negotiation research harvard business review

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Psychology

Volume 74, 2023, review article, open access, embracing complexity: a review of negotiation research.

• Erica J. Boothby 1 , Gus Cooney 1 , and Maurice E. Schweitzer 1
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: Department of Operations, Information and Decisions, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA; email: [email protected] [email protected]
• Vol. 74:299-332 (Volume publication date January 2023) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-033020-014116
• First published as a Review in Advance on September 21, 2022
• Copyright © 2023 by the author(s). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. See credit lines of images or other third-party material in this article for license information

In this review, we identify emerging trends in negotiation scholarship that embrace complexity, finding moderators of effects that were initially described as monolithic, examining the nuances of social interaction, and studying negotiation as it occurs in the real world. We also identify areas in which research is lacking and call for scholarship that offers practical advice. All told, the existing research highlights negotiation as an exciting context for examining human behavior, characterized by features such as strong emotions, an intriguing blend of cooperation and competition, the presence of fundamental issues such as power and group identity, and outcomes that deeply affect the trajectory of people's personal and professional lives.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• Aaldering H , Kopelman S. 2022 . Dovish and hawkish influence in distributive and integrative negotiations: the role of (a)symmetry in constituencies. Group Decis. Negot. 31 : 1 111– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Aaldering H , Ten Velden FS , van Kleef GA , de Dreu CK 2018 . Parochial cooperation in nested intergroup dilemmas is reduced when it harms out-groups. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 114 : 6 909– 23 [Google Scholar]
• Aaldering H , Zerres A , Steinel W. 2020 . Constituency norms facilitate unethical negotiation behavior through moral disengagement. Group Decis. Negot. 29 : 5 969– 91 [Google Scholar]
• Adair WL. 2003 . Integrative sequences and negotiation outcome in same- and mixed-culture negotiations. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 14 : 3 273– 96 [Google Scholar]
• Adair WL , Okumura T , Brett JM. 2001 . Negotiation behavior when cultures collide: the United States and Japan. J. Appl. Psychol. 86 : 3 371– 85 [Google Scholar]
• Adam H , Brett JM. 2018 . Everything in moderation: The social effects of anger depend on its perceived intensity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 76 : 12– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Adam H , Shirako A , Maddux WW. 2010 . Cultural variance in the interpersonal effects of anger in negotiations. Psychol. Sci. 21 : 6 882– 89 [Google Scholar]
• Amanatullah ET , Morris MW. 2010 . Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women's fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98 : 2 265– 67 [Google Scholar]
• Amanatullah ET , Tinsley CH. 2013 . Punishing female negotiators for asserting too much…or not enough: exploring why advocacy moderates backlash against assertive female negotiators. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 120 : 1 110– 22 [Google Scholar]
• Ames DR , Mason MF. 2015 . Tandem anchoring: informational and politeness effects of range offers in social exchange. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 108 : 2 254– 74 [Google Scholar]
• Ang S , Van Dyne L , Koh C , Ng KY , Templer KJ et al. 2007 . Cultural intelligence: its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Manag . . Organ. Rev. 3 : 3 335– 71 [Google Scholar]
• Arnold SH , McAuliffe K. 2021 . Children show a gender gap in negotiation. Psychol. Sci. 32 : 2 153– 58 [Google Scholar]
• Artz B , Goodall AH , Oswald AJ. 2018 . Do women ask?. Ind. Relat. 57 : 4 611– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Aslani S , Ramirez-Marin J , Brett J , Yao J , Semnani-Azad Z et al. 2016 . Dignity, face, and honor cultures: a study of negotiation strategy and outcomes in three cultures. J. Organ. Behav. 37 : 8 1178– 201 [Google Scholar]
• Aslani S , Ramirez-Marin J , Semnani-Azad Z , Brett JM , Tinsley C 2013 . Dignity, face, and honor cultures: implications for negotiation and conflict management. Handbook of Research on Negotiation WL Adair, M Olekalns 249– 82 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar [Google Scholar]
• Barley SR. 1991 . Contextualizing conflict: notes on the anthropology of disputes and negotiations. Res . Negot . Organ . 3 : 165– 99 [Google Scholar]
• Barry B. 2008 . Negotiator affect: the state of the art (and the science). Group Decis. Negot. 17 : 1 97– 105 [Google Scholar]
• Barry B , Friedman RA. 1998 . Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative negotiation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74 : 2 345– 59 [Google Scholar]
• Barry B , Fulmer IS , Goates N 2006 . Bargaining with feeling: emotionality in and around negotiation. Negotiation Theory and Research LL Thompson 99– 127 Madison, CT: Psychosoc. Press [Google Scholar]
• Baten RA , Hoque E. 2021 . Technology-driven alteration of nonverbal cues and its effects on negotiation. Negot. J. 37 : 1 35– 47 [Google Scholar]
• Bazerman MH , Curhan JR , Moore DA , Valley KL. 2000 . Negotiation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51 : 279– 314 [Google Scholar]
• Bear JB , Babcock L. 2012 . Negotiation topic as a moderator of gender differences in negotiation. Psychol. Sci. 23 : 7 743 [Google Scholar]
• Becker WJ , Curhan JR. 2018 . The dark side of subjective value in sequential negotiations: The mediating role of pride and anger. J. Appl. Psychol. 103 : 1 743– 44 [Google Scholar]
• Beersma B , de Dreu CK. 2002 . Integrative and distributive negotiation in small groups: effects of task structure, decision rule, and social motive. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 87 : 2 227– 52 [Google Scholar]
• Belkin LY , Kurtzberg TR , Naquin CE. 2013 . Signaling dominance in online negotiations: the role of affective tone. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 6 : 4 285– 304 [Google Scholar]
• Benjamin BA , Podolny JM. 1999 . Status, quality, and social order in the California wine industry. Adm. Sci. Q. 44 : 3 563– 89 [Google Scholar]
• Bhatia N , Gunia BC. 2018 .. “ I was going to offer $10,000 but…”: the effects of phantom anchors in negotiation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 148 : 70– 86 [Google Scholar]
• Bitterly TB , Schweitzer ME. 2020 . The economic and interpersonal consequences of deflecting direct questions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 118 : 5 945– 90 [Google Scholar]
• Boothby EJ , Cooney G , Sandstrom GM , Clark MS. 2018 . The liking gap in conversations: Do people like us more than we think?. Psychol. Sci. 29 : 11 1742– 56 [Google Scholar]
• Bowles HR , Babcock L , Lai L. 2007 . Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 103 : 1 84– 103 [Google Scholar]
• Bowles HR , Babcock L , McGinn KL. 2005 . Constraints and triggers: situational mechanics of gender in negotiation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 89 : 6 951– 65 [Google Scholar]
• Bowles HR , Flynn F 2010 . Gender and persistence in negotiation: a dyadic perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 53 : 4 769– 87 [Google Scholar]
• Bowles HR , Thomason B , Bear JB. 2019 . Reconceptualizing what and how women negotiate for career advancement. Acad. Manag. J. 62 : 6 1645– 71 [Google Scholar]
• Bowles HR , Thomason B , Macias-Alonso I. 2022 . When gender matters in organizational negotiations. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 9 : 199– 223 [Google Scholar]
• Brady GL , Inesi ME , Mussweiler T. 2021 . The power of lost alternatives in negotiations. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 162 : 59– 80 [Google Scholar]
• Brescoll VL , Uhlmann EL. 2008 . Can an angry woman get ahead? Status conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace. Psychol. Sci. 19 : 3 268– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Brett JM , Gelfand MJ 2006 . A cultural analysis of the underlying assumptions of negotiation theory. Negotiation Theory and Research LL Thompson 173– 201 Madison, CT: Psychosoc. Press [Google Scholar]
• Brett JM , Olekalns M , Friedman R , Goates N , Anderson C , Lisco CC 2007 . Sticks and stones: language, face, and online dispute resolution. Acad. Manag. J. 50 : 1 85– 99 [Google Scholar]
• Brion S , Lount RB Jr. , Doyle SP. 2015 . Knowing if you are trusted: Does meta-accuracy promote trust development?. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 6 : 7 823– 30 [Google Scholar]
• Brodt S , Thompson L. 2001 . Negotiating teams: a levels of analysis approach. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 5 : 3 208– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Brooks AW , Schweitzer ME. 2011 . Can Nervous Nelly negotiate? How anxiety causes negotiators to make low first offers, exit early, and earn less profit. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 115 : 1 43– 54 [Google Scholar]
