The current complex global business and social settings require various skills that ease the process of interactions. Negotiation is one of the areas where every individual (s) must focus especially because of the reality that disagreements will always emerge at varying levels of interactions. However, negotiations do not always apply when there are conflicts that may cause adverse consequences (Cohen, 2013). The reality is that negotiations apply even when a buyer and a seller decide on the best price for an item. The fact that men and women acts in varying capacities as either sales executives means that they are consistently engaging buyers in positive negotiations that have the ability to boost sales.
On the same, note, it is agreeable that issues of gender will always be at the center of negotiations at every level of indulgence. The assertion implies that the view of men and women at different interactions levels is in most instances conflicting because of the different approaches that each gender seems to embrace. For example, there are gender-based behaviors that emerge during the process of negotiation that indicate the inherent difference in attitudes between males and females (Thompson, 2013). However, despite these notable differences, it is agreeable that there are instances where both men and women may adopt similar tactics in their approach to various situations that require some depth in negotiations. This paper evaluates negotiations in the context of gendered societies; the paper also seeks to argue that men and women should have an equal voice in any negotiation without prejudice that is based on gender or sexual orientation.
Negotiations
The inevitable reality at any given degree of interactions is that there will be differences in opinion that may lead to conflicts. Fundamentally, individual interests and the need to satisfy personal objectives necessitate the need for negotiations (Cohen, 2013). To this end, negotiations relate to a gradual process that allows for individuals to reach a certain level of the bargain and consequently agree on a specified deal. Research indicates that this process is a normal human activity but may suffer constraints primarily based on the parties taking part in the process. For instance, the process of negotiation is successful when both parties feel the commitment to achieve a particular goal that may present a ground for a solution (Thompson, 2013). In this regard, the various parts involved in a negotiation are critical because of their ability to balance self-interests with those of the other parties without losing focus of the problem.
The assertion implies that based on the depth or the magnitude of the conflict at hand men and women may adopt unique approaches to a situation (Cohen, 2013). The reality is that the psychological makeup in both genders is seemingly different and, therefore, the reaction to various situations is skewed based on this fact. For instance the process of meditating in a conflict situation where each party adopts hardliner strategies may require an intervention strategy that does not border on gender prejudice.
Negotiation and Gender
The fact that men and women have different temperaments means that there will always be conflicting approaches to situations. Generally, in position talk men and females will show differences in their language both verbal and nonverbal. For instance, research indicates that men will always tend to use a language that is more direct and factual. The approach may appear convincing and somehow use close–ended questions when interacting during negotiations. On the other hand, women seem as more indirect in their approach and tend to give fewer directives (Thompson, 2013). The assertion means that while women may be included as less powerful, they are open–ended approach to a situation may end up serving the purpose for engagement. To this end, men may use a conversation to derive information during a negotiation process while women use such dialogues to initiate a connection with the hope of a finding a solution (Cohen, 2013). The nonverbal aspect of the process of communication also means that women or females are always more attentive to the body language in a particular situation and might, therefore, pick up many varying signals without engaging much in a verbal dialogue.
Gender Emotions and Negotiations
Essentially, in most of the business-related situations, buyer-seller negotiations are a necessity. The scenario in such settings is that a vendor will quote a price and negotiations will ensue as to the best deal regarding pricing. The emotion regulation in such a scenario will determine how content each of the parties feels at the end of the transactions. Arguably, face-to-face negotiations require a certain level of cognitive and emotional balance that ensures gender differences regarding emotional regulations do not emerge (Thompson, 2013). Research indicates that when one evaluates emotional issues that relate to both men and women it is agreeable that women seem to do a better job in seeing or appreciating the other individuals point of view as opposed to men in the same negotiations (Cohen, 2013). The reality is this particular instance is that men tend to be more aggressive and often emerge with the bigger share of fulfilled self-interests in distributive negotiations. Distributive negotiations are the meditations scenarios where each seeks to satisfy personal interests and therefore strive to capitalize on the best possible outcome.
On the other hand, given the reality that women tend to more empathetic as opposed to the men, the female will always tend to use integrative tactics in the process of negotiations. Ideally, an integrative tactic is one where the parties view the possible outcome of the situation as greater when each party is for the win as opposed to where individual interest emerges. The reality in handling situations where emotions are a common feature is that matters may become personal. To this end, research indicates that men tend to be more objective in separating the problem and the people involved. Superlatively, what this means is that women may find it hard to see a rejected deal separately from the concerned party (Thompson, 2013).
