Theresa May might be the latest entrant in the pool of high-positioned women, but it does not subside the ongoing debate revolving women style of leadership and negotiation. The conflict management style of May might be the subject of discussion among management honchos in the future. Researchers proffer differing perceptions concerning this issue; while some accede that women have different negotiation styles than men, some authors counter this by saying that gender has a little role to play in conflict handling. Furthermore, savants are not unanimous on the efficacy of women's style of conflict management.
This paper has referred to the relevant literature to ascertain that women have different styles of negotiation than their male counterparts. Additionally, the author has explored various scholarly articles and real-life examples to present a holistic view of the topic. Exploring the relative effectiveness of women's style of conflict handling has added further depth to the discussion.
Theoretically, different negotiation styles include accommodation(sacrificing personal concern for other's sake), avoidance(postponing the issue of conflict), collaboration(finding a solution out of the conflict), competition( satisfying personal interests by sacrificing others' interests), compromise( satisfying the concerns of conflicting parties). Researchers aver that females exhibit avoidance and accommodation conflict-handling styles while their male counterparts adopt the dominating(competing) patterns. An original research explained that females tend to be more integrative than males. This finding is in sync with the earlier research conducted by Rahim( 1983) who also reported that females are more cooperative( integrating/collaborating) in conflict handling than males. The use of dominance by males has been further confirmed by Portello and Long's study that was conducted in 1994. Additionally, the research identified that obliging, compromising, and avoidance were more consistent with females than males.
Some authors have emphasized on psychological and communicational differences that might lay the foundation for different negotiation styles. While women use communication to create and enhance social and business relationships, men use it to achieve tangible outcomes. Additionally, men show greed for the power and dominance, but women exude expression and politeness in conversation. These variations automatically result in different styles of conflict management. Explicitly, men want to be more independent while women have the tendency to take all people together.
On the negative side, researchers have pinpointed that women are poor negotiators. Their politeness and cooperative attitude might not work in the highly competitive business environment. However, the real-life evidence does not support this hypothesis. Savants affirm that compromising or collaborating styles of conflict management can be of great use in international conflicts. While compromising behavior brings harmonious and long-lasting relationship, collaboration produces constructive outcomes. By contrast, aggression and dominance might prevent reaching an agreement when it is most required.
One example of the successful conflict management by women is Liberia where women brought changes through their collaboration and resilience. Women began to unite in the nation that was rippling under the civil war. Initially, their movement started with prayers and worships but gradually metastasized as a political action seeking peace. Their persistent efforts finally ended the war and restored peace in the region leading to democratic elections in 2005 that led to the election of the first women president in an African nation. Likewise, women played an active role in bringing peace in Solomon Islands at the time of civil unrest (knows as "Tensions")though they were excluded from the formal peace process. They engaged in initiating peaceful dialogue by presenting themselves in a motherly way.
Some other instances also approve gender differences in negotiation. Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, is absolutely in sync with the negotiation scholars. While humanity, tolerance, and generosity are her pet antidotes, she believes in purpose-based leadership. That is, she is an expert in leading from behind. Purpose, not the authority is fundamental for her that encourages her to make use of the collective activity. These tenets are clearly away from the male stereotypes of dominance and power pursuit. Merkel, using her collaborative skills, has managed to handle conflicts several times be it Greek financial crisis or Putin's actions in the Ukraine. Very skillfully she brought an end to the war between Ukrainian forces and Russian-backed rebels. "It is the Merkel who mattered to the Putin in the times of this conflict, neither Obama nor anyone else," said an Expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations.
In the same vein, a research study, studying men and women as third parties in conflict management and dispute resolution, concluded that women prove more effective than men in the role of third parties in the organizations. The study found them effective in facilitating the outcome that was considered mutual( not imposed) by the contesting groups. At the same time, they did not compromise the integrity of the organization. The reason might be that they did not use their power as a vehicle of influencing others. By contrast, they engaged in sincere conciliation that assisted warring parties to come to the negotiating table. The research explicitly mentioned that outcomes of a situation are likely to be different depending on the gender of the resolver. While women use their traditional skill set and empathetic approach to conflict management, men would like to handle the situation more expeditiously by influencing others. By contrast, Rubin and Brown(1975) documented 21 studies to report that men were more cooperate than women in bargaining and negotiation experiments. Another study highlighted the importance of situational variables while upholding that the role of gender as such is quite low.
It is also worth mentioning that women who prefer to behave with stereotypical masculine traits( e.g. dominance, competition) face severe social resistance. While men are rewarded for these traits, women are, at times, ostracized for theses tendencies in their behaviors. In a recent research study Bowles, Babcock, and Lai recognized that female candidates are more frequently rebuked than their male counterparts( by evaluators) for initiating hard-core salary negotiation. Women negotiating over salary are considered as overly demanding leading to adverse social outcomes for women.