• Brown AD , Curhan JR 2012 . The utility of relationships in negotiation. The Oxford Handbook of Economic Conflict Resolution R Croson, GE Bolton 138– 54 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Brown AD , Curhan JR. 2013 . The polarizing effect of arousal on negotiation. Psychol. Sci. 24 : 10 1928– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Buelens M , Van Poucke D. 2004 . Determinants of a negotiator's initial opening offer. J. Bus. Psychol. 19 : 1 23– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Campagna RL , Mislin AA , Bottom WP. 2019 . Motivated by guilt and low felt trust: the impact of negotiators' anger expressions on the implementation of negotiated agreements. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 32 : 4 450– 70 [Google Scholar]
• Campagna RL , Mislin AA , Dirks KT , Elfenbein HA. 2022 . The (mostly) robust influence of initial trustworthiness beliefs on subsequent behaviors and perceptions. Hum. Relat. 75 : 7 1383– 411 [Google Scholar]
• Campagna RL , Mislin AA , Kong DT , Bottom WP. 2016 . Strategic consequences of emotional misrepresentation in negotiation: the blowback effect. J. Appl. Psychol. 101 : 5 605– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Carnevale PJ , Isen AM. 1986 . The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 37 : 1 1– 13 [Google Scholar]
• Carnevale PJ , Pruitt DG. 1992 . Negotiation and mediation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 43 : 531– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Cheng J , Huang Y , Su Y. 2016 . Relationality in business negotiations: evidence from China. Contemp. Manag. Res. 12 : 4 497– 523 [Google Scholar]
• Clore GL , Schiller AJ , Shaked A. 2018 . Affect and cognition: three principles. Curr . Opin . Behav . Sci . 19 : 78– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Cohen TR , Leonardelli GJ , Thompson L. 2014 . Avoiding the agreement trap: Teams facilitate impasse in negotiations with negative bargaining zones. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 7 : 4 232– 42 [Google Scholar]
• Cooney G , Mastroianni AM , Abi-Esber N , Brooks AW. 2020 . The many minds problem: disclosure in dyadic versus group conversation. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 31 : 22– 27 [Google Scholar]
• Côté S , Hideg I , Van Kleef GA. 2013 . The consequences of faking anger in negotiations. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49 : 3 453– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Croson R , Boles T , Murnighan JK. 2003 . Cheap talk in bargaining experiments: lying and threats in ultimatum games. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 51 : 2 143– 59 [Google Scholar]
• Crump L. 2006 . Multiparty negotiation: What is it?. ADR Bull 8 : 7 1– 10 [Google Scholar]
• Crump L , Glendon AI. 2003 . Towards a paradigm of multiparty negotiation. Int. Negot. 8 : 2 197– 234 [Google Scholar]
• Cuddy AJ , Wolf EB , Glick P , Crotty S , Chong J , Norton MI 2015 . Men as cultural ideals: Cultural values moderate gender stereotype content. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 109 : 4 622– 35 [Google Scholar]
• Curhan JR , Elfenbein HA , Eisenkraft N. 2010 . The objective value of subjective value: a multi-round negotiation study. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 40 : 3 690– 709 [Google Scholar]
• Curhan JR , Elfenbein HA , Kilduff GJ. 2009 . Getting off on the right foot: subjective value versus economic value in predicting longitudinal job outcomes from job offer negotiations. J. Appl. Psychol. 94 : 2 524– 34 [Google Scholar]
• Curhan JR , Elfenbein HA , Xu H. 2006 . What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91 : 3 493– 512 [Google Scholar]
• Curhan JR , Neale MA , Ross L , Rosencranz-Engelmann J. 2008 . Relational accommodation in negotiation: effects of egalitarianism and gender on economic efficiency and relational capital. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 107 : 2 192– 205 [Google Scholar]
• Curhan JR , Overbeck JR , Cho Y , Zhang T , Yang Y. 2022 . Silence is golden: extended silence, deliberative mindset, and value creation in negotiation. J. Appl. Psychol. 107 : 1 78– 94 [Google Scholar]
• Curhan JR , Pentland A. 2007 . Thin slices of negotiation: predicting outcomes from conversational dynamics within the first 5 minutes. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 : 3 802– 11 [Google Scholar]
• Damen D , van der Wijst P , van Amelsvoort M , Krahmer E. 2020 . The effect of perspective-taking on trust and understanding in online and face-to-face mediations. Group Decis. Negot. 29 : 6 1121– 56 [Google Scholar]
• Dannals JE , Zlatev JJ , Halevy N , Neale MA. 2021 . The dynamics of gender and alternatives in negotiation. J. Appl. Psychol. 106 : 11 1655– 72 [Google Scholar]
• de Dreu CK. 2010 . Social value orientation moderates ingroup love but not outgroup hate in competitive intergroup conflict. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 13 : 6 701– 13 [Google Scholar]
• de Dreu CKW , Aaldering H , Saygi Ö 2015 . Conflict and negotiation within and between groups. APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology , Vol. 2 Group Processes M Mikulincer, PR Shaver, JF Dovidio, JA Simpson 151– 76 Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
• Demoulin S , de Dreu CK. 2010 . Introduction: negotiation in intergroup conflict. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 13 : 6 675– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Demoulin S , Teixeira CP. 2010 . Social categorization in interpersonal negotiation: how social structural factors shape negotiations. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 13 : 6 765– 77 [Google Scholar]
• Desmet PT , De Cremer D , van Dijk E. 2011 . In money we trust? The use of financial compensations to repair trust in the aftermath of distributive harm. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 114 : 2 75– 86 [Google Scholar]
• Dinnar SM , Dede C , Johnson E , Straub C , Korjus K 2021 . Artificial intelligence and technology in teaching negotiation. Negot. J. 37 : 1 65– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Druckman D. 1977 . Boundary role conflict: negotiation as dual responsiveness. J. Confl. Resolut. 21 : 4 639– 62 [Google Scholar]
• Druckman D. 2020 . Thirty-five years of research on turning points: insights gained and gaps to be filled. Negot. J. 36 : 2 91– 106 [Google Scholar]
• Druckman D , Lewicki RJ , Doyle SP. 2019 . Repairing violations of trustworthiness in negotiation. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 49 : 3 145– 58 [Google Scholar]
• Druckman D , Olekalns M. 2013 . Motivational primes, trust, and negotiators’ reaction to crisis. J. Confl. Resolut. 57 : 6 966– 90 [Google Scholar]
• Dunn JR , Schweitzer ME. 2005 . Feeling and believing: the influence of emotion on trust. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 88 : 5 736– 48 [Google Scholar]
• Eagly AH , Wood W 2012 . Social role theory. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology PAM Van Lange, AW Kruglanski, ET Higgins 458– 76 London: Sage [Google Scholar]
• Elfenbein HA. 2015 . Individual differences in negotiation: a nearly abandoned pursuit revived. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 24 : 2 131– 36 [Google Scholar]
• Elfenbein HA. 2021 . Individual differences in negotiation: a relational process model. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 11 : 1 73– 93 [Google Scholar]
• Elfenbein HA. 2023 . Emotion in organizations: theory and research. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 74 : 489 – 517 [Google Scholar]
• Elfenbein HA , Curhan JR , Eisenkraft N. 2022 . Negotiator consistency, partner consistency, and reciprocity in behavior across partners: a round-robin study. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull In press. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221086197 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
• Elfenbein HA , Curhan JR , Eisenkraft N , Shirako A , Baccaro L. 2008 . Are some negotiators better than others? Individual differences in bargaining outcomes. J. Res. Pers. 42 : 6 1463– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Elfenbein HA , Eisenkraft N , Curhan JR , DiLalla LF. 2018 . On the relative importance of individual-level characteristics and dyadic interaction effects in negotiations: variance partitioning evidence from a twins study. J. Appl. Psychol. 103 : 1 88– 96 [Google Scholar]
• Fiske ST , Cuddy AJ , Glick P , Xu J. 2002 . A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82 : 6 878– 902 [Google Scholar]
• Folmer CPR , Klapwijk A , De Cremer D , Van Lange PA. 2012 . One for all: what representing a group may do to us. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48 : 5 1047– 56 [Google Scholar]
• Forgas JP. 1998 . On feeling good and getting your way: mood effects on negotiator cognition and bargaining strategies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74 : 3 565– 77 [Google Scholar]
• Forgas JP , Cromer M. 2004 . On being sad and evasive: affective influences on verbal communication strategies in conflict situations. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40 : 4 511– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Frijda NH. 1988 . The laws of emotion. Am. Psychol. 43 : 5 349– 58 [Google Scholar]