Emotionally, women tend to take up matters more personally as opposed to men. One of the principles of negotiations involves separating the problem at hand with the individual parties involved in the negotiations. However, there is the difference in how and when aggression and empathy as key emotions in a negotiation should apply. Research indicates that the use of empathy may work to the favor of the negotiations while there could be situations where negotiations require some degree of aggression. Therefore, men's aggressive nature has an upper hand in certain scenarios while women's dynamic nature may prove to have significant benefits in other situations (Cohen, 2013).
Gendered Stereotypes Negotiations
The definition of gender in any settings is one that is reflective of an underlying stereotype and notion that a particular gender is always at the disadvantage especially in perceived male-dominated fields (Yurtsever, Ozyurt, & Ben-Asher, 2013). The assertion raises the question of masculinity in the process or association between men and women. The society consciously tends to limit the extent to which women can actively participate in the process of dialogue (Wertheim, 2008). The common problem in such situations is the reality that gender stereotypes still manifest in the modern societies. Negotiations have, therefore, become complicated because in most cases the social construct of women is that of a weak negotiator. Briefly, an effective negotiator is often looked as strong, domineering, assertive and rational. On the other hand, an ineffective negotiator often appears as weak, submissive and accommodative (Cohen, 2013).
The social construct of men and women perfectly suit these features where men seem as effective negotiators given their inherent temperaments and females appear as infective negotiators based on their assumed weaker demeanor. The assertion forms the worthy basis to evaluate the social outlook of gender and the impact of sex differences in negotiations. For instance, the difference between gender and sexual orientation emerges. The immediate question in this context is the argument over the extent to which sexual identity and sex roles apply in the context of negotiations (Fisher, 1991). For instance, the fact the society views women as traditionally restrained may be a leading reason for females to appear as weaker bargainers in a negotiating table. On the same note, the reality that women have not been fully accepted in boardrooms and other settings where high-end conversations occur mean that the participative aspect of women in negotiations is substantially limited. The reality of gender stereotyping is also notable in the manner in which women in men dominated professions such as in engineering go about handling negotiations.
The reality of gendered approaches to negotiations is also significant in aspects such salary negotiations. In essence, many of the formal work settings have a structure where women tend to have a lesser bargaining power in comparison to men. The fact is that male employees were given starting salaries that are slightly higher than that of the female counterparts in most instances. On the same note, research identifies a divide in the patterns of salary increment between men and women. In the end, the realism is that a person will tend to have a higher possibility of winning a wage negotiation deal as opposed to a woman, the theoretical perspective of these aspects may relate to the focal negotiator socialization (Cohen, 2013). The theoretical perceptive argues that the individual at the center of the negotiations will most likely win or lose their grip at the bargaining table based on the manner in which the particular society views gender roles. The assertion implies based on socialization there are settings where a female negotiator has as much impetus in a negotiation as the male counterparts.
Conclusion
The role of gender in negotiations appears as a socially constructed inhibition to equality. Essentially, while many observers see gender roles as inhibitive to proper negotiations, femininity and masculinity should not influence the outcome of a mediation process. The assertion is because a genuine conversation whether by women or men may yield the same results (Cohen, 2013). The identification of a problem and the process of brainstorming for a solution do not require a male to a female to initiate the process. The modern corporate setting depends on the determination of the best alternative solution that results in agreement. The assertion, therefore, means that whether a man or women serves as a mediator, the best outcome is where each in the setting is satisfied.
References
Cohen, S. (2013). The effective negotiator: How to argue your point, plead your case and prevail
In any situation. Pompton Plains, NJ. Career Press.
Fisher, R., Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York,
NY: Penguin Books.
Thompson, L. (2013). The truth about negotiations (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.
Wertheim, Edward G. (2008). The importance of effective communication. Retrieved from
http://windward.hawaii.edu/facstaff/dagrossap/ssci193v/articles/EffectiveCommunication.pdf.
Yurtsever, G., Ozyurt, B., & Ben-Asher, Z. (2013). Gender differences in buyer-seller negotiations: Emotion regulation strategies. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 41(4), 569-575. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2013.41.4.569