Literature has also mentioned one important hypothesis regarding negotiating role for women. That is, gender differences sharply occur when females negotiate for themselves; however, they do not occur as sharply when they negotiate on behalf of others. As self-promotion is considered a masculine trait, women practicing self-promotion are likely to experience backlash by violating stereotypical female roles. Contrarily, women are free from these limitations when they negotiate on behalf of others.
The discussion reveals some important themes. First and the foremost, there is no unanimity about the role of gender in negotiations. Still, most of the scholars and several real-time examples affirm that women are likely to stick to their traditional feminine traits, i.e., cooperation and collaboration. Whether females exercise these for fear of social exclusion or backlash( as some authors have mentioned) is not an important aspect to discuss here. The bottom line is that most of the instances highlight different negotiation styles and different outcomes depending on whether the conflict is handled by men or women.
Secondly, exceptions do exist to the hypothesis of gender differences in conflict management. Bowles and Babock(2007) are apt in mentioning that situational factors are at play thereby contradicting the stereotypical characters of females. There are some situations when specific behaviors are deemed necessary irrespective of the fact who is negotiating the deal, a male or a female. Still, real-time examples( as German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other influential women) do exhibit that gendered female characteristics might guide their behavior, consciously or unconsciously. If a woman typically resembles pursuit for independence, dominance, and authority, she is likely to earn negative connotations as "a Jezebel personality."
Furthermore, some gender differences are perceived. That is, people are expected to exhibit particular characteristics based on their gender. For instance, men are thought to be rational, while women are considered emotional. As such, men are expected to handle conflict through abstract reasoning while women are supposed to be submissive and passive. Men are likely to employ direct language and talk more longer than women. Succinctly, several gender stereotypes prevail that might make it difficult to negotiate with business people of opposite gender( Kolb and Williams). Men appreciate women if they behave with their "ladies" like traits. Aggressive on the part of women is oft-considered as offensive.
Conclusion
Research outcomes concerning gender differences in negotiation are quite perplexing. While some studies have associated collaborative negotiation skills with women, the situational factors argument seems to counteract the traditional stereotypical differences. More so, there are equally string data and counterarguments stating that gender has a little role to play in conflict management and negotiation.
Having reviewed some real-time examples( e.g. Liberia and Germany's Angela Merkel), the author confirms that there are gender differences in negotiations, not to talk of exceptions. Women are traditionally supportive and cooperative. As such, they prefer to utilize accommodation, compromise, and avoidance more often than the competition. Conversely, men are likely to use dominance and influence others by use of their power and position.
However, the author rules out the hypothesis that women are poor negotiators. The cases of Liberia and Solomon Islands well exemplify that women can play an encouraging role in ending the international conflict by optimizing the use of assertiveness and persistence. They have the capacity of taking everybody's opinion on board; at the same time, they are capable of facilitating such outcomes that both parties consider consensus-based and not forced. Last but not the least, there is a gap in the literature, and multiple views about the topic might confuse the readers. Further research in this area is required to unearth definite and concise outcomes.
References
Bowles, Babock, & Lai. (2007). Social Incentives for Gender Differences in the Propensity to Initiate Negotiations: Sometimes It Does Hurt to Ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 84-103.
Brewer, N., Mitchell, P., & Weber, N. (2002). Gender Role, Organizational Status, and Conflict Management Styles. The International Journal of Conflict Management , 78-94.
Brigg, M. (NA). Women and Peace. The University of Queensland.
Havenga, W. (2008). Gender and Age Differences in Conflict Management Within Small Business. SA Journal of Human Resource Management .
Leaper, C. (1991). Influence and Involvement in Children's Discourse: Age, Gender, and Partner Effects. Child Development , 797-811.
Merchant, K. (2012). How Men and Women Differ: Gender Differences in Communication Styles, Influence Tactics, and Leadership Styles. CMC Senior Theses .
Petrou, M. (2015). Angela Merkel: The Real Leader of the Free World. Retrieved July 16, 2016, from macleans.ca: http://www.macleans.ca/politics/angela-merkel-the-real-leader-of-the-free-world/
Portello, J., & Long, B. (1994). The Good Manager: Masculine or Androgynus. Academy of Management Journal , 395-403.
Rahim, M. (1983). A Measure of Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict. Academy of Management Journal , 368-76.
Rubin, J., & Brown, B. (1975). The Social Psychology of Bragaining and Negotiation. New York: Academic.
Shepherd, C. K. (2015). The Role of Women in Inteernational Conflict. The Journal of Public Law and Policy .