• Fulmer IS , Barry B , Long DA. 2009 . Lying and smiling: informational and emotional deception in negotiation. J. Bus. Ethics 88 : 4 691– 709 [Google Scholar]
• Gaertig C , Barasch A , Levine EE , Schweitzer ME. 2019 . When does anger boost status?. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 85 : 103876 [Google Scholar]
• Galinsky AD , Mussweiler T. 2001 . First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 81 : 4 657– 69 [Google Scholar]
• Galinsky AD , Schaerer M , Magee J. 2017 . The four horsemen of power at the bargaining table. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 32 : 4 606– 11 [Google Scholar]
• Gaspar JP , Methasani R , Schweitzer M. 2019 . Fifty shades of deception: characteristics and consequences of lying in negotiations. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 33 : 1 62– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Gaspar JP , Methasani R , Schweitzer ME. 2022 . Emotional intelligence and deception: a theoretical model and propositions. J. Bus. Ethics 177 : 567– 84 [Google Scholar]
• Gaspar JP , Schweitzer ME. 2021 . Confident and cunning: Negotiator self-efficacy promotes deception in negotiations. J. Bus. Ethics 171 : 1 139– 55 [Google Scholar]
• Geiger I. 2020 . From letter to Twitter: a systematic review of communication media in negotiation. Group Decis. Negot 29 : 2 207– 50 [Google Scholar]
• Gelfand MJ , Brett JM , eds. 2004 . The Handbook of Negotiation and Culture Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Gelfand MJ , Cai DA. 2004 . Cultural structuring of the social context of negotiation. The Handbook of Negotiation and Culture MJ Gelfand, JM Brett 238– 57 Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
• Gelfand MJ , Major VS , Raver JL , Nishii LH , O'Brien K. 2006 . Negotiating relationally: the dynamics of the relational self in negotiations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31 : 2 427– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Gelfand MJ , Raver JL , Nishii L , Leslie LM , Lun J et al. 2011 . Differences between tight and loose cultures: a 33-nation study. Science 332 : 6033 1100– 4 [Google Scholar]
• Gelfand MJ , Severance L , Lee T , Bruss CB , Lun J et al. 2015 . Culture and getting to yes: the linguistic signature of creative agreements in the United States and Egypt. J. Organ. Behav. 36 : 7 967– 89 [Google Scholar]
• Gilin Oore D , Gagnon A , Bourgeois D. 2013 . When white feels right: the effects of in-group affect and race of partner on negotiation performance. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 6 : 2 94– 113 [Google Scholar]
• Gillespie JJ , Brett JM , Weingart LR. 2000 . Interdependence, social motives, and outcome satisfaction in multiparty negotiation. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 30 : 6 779– 97 [Google Scholar]
• Glenn P , Kuttner R. 2013 . Dialogue, dispute resolution, and talk-in-interaction: on empirical studies of ephemeral phenomena. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 6 : 1 13– 31 [Google Scholar]
• Gray B. 2011 . The complexity of multiparty negotiations: wading into the muck. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 4 : 3 169– 77 [Google Scholar]
• Greenhalgh L. 1987 . Relationships in negotiations. Negot. J. 3 : 235– 43 [Google Scholar]
• Greenhalgh L , Chapman DI. 1998 . Negotiator relationships: construct measurement, and demonstration of their impact on the process and outcomes of negotiation. Group Decis. Negot. 7 : 6 465– 89 [Google Scholar]
• Greenhalgh L , Gilkey RW. 1993 . The effect of relationship orientation on negotiators' cognitions and tactics. Group Decis. Negot 2 : 2 167– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Gunia BC. 2019 . Deceptive negotiating: the role of the environmental cue. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 33 : 1 43– 61 [Google Scholar]
• Gunia BC , Brett JM , Nandkeolyar AK , Kamdar D. 2011 . Paying a price: culture, trust, and negotiation consequences. J. Appl. Psychol. 96 : 4 774– 89 [Google Scholar]
• Halevy N. 2008 . Team negotiation: social, epistemic, economic, and psychological consequences of subgroup conflict. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34 : 12 1687– 702 [Google Scholar]
• Halevy N , Chou EY , Galinsky AD , Murnighan JK. 2012 . When hierarchy wins: evidence from the National Basketball Association. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 3 : 4 398– 406 [Google Scholar]
• Harinck F , Van Kleef GA. 2012 . Be hard on the interests and soft on the values: Conflict issue moderates the effects of anger in negotiations. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 51 : 4 741– 52 [Google Scholar]
• Hart E , Schweitzer ME. 2020 . Getting to less: when negotiating harms post-agreement performance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 156 : 155– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Hart E , Schweitzer ME. 2022 . When we should care more about relationships than favorable deal terms in negotiation: the economic relevance of relational outcomes (ERRO). Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 168 : 104108 [Google Scholar]
• Hernandez M , Avery DR , Volpone SD , Kaiser CR. 2019 . Bargaining while Black: the role of race in salary negotiations. J. Appl. Psychol. 104 : 4 581– 92 [Google Scholar]
• Hofstede G. 1980 . Motivation, leadership, and organization: Do American theories apply abroad?. Organ. Dyn. 9 : 1 42– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Hofstede G. 2001 . Culture's recent consequences: using dimension scores in theory and research. Int. J. Cross-Cult. Manag. 1 : 1 11– 17 [Google Scholar]
• House RJ , Hanges PJ , Javidan M , Dorfman PW , Gupta V , eds. 2004 . Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies London: Sage [Google Scholar]
• Howard ES , Gardner WL , Thompson L. 2007 . The role of the self-concept and the social context in determining the behavior of power holders: self-construal in intergroup versus dyadic dispute resolution negotiations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93 : 4 614– 31 [Google Scholar]
• Huffaker DA , Swaab R , Diermeier D. 2011 . The language of coalition formation in online multiparty negotiations. J. Lang. Soc. Psychol. 30 : 1 66– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Hunsaker DA. 2017 . Anger in negotiations: a review of causes, effects, and unanswered questions. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 10 : 3 220– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Imai L , Gelfand MJ. 2010 . The culturally intelligent negotiator: the impact of cultural intelligence (CQ) on negotiation sequences and outcomes. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 112 : 2 83– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Ireland ME , Henderson MD. 2014 . Language style matching, engagement, and impasse in negotiations. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 7 : 1 1– 16 [Google Scholar]
• Jager A , Loschelder DD , Friese M. 2017 . Using self-regulation to overcome the detrimental effects of anger in negotiations. J. Econ. Psychol. 58 : 31– 43 [Google Scholar]
• Jang D , Bottom WP. 2022 . Tactical anger in negotiation: the expresser's perspective. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 35 : 1 1– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Jang D , Elfenbein HA , Bottom WP. 2018 . More than a phase: form and features of a general theory of negotiation. Acad. Manag. Ann. 12 : 1 318– 56 [Google Scholar]
• Janiszewski C , Uy D. 2008 . Precision of the anchor influences the amount of adjustment. Psychol. Sci. 19 : 2 121– 27 [Google Scholar]
• Jeong M , Minson JA , Gino F 2020 . In generous offers I trust: the effect of first-offer value on economically vulnerable behaviors. Psychol. Sci. 31 : 6 644– 53 [Google Scholar]
• Jeong M , Minson JA , Yeomans M , Gino F 2019 . Communicating with warmth in distributive negotiations is surprisingly counterproductive. Manag. Sci. 65 : 12 5813– 37 [Google Scholar]
• Johnson E , Gratch J , DeVault D. 2017 . Towards an autonomous agent that provides automated feedback on students' negotiation skills. Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems 410– 18 Richland, SC: Int. Found. Auton. Agents Multiagent Syst. [Google Scholar]
• Johnson E , Lucas G , Kim P , Gratch J. 2019 . Intelligent tutoring system for negotiation skills training. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education 122– 27 Cham, Switz.: Springer [Google Scholar]
• Kahan JP , Rapoport A. 2014 . Theories of Coalition Formation Hove, UK: Psychology Press [Google Scholar]
• Kang P , Anand KS , Feldman P , Schweitzer ME. 2020 . Insincere negotiation: using the negotiation process to pursue non-agreement motives. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 89 : 103981 [Google Scholar]
• Kappes C , Häusser JA , Mojzisch A , Hüffmeier J. 2020 . Age differences in negotiations: Older adults achieve poorer joint outcomes in integrative negotiations. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 149 : 11 2102– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Kennedy JA , Kray LJ. 2015 . A pawn in someone else's game? The cognitive, motivational, and paradigmatic barriers to women's excelling in negotiation. Res. Organ. Behav. 35 : 3– 28 [Google Scholar]
• Kern MC , Brett JM , Weingart LR , Eck CS. 2020 . The “fixed” pie perception and strategy in dyadic versus multiparty negotiations. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 157 : 143– 58 [Google Scholar]
• Kilduff M , Krackhardt D. 1994 . Bringing the individual back in: a structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 37 : 87– 108 [Google Scholar]
• Kim K , Cundiff NL , Choi SB. 2014 . The influence of emotional intelligence on negotiation outcomes and the mediating effect of rapport: a structural equation modeling approach. Negot. J. 30 : 1 49– 68 [Google Scholar]
• Kim K , Cundiff NL , Choi SB. 2015 . Emotional intelligence and negotiation outcomes: mediating effects of rapport, negotiation strategy, and judgment accuracy. Group Decis. Negot. 24 : 3 477– 93 [Google Scholar]
• Kim PH , Ferrin DL , Cooper CD , Dirks KT. 2004 . Removing the shadow of suspicion: the effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations. J. Appl. Psychol. 89 : 104– 18 [Google Scholar]
• Ko SJ , Sadler MS , Galinsky AD. 2015 . The sound of power: conveying and detecting hierarchical rank through voice. Psychol. Sci. 26 : 1 3– 14 [Google Scholar]
• Kong DT , Dirks KT , Ferrin DL. 2014 . Interpersonal trust within negotiations: meta-analytic evidence, critical contingencies, and directions for future research. Acad. Manag. J. 57 : 5 1235– 55 [Google Scholar]
• Koning L , Steinel W , van Beest I , van Dijk E. 2011 . Power and deception in ultimatum bargaining. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 115 : 1 35– 42 [Google Scholar]
• Kouchaki M , Kray LJ. 2018 .. “ I won't let you down”: personal ethical lapses arising from women's advocating for others. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 147 : 147– 57 [Google Scholar]
• Kramer RM 1991 . The more the merrier? Social psychological aspects of multiparty negotiations in organizations. Research on Negotiation in Organizations MH Bazerman, RJ Lewicki, BH Seppard 307– 32 Greenwich, CT: JAI Press [Google Scholar]
• Kray LJ , Kennedy JA. 2017 . Changing the narrative: women as negotiators—and leaders. Calif. Manag. Rev. 60 : 1 70– 87 [Google Scholar]
• Kray LJ , Thompson L. 2004 . Gender stereotypes and negotiation performance: an examination of theory and research. Res . Organ . Behav 26 : 103– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Kteily N , Saguy T , Sidanius J , Taylor DM. 2013 . Negotiating power: agenda ordering and the willingness to negotiate in asymmetric intergroup conflicts. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 105 : 6 978– 95 [Google Scholar]
• Kubota JT , Li J , Bar-David E , Banaji MR , Phelps EA. 2013 . The price of racial bias: intergroup negotiations in the ultimatum game. Psychol. Sci. 24 : 12 2498– 504 [Google Scholar]
• Kugler KG , Reif JAM , Kaschner T , Brodbeck FC. 2018 . Gender differences in the initiation of negotiations: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 144 : 2 198– 222 [Google Scholar]
• Lee AJ , Loschelder DD , Schweinsberg M , Mason MF , Galinsky AD. 2018 . Too precise to pursue: how precise first offers create barriers-to-entry in negotiations and markets. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 148 : 87– 100 [Google Scholar]
• Lelieveld GJ , Van Dijk E , Van Beest I , Steinel W , Van Kleef GA. 2011 . Disappointed in you, angry about your offer: Distinct negative emotions induce concessions via different mechanisms. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47 : 3 635– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Lelieveld GJ , Van Dijk E , Van Beest I , Van Kleef GA. 2013 . Does communicating disappointment in negotiations help or hurt? Solving an apparent inconsistency in the social-functional approach to emotions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 105 : 4 605– 20 [Google Scholar]
• Leung AKY , Cohen D. 2011 . Within-and between-culture variation: individual differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100 : 3 507– 26 [Google Scholar]
• Leung K , Bond MH. 2004 . Social axioms: a model for social beliefs in multicultural perspective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , Vol. 36 MP Zanna 119– 97 Amsterdam: Elsevier [Google Scholar]
• Levine EE , Bitterly TB , Cohen TR , Schweitzer ME. 2018 . Who is trustworthy? Predicting trustworthy intentions and behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 115 : 3 468– 94 [Google Scholar]
• Levine TR. 2019 . Duped: Truth-Default Theory and the Social Science of Lying and Deception Tuscaloosa: Univ. Ala. Press [Google Scholar]
• Lewicki RJ , Brinsfield C. 2017 . Trust repair. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 4 : 287– 313 [Google Scholar]
• Lewicki RJ , Polin B 2013 . The role of trust in negotiation processes. Handbook of Advances in Trust Research R Bachmann, A Zaheer 29– 54 Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar [Google Scholar]
• Lewicki RJ , Polin B , Lount RB Jr. 2016 . An exploration of the structure of effective apologies. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 9 : 2 177– 96 [Google Scholar]
• Lewicki RJ , Robinson RJ. 1998 . Ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: an empirical study. J. Bus. Ethics 17 : 6 665– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Liu LA , Chua CH , Stahl GK. 2010 . Quality of communication experience: definition, measurement, and implications for intercultural negotiations. J. Appl. Psychol. 95 : 3 469– 87 [Google Scholar]
• Liu W , Friedman R , Hong YY. 2012 . Culture and accountability in negotiation: recognizing the importance of in-group relations. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 117 : 1 221– 34 [Google Scholar]
• Loschelder DD , Friese M , Schaerer M , Galinsky AD. 2016 . The too-much-precision effect: when and why precise anchors backfire with experts. Psychol. Sci. 27 : 12 1573– 87 [Google Scholar]
• Loschelder DD , Friese M , Trötschel R. 2017 . How and why precise anchors distinctly affect anchor recipients and senders. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 70 : 164– 76 [Google Scholar]
• Lount RB Jr. 2010 . The impact of positive mood on trust in interpersonal and intergroup interactions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 98 : 3 420– 33 [Google Scholar]
• Lount RB Jr. , Zhong CB , Sivanathan N , Murnighan JK. 2008 . Getting off on the wrong foot: the timing of a breach and the restoration of trust. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34 : 12 1601– 12 [Google Scholar]
• Lu JG 2022 . Asians don't ask? Relational concerns, negotiation propensity, and starting salaries. J. Appl. Psychol In press https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001017 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
• Lu SC , Kong DT , Ferrin DL , Dirks KT. 2017 . What are the determinants of interpersonal trust in dyadic negotiations? Meta-analytic evidence and implications for future research. J. Trust Res. 7 : 1 22– 50 [Google Scholar]
• Maaravi Y , Ganzach Y , Pazy A. 2011 . Negotiation as a form of persuasion: arguments in first offers. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101 : 2 245– 55 [Google Scholar]
• Maddux WW , Mullen E , Galinsky AD. 2008 . Chameleons bake bigger pies and take bigger pieces: Strategic behavioral mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44 : 2 461– 68 [Google Scholar]
• Magee JC , Galinsky AD. 2008 . Social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2 : 1 351– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Mannix EA , Thompson LL , Bazerman MH. 1989 . Negotiation in small groups. J. Appl. Psychol. 74 : 508– 17 [Google Scholar]
• Markus HR , Kitayama S. 1991 . Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychol. Rev. 98 : 2 224– 53 [Google Scholar]
• Mason MF , Lee AJ , Wiley EA , Ames DR. 2013 . Precise offers are potent anchors: conciliatory counteroffers and attributions of knowledge in negotiations. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49 : 4 759– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Mason MF , Wiley EA , Ames DR. 2018 . From belief to deceit: how expectancies about others' ethics shape deception in negotiations. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 76 : 239– 48 [Google Scholar]
• Mastroianni AM , Cooney G , Boothby EJ , Reece AG. 2021 . The liking gap in groups and teams. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 162 : 109– 22 [Google Scholar]
• Mazei J , Bear JB , Hüffmeier J. 2022 . Avoiding backlash or proving one's manhood? Beliefs about gender differences in negotiation. Group Decis. Negot. 31 : 1 81– 110 [Google Scholar]
• Mazei J , Hüffmeier J , Freund PA , Stuhlmacher AF , Bilke L , Hertel G. 2015 . A meta-analysis on gender differences in negotiation outcomes and their moderators. Psychol. Bull. 141 : 1 85– 104 [Google Scholar]
• Mazei J , Zerres A , Hüffmeier J. 2021 . Masculinity at the negotiation table: a theory of men's negotiation behaviors and outcomes. Acad. Manag. Rev. 46 : 1 108– 27 [Google Scholar]
• Methasani R , Gaspar JP , Barry B. 2017 . Feeling and deceiving: a review and theoretical model of emotions and deception in negotiation. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 10 : 3 158– 78 [Google Scholar]
• Meyer E. 2014 . The Culture Map: Breaking Through the Invisible Boundaries of Global Business New York: Public Affairs [Google Scholar]
• Michalsky J , Schoormann H , Schultze T. 2019 . Towards the prosody of persuasion in competitive negotiation: the relationship between f0 and negotiation success in same sex sales tasks. In 20th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (INTERSPEECH 2019): Crossroads of Speech and Language pp. 311 – 15 Baixas, Fr.: Int. Speech Commun. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
• Minkov M , Dutt P , Schachner M , Morales O , Sanchez C et al. 2017 . A revision of Hofstede's individualism-collectivism dimension: a new national index from a 56-country study. Cross-Cult. Strateg. Manag. 24 : 3 386– 404 [Google Scholar]
• Minson JA , VanEpps EM , Yip JA , Schweitzer ME. 2018 . Eliciting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: the effect of question phrasing on deception. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 147 : 76– 93 [Google Scholar]
• Mislin AA , Campagna RL , Bottom WP. 2011 . After the deal: talk, trust building and the implementation of negotiated agreements. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 115 : 1 55– 68 [Google Scholar]
• Moore DA , Kurtzberg TR , Thompson LL , Morris MW. 1999 . Long and short routes to success in electronically mediated negotiations: group affiliations and good vibrations. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 77 : 1 22– 43 [Google Scholar]
• Moran S , Schweitzer ME. 2008 . When better is worse: envy and the use of deception. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 1 : 1 3– 29 [Google Scholar]
• Moreland RL. 2010 . Are dyads really groups?. Small Group Res . 41 : 2 251– 67 [Google Scholar]
• Morgan PM , Tindale RS. 2002 . Group versus individual performance in mixed-motive situations: exploring an inconsistency. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 87 : 1 44– 65 [Google Scholar]
• Morris MW , Keltner D. 2000 . How emotions work: the social functions of emotional expression in negotiations. Res. Organ. Behav. 22 : 1– 50 [Google Scholar]
• Muir K , Joinson A , Collins E , Cotterill R , Dewdney N. 2021 . When asking “what” and “how” helps you win: mimicry of interrogative terms facilitates successful online negotiations. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 14 : 2 https://doi.org/10.34891/462f-w824 [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
• Neumann R , Strack F. 2000 .. “ Mood contagion”: the automatic transfer of mood between persons. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 79 : 2 211– 23 [Google Scholar]
• Nowak A , Gelfand MJ , Borkowski W , Cohen D , Hernandez I. 2016 . The evolutionary basis of honor cultures. Psychol. Sci. 27 : 1 12– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Olekalns M , Brett JM. 2008 . Beyond the deal: next generation negotiation skills. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 1 : 4 309– 14 [Google Scholar]
• Olekalns M , Smith PL. 2005 . Moments in time: metacognition, trust, and outcomes in dyadic negotiations. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 31 : 12 1696– 707 [Google Scholar]
• Oyserman D , Coon HM , Kemmelmeier M. 2002 . Rethinking individualism and collectivism: evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychol. Bull. 128 : 1 3– 72 [Google Scholar]
• Pinkley RL , Conlon DE , Sawyer JE , Sleesman DJ , Vandewalle D , Kuenzi M. 2019 . The power of phantom alternatives in negotiation: how what could be haunts what is. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 151 : 34– 48 [Google Scholar]
• Polzer JT. 1996 . Intergroup negotiations: the effects of negotiating teams. J . Confl . Resolut . 40 : 4 678– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Polzer JT , Mannix E , Neale MA 1995 . Multiparty negotiation in its social context. Negotiation as a Social Process R Kramer, D Messick 123– 42 Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE [Google Scholar]
• Polzer JT , Mannix EA , Neale MA 1998 . Interest alignment and coalitions in multiparty negotiation. Acad. Manag. J. 41 : 1 42– 54 [Google Scholar]
• Portes A. 1998 . Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 24 : 1– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Pruitt DG , Carnevale PJ. 1993 . Negotiation in Social Conflict Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole [Google Scholar]
• Putnam RD. 1988 . Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games. Int . Organ . 42 : 3 427– 60 [Google Scholar]
• Reece A , Cooney G , Bull P , Chung C , Dawson B et al. 2022 . Advancing an interdisciplinary science of conversation: insights from a large multimodal corpus of human speech. arXiv:2203.00674 [cs.CL]
• Reif JA , Kunz FA , Kugler KG , Brodbeck FC. 2019 . Negotiation contexts: how and why they shape women's and men's decision to negotiate. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 12 : 4 322– 42 [Google Scholar]
• Rhoades JA , Arnold J , Jay C 2001 . The role of affective traits and affective states in disputants' motivation and behavior during episodes of organizational conflict. J. Organ. Behav. 22 : 3 329– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Richardson BH , McCulloch KC , Taylor PJ , Wall HJ. 2019 . The cooperation link: Power and context moderate verbal mimicry. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 25 : 1 62– 76 [Google Scholar]
• Robinson RJ , Lewicki RJ , Donahue EM. 2000 . Extending and testing a five factor model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: introducing the SINS scale. J. Organ. Behav. 21 : 6 649– 64 [Google Scholar]
• Rogan RG , Hammer MR , Van Zandt CR , eds. 1997 . Dynamic Processes of Crisis Negotiation: Theory, Research, and Practice Westport, CT: Praeger [Google Scholar]
• Rogers T , Zeckhauser R , Gino F , Norton MI , Schweitzer ME 2017 . Artful paltering: the risks and rewards of using truthful statements to mislead others. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 112 : 3 456– 73 [Google Scholar]
• Rubin JZ , Brown BR. 1975 . The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
• Saguy T , Kteily N. 2014 . Power, negotiations, and the anticipation of intergroup encounters. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 25 : 1 107– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Schaerer M , Schweinsberg M , Swaab RI. 2018 . Imaginary alternatives: the effects of mental simulation on powerless negotiators. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 115 : 1 96– 117 [Google Scholar]
• Schaerer M , Swaab RI , Galinsky AD. 2015 . Anchors weigh more than power: why absolute powerlessness liberates negotiators to achieve better outcomes. Psychol. Sci. 26 : 2 170– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Schaerer M , Teo L , Madan N , Swaab RI. 2020 . Power and negotiation: review of current evidence and future directions. Curr . Opin . Psychol . 33 : 47– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Schilke O , Huang L. 2018 . Worthy of swift trust? How brief interpersonal contact affects trust accuracy. J. Appl. Psychol. 103 : 11 1181– 97 [Google Scholar]
• Schroeder J , Risen JL , Gino F , Norton MI 2019 . Handshaking promotes deal-making by signaling cooperative intent. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 116 : 5 743– 68 [Google Scholar]
• Schwartz SH. 1994 . Beyond individualism/collectivism: new cultural dimensions of values. Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, Method, and Applications U Kim, HC Triandis, Ç Kâğitçibaşi, S-C Choi, G Yoon 85– 119 London: Sage [Google Scholar]
• Schweitzer ME , Brodt SE , Croson RT. 2002 . Seeing and believing: visual access and the strategic use of deception. Int. J. Confl. Manag. 13 : 258– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Schweitzer ME , DeChurch LA , Gibson DE. 2005 . Conflict frames and the use of deception: Are competitive negotiators less ethical?. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 35 : 10 2123– 49 [Google Scholar]
• Schweitzer ME , Hershey JC , Bradlow ET. 2006 . Promises and lies: restoring violated trust. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 101 : 1 1– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Schweitzer ME , Ho TH , Zhang X. 2018 . How monitoring influences trust: a tale of two faces. Manag. Sci. 64 : 1 253– 70 [Google Scholar]
• Schweitzer ME , Ordóñez L , Douma B. 2004 . Goal setting as a motivator of unethical behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 47 : 3 422– 32 [Google Scholar]
• Severance L , Bui-Wrzosinska L , Gelfand MJ , Lyons S , Nowak A et al. 2013 . The psychological structure of aggression across cultures. J. Organ. Behav. 34 : 6 835– 65 [Google Scholar]
• Shan W , Keller J , Imai L. 2016 . What's a masculine negotiator? What's a feminine negotiator? It depends on the cultural and situational contexts. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res . 9 : 1 22– 43 [Google Scholar]
• Sharma S , Bottom WP , Elfenbein HA. 2013 . On the role of personality, cognitive ability, and emotional intelligence in predicting negotiation outcomes: a meta-analysis. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 3 : 4 293– 336 [Google Scholar]
• SimanTov-Nachlieli I , Har-Vardi L , Moran S. 2020 . When negotiators with honest reputations are less (and more) likely to be deceived. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 157 : 68– 84 [Google Scholar]
• Sinaceur M , Adam H , Van Kleef GA , Galinsky AD. 2013a . The advantages of being unpredictable: how emotional inconsistency extracts concessions in negotiation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49 : 3 498– 508 [Google Scholar]
• Sinaceur M , Maddux WW , Vasiljevic D , Nückel RP , Galinsky AD. 2013b . Good things come to those who wait: Late first offers facilitate creative agreements in negotiation. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 39 : 6 814– 25 [Google Scholar]
• Sinaceur M , Tiedens LZ. 2006 . Get mad and get more than even: when and why anger expression is effective in negotiations. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 42 : 3 314– 22 [Google Scholar]
• Small DA , Gelfand M , Babcock L , Gettman H. 2007 . Who goes to the bargaining table? The influence of gender and framing on the initiation of negotiation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93 : 4 600– 13 [Google Scholar]
• Smith PB , Dugan S , Trompenaars F. 1996 . National culture and the values of organizational employees: a dimensional analysis across 43 nations. J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 27 : 2 231– 64 [Google Scholar]
• Sokolova M , Lapalme G. 2012 . How much do we say? Using informativeness of negotiation text records for early prediction of negotiation outcomes. Group Decis. Negot. 21 : 3 363– 79 [Google Scholar]
• Sokolova M , Szpakowicz S. 2007 . Strategies and language trends in learning success and failure of negotiation. Group Decis. Negot. 16 : 5 469– 84 [Google Scholar]
• Steinel W , de Dreu CK. 2004 . Social motives and strategic misrepresentation in social decision making. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 86 : 3 419– 34 [Google Scholar]
• Steinel W , de Dreu CK , Ouwehand E , Ramírez-Marín JY. 2009 . When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: the relative persuasiveness of hawkish minorities in representative negotiation. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 109 : 1 67– 78 [Google Scholar]
• Steinel W , Van Kleef GA , Harinck F. 2008 . Are you talking to me?! Separating the people from the problem when expressing emotions in negotiation. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44 : 2 362– 69 [Google Scholar]
• Stivers T. 2021 . Is conversation built for two? The partitioning of social interaction. Res. Lang. Soc. Interact. 54 : 1 1– 19 [Google Scholar]
• Stuhlmacher AF , Linnabery E 2013 . Gender and negotiation: a social role analysis. Handbook of Research on Negotiation M Olejalns, WL Adair 221– 48 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar [Google Scholar]
• Swaab RI , Maddux WW , Sinaceur M. 2011 . Early words that work: when and how virtual linguistic mimicry facilitates negotiation outcomes. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47 : 3 616– 21 [Google Scholar]
• Thompson L. 1990 . Negotiation behavior and outcomes: empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychol. Bull. 108 : 3 515– 32 [Google Scholar]
• Thompson L , Peterson E , Brodt SE. 1996 . Team negotiation: an examination of integrative and distributive bargaining. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 70 : 1 66– 78 [Google Scholar]
• Thompson LL , Wang J , Gunia BC. 2010 . Negotiation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 61 : 491– 515 [Google Scholar]
• Tinsley CH , Taylor MS , Adair WL. 2022 . Culture and international negotiation failure. Negotiation Failure GO Faure, F Cede Vienna, Austria: Intl. Inst. Appl. Syst. Anal. Press In press [Google Scholar]
• Toosi NR , Mor S , Semnani-Azad Z , Phillips KW , Amanatullah ET. 2019 . Who can lean in? The intersecting role of race and gender in negotiations. Psychol. Women Q. 43 : 1 7– 21 [Google Scholar]
• Toosi NR , Semnani-Azad Z , Shan W , Mor S , Amanatullah ET 2020 . How culture and race shape gender dynamics in negotiation. Research Handbook on Gender and Negotiation M Olekalns, JA Kennedy 1– 42 Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar [Google Scholar]
• Trötschel R , Hüffmeier J , Loschelder DD. 2010 . When yielding pieces of the pie is not a piece of cake: identity-based intergroup effects in negotiations. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 13 : 6 741– 63 [Google Scholar]
• Twitchell DP , Jensen ML , Derrick DC , Burgoon JK , Nunamaker JF. 2013 . Negotiation outcome classification using language features. Group Decis. Negot. 22 : 1 135– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Valley KL , Neale MA , Mannix EA 1995 . Friends, lovers, colleagues, strangers: the effects of relationships on the process and outcome of dyadic negotiations. Research on Negotiation in Organizations , Vol. 5 RJ Bies, RJ Lewicki, BH Sheppard 65– 93 Greenwich, CT: JAI Press [Google Scholar]
• van der Werff L , Buckley F. 2017 . Getting to know you: a longitudinal examination of trust cues and trust development during socialization. J. Manag. 43 : 3 742– 70 [Google Scholar]
• Van Kleef GA. 2009 . How emotions regulate social life: the emotions as social information (EASI) model. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 18 : 3 184– 88 [Google Scholar]
• Van Kleef GA , Côté S. 2007 . Expressing anger in conflict: when it helps and when it hurts. J. Appl. Psychol. 92 : 6 1557– 69 [Google Scholar]
• Van Kleef GA , de Dreu CK , Manstead AS. 2004 . The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 86 : 1 57– 76 [Google Scholar]
• Van Kleef GA , Steinel W , Homan AC. 2013 . On being peripheral and paying attention: prototypicality and information processing in intergroup conflict. J. Appl. Psychol. 98 : 1 63– 79 [Google Scholar]
• Van Kleef GA , Van Dijk E , Steinel W , Harinck F , Van Beest I. 2008 . Anger in social conflict: cross-situational comparisons and suggestions for the future. Group Decis. Negot. 17 : 1 13– 30 [Google Scholar]
• Vignoles VL , Owe E , Becker M , Smith PB , Easterbrook MJ et al. 2016 . Beyond the “east–west” dichotomy: global variation in cultural models of selfhood. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145 : 8 966– 1000 [Google Scholar]
• Walters AE , Stuhlmacher AF , Meyer LL. 1998 . Gender and negotiator competitiveness: a meta-analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 76 : 1 1– 29 [Google Scholar]
• Walton RE , McKersie RB. 1965 . A Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiations: An Analysis of a Social Interaction System Ithaka, NY: ILR Press [Google Scholar]
• Weingart LR , Bennett RJ , Brett JM. 1993 . The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome. J. Appl. Psychol. 78 : 504– 17 [Google Scholar]
• Weingart LR , Brett JM , Olekalns M , Smith PL. 2007 . Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 93 : 6 994– 1010 [Google Scholar]
• Wildschut T , Pinter B , Vevea JL , Insko CA , Schopler J. 2003 . Beyond the group mind: a quantitative review of the interindividual-intergroup discontinuity effect. Psychol. Bull. 129 : 5 698– 722 [Google Scholar]
• Williams MJ , Tiedens LZ. 2016 . The subtle suspension of backlash: a meta-analysis of penalties for women's implicit and explicit dominance behavior. Psychol. Bull. 142 : 2 165– 97 [Google Scholar]
• Wilson KS , DeRue DS , Matta FK , Howe M , Conlon DE. 2016 . Personality similarity in negotiations: testing the dyadic effects of similarity in interpersonal traits and the use of emotional displays on negotiation outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 101 : 10 1405– 21 [Google Scholar]
• Wiltermuth SS , Raj M , Wood A 2018 . How perceived power influences the consequences of dominance expressions in negotiations. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 146 : 14– 30 [Google Scholar]
• Wiltermuth SS , Tiedens LZ , Neale M 2015 . The benefits of dominance complementarity in negotiations. Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 8 : 3 194– 209 [Google Scholar]
• Wolfe RJ , McGinn KL. 2005 . Perceived relative power and its influence on negotiations. Group Decis. Negot. 13 : 3– 20 [Google Scholar]
• Wong RYM , Hong YY. 2005 . Dynamic influences of culture on cooperation in the prisoner's dilemma. Psychol. Sci. 16 : 6 429– 34 [Google Scholar]
• Yao J , Ramirez-Marin J , Brett J , Aslani S , Semnani-Azad Z. 2017a . A measurement model for dignity, face, and honor cultural norms. Manag . . Organ. Rev. 13 : 4 713– 38 [Google Scholar]
• Yao J , Zhang ZX , Brett JM. 2017b . Understanding trust development in negotiations: an interdependent approach. J. Organ. Behav. 38 : 5 712– 29 [Google Scholar]
• Yeomans M , Schweitzer ME , Brooks AW. 2022 . The conversational circumplex: identifying, prioritizing, and pursuing informational and relational motives in conversation. Curr . Opin . Psychol . 44 : 293– 302 [Google Scholar]
• Yip JA , Schweinsberg M. 2017 . Infuriating impasses: Angry expressions increase exiting behavior in negotiations. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 8 : 6 706– 14 [Google Scholar]
• Yip JA , Schweitzer ME. 2016 . Mad and misleading: Incidental anger promotes deception. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 137 : 207– 17 [Google Scholar]
• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, job burnout, executive functions, social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective, on happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it, mediation analysis, missing data analysis: making it work in the real world, grounded cognition, personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model, motivational beliefs, values, and goals.

• Literary Theory
• Literature Review

Negotiation: A Literature Review of Theories, Practice, Problems and Cultural Influences

• Horizons University

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

• Business Essentials
• Leadership & Management
• Credential of Leadership, Impact, and Management in Business (CLIMB)
• Entrepreneurship & Innovation
• Digital Transformation
• Finance & Accounting
• Business in Society
• For Organizations
• Support Portal
• Media Coverage
• Founding Donors
• Leadership Team

• Harvard Business School →
• HBS Online →
• Business Insights →

Business Insights

Harvard Business School Online's Business Insights Blog provides the career insights you need to achieve your goals and gain confidence in your business skills.

• Career Development
• Communication
• Decision-Making
• Earning Your MBA
• Negotiation
• News & Events
• Productivity
• Staff Spotlight
• Student Profiles
• Work-Life Balance
• AI Essentials for Business
• Alternative Investments
• Business Analytics
• Business Strategy
• Business and Climate Change
• Creating Brand Value
• Design Thinking and Innovation
• Digital Marketing Strategy
• Disruptive Strategy
• Economics for Managers
• Entrepreneurship Essentials
• Financial Accounting
• Global Business
• Launching Tech Ventures
• Leadership Principles
• Leadership, Ethics, and Corporate Accountability
• Leading Change and Organizational Renewal
• Leading with Finance
• Management Essentials
• Negotiation Mastery
• Organizational Leadership
• Power and Influence for Positive Impact
• Strategy Execution
• Sustainable Business Strategy
• Sustainable Investing
• Winning with Digital Platforms

How to Prepare for a Negotiation

• 27 Jun 2023

Preparing for expected and unexpected outcomes is essential to negotiating effectively. Negotiations can be unpredictable and challenging—it's difficult to know how the other party will react to your proposition. Planning can make the difference between success and failure.

If you need to prepare for a difficult negotiation, here are seven steps to achieving the best outcome.

Access your free e-book today.

7 Steps to Preparing for a Negotiation

1. build a relationship.

Building a relationship with your counterpart is vital. If possible, get to know them and establish a rapport before the negotiation begins.

You can build trust during the negotiation, too. Be open to their thoughts and opinions, and engage in active listening. Doing so can facilitate open communication and productive problem-solving. It can also provide insight into their motivations and priorities, enabling you to personalize your approach.

2. Set Clear Goals

Setting clear goals is one of the most important negotiation tactics . Ensure you know what you're aiming for, and set a stretch goal—one that's unlikely but possible.

Understanding your values, boundaries, and non-negotiables is just as crucial as having specific, tangible goals when entering the negotiation.

“You should define your values clearly before you negotiate," says Harvard Business School Professor Michael Wheeler in the online course Negotiation Mastery . "These are important decisions. Making them on the fly could cause you later regret.”

Be aware that your counterpart may hold different values. Recognize and anticipate that scenario while upholding your principles.

3. Know Your BATNA

Before approaching the bargaining table, you need to know the negotiation’s conditions. While you'll ideally find common ground with your counterpart, you possibly won’t, preventing you from achieving your desired outcome.

“It may seem odd, but the first thing to consider in preparation is what you’ll do if you're not able to reach an agreement,” Wheeler says in Negotiation Mastery .

The unfortunate truth is that your counterpart may not agree to your terms. If you can't resolve your differences, consider your best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) , the course you'll take if the negotiation doesn't go how you want.

4. Strategize

Developing an effective negotiation strategy is critical to your preparation. Consider various factors, including your desired outcome, priorities and interests, assessment of the other party's goals and objectives, and any leverage or alternatives you have.

Determine the following:

• Your motivation for pursuing the negotiation
• The other party’s motivation for engaging with you
• How to create value for your counterpart

A well-developed negotiation strategy can help you stay focused and confident and make tactical decisions at the bargaining table. By thinking through potential scenarios and anticipating the other party's reactions and counterproposals, you'll be more prepared to respond in a manner that advances your interests.

“Put yourself in your counterpart's shoes," Wheeler says in Negotiation Mastery . "Think about what conditions might exist that would make them especially eager to deal with you.”

Related: 4 Examples of Business Negotiation Strategies

5. Be Ready to Improvise

The reality of negotiation is that it's unpredictable. Being prepared is key, but you must also be flexible and adaptable.

Anticipate various situations so you’re ready to think on your feet . Consider negotiating with friends or colleagues to practice improvising on the spot.

Remember: The more thoroughly you prepare, the better you'll be to handle the other party’s responses. Think through the best and worst outcomes and how you'll respond to each. Know what you’ll do if your counterpart is unwilling to listen to your thoughts, misunderstands your intentions, or even stereotypes you .

6. Develop Your Negotiation Skills

Have a variety of negotiation skills in your toolkit and take steps to develop them.

“Enhancing your negotiation skills has an enormous payoff,” Wheeler says in Negotiation Mastery . “It allows you to reach agreements that might otherwise slip through your fingers.”

Focus on improving skills like emotional intelligence , which can help you effectively empathize with others, communicate, and manage conflict in negotiations and business endeavors.

Check out the video below to learn more about essential negotiation skills you should develop, and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more explainer content!

7. Know What Not to Do

There are several mistakes to avoid during the negotiation process that can hurt your reputation with your counterpart or even cause them to outright reject your proposal.

Refrain from the following:

• Forgetting to shake hands: It's crucial to start the conversation on the right note. Something as simple as forgetting to shake your counterpart's hand can decrease your chances of success.
• Allowing stress and anxiety to impact your demeanor: Feeling anxious is a natural part of negotiating. Instead of letting your anxiety negatively impact the conversation, channel it into excitement and use your emotions to your advantage .
• Not having an open mind: Listen to what the other party has to say. You might reach a mutually beneficial arrangement you hadn't previously considered.
• Negotiating against yourself: Don't start with the lowest offer you're willing to accept hoping it'll increase your chances of success. Be confident and assertive, and negotiate for what you want.
• Being aggressive or accusatory: While confidence is important, rudeness can result in a failed negotiation. Be polite, and don't be afraid to take a break or pause before speaking if you get frustrated.
• Immediately giving in to ultimatums: Misunderstandings can lead to hard stances. If you're faced with an ultimatum, don't immediately walk away from the negotiation. Continuing the conversation could help your counterpart gain clarity.

More importantly, don't sacrifice your integrity.

“Make sure that there's a clear understanding about how far you're willing to go when you're negotiating on behalf of other people or your organization," Wheeler says in Negotiation Mastery . "The people you're negotiating for deserve to know what lines you won't cross.”

Avoiding these mistakes is vital to becoming a good negotiator and achieving your desired outcomes.

Maximize Your Negotiation Success with an Online Course

If you want to improve your negotiation skills, remember that negotiations occur in both your personal and professional life.

Keep track of everyday negotiations—like resolving family conflicts or asking for favors—and reflect on them to learn what did and didn’t work. You can apply those lessons to business negotiations and better understand your strengths and weaknesses.

Another effective way to prepare for the bargaining table is through online negotiation training . For instance, Negotiation Mastery can equip you with the knowledge and skills to succeed in a range of situations, such as securing a business deal, advancing your career , or increasing your salary . It also provides simulations that enable you to gain practical experience with peers.

The time and effort you invest into preparing for a negotiation can pay dividends. If you're hoping for the best possible outcome, don't forget to plan ahead—you'll be glad you did over the long term.

Are you ready to take the next steps in developing your negotiation skills and furthering your career? Explore our online course Negotiation Mastery —one of our online leadership and management courses —and download our free e-book on how to become a more effective leader.

About the Author

• Changing the narrative on women’s leadership

In This Section

• After an attempted assassination, how to turn back a rising tide of political threats and violence 
• The populism of self-destruction: How better policy can blunt the anti-clean energy backlash that threatens humanity’s future
• Public policy, values, and politics: Why so much depends on getting them right
• The Ghost Budget: How U.S. war spending went rogue, wasted billions, and how to fix it
• The Great Creep Backward: Policy responses to China’s slowing economy
• Two peoples. Two states. Why U.S. diplomacy in Israel and Palestine needs vision, partners, and a backbone
• We can productively discuss even the toughest topics—here’s how
• Legacy of privilege: David Deming and Raj Chetty on how elite college admissions policies affect who gains power and prestige

Need to solve an intractable problem? Collaboration is hard but worth it.

Women in Public Policy Program co-director Hannah Riley Bowles says the public conversation about Kamala Harris and other women leaders shows that attitudes have come far—but still have a ways to go.

As Vice President Kamala Harris makes a strong bid for the U.S. presidency, Women and Public Policy Program Co-Director Hannah Riley Bowles says Harris is just one of many “path breakers” who have dramatically increased leadership opportunities for women. 

But she also says the reaction to Harris’ campaign in the media and the public conversation shows how the popular narrative about the efficacy of female leaders still lags behind the reality of what successful women are achieving. And she says that narrative also isn’t supported by research, including multiple studies showing that on average women are actually rated higher than men for a number of important leadership qualities associated with performance. 

Among several significant posts she holds at the Kennedy School, Bowles is the Roy E. Larsen Senior Lecturer in Public Policy and Management at the Harvard Kennedy School, she chairs the Management, Leadership, and Decision Sciences (MLD) Area, and she is currently wrapping up her tenure as co-director of the Center for Public Leadership. She’s a recognized expert in the study of negotiation, particularly as practiced by women. She joins PolicyCast host Ralph Ranalli to talk about how studies say women in leadership roles are really performing, the ways women can successfully attain positions of responsibility and power despite traditional obstacles, and some forward-looking policy recommendations that could make things better. 

Hannah Riley Bowles’ Policy Recommendations: 

Increase transparency and accountability in promotion and compensation standards

Clarify leadership role expectations and evaluation criteria based on strategic objectives (vs. past practices)

Adopt gender-inclusive policies and practices for management of work-family conflict (eg. parental leaves) 

Track progress and reward leadership that models organizational objectives of transparency, accountability, and inclusivity

Episode Notes:

Hannah Riley Bowles is the Roy E. Larsen Senior Lecturer in Public Policy and Management at the Harvard Kennedy School. Hannah chairs the Management, Leadership, and Decision Sciences (MLD) Area and co-directs the Women and Public Policy Program (WAPPP). A leading expert on gender in negotiation, Hannah’s research focuses on women’s leadership advancement and the role of negotiation in educational and career advancement, including the management of work-family conflict. Her work has been featured in Harvard Business Review’s “Definitive Management Ideas of the Year” and she is the faculty director of “Women and Power” and “Women Leading Change,” the HKS executive programs for women in senior leadership from the public, private, and non-profit sectors. She won the HKS Manuel Carballo Award for Excellence in Teaching in 2003. She holds a doctorate in business administration degree from the Harvard Business School, a MPP from HKS, and a BA from Smith College. 

Ralph Ranalli of the Office of Communications and Public Affairs is the host, producer, and editor of PolicyCast. A former journalist, public television producer, and entrepreneur, he holds an AB in political science from UCLA and an MS in journalism from Columbia University. 

Design and graphics support is provided by Laura King , Catherine Santrock and the OCPA Design Team. Social media promotion and support is provided by Natalie Montaner and the OCPA Digital Team. Editorial support is provided by Nora Delaney and Robert O’Neill .  

Preroll: PolicyCast explores research-based policy solutions to the big problems we’re facing in our society and our world. This podcast is a production of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Intro (Hannah Riley Bowles): I think another part of the frame that I worry about, or the narrative about women's leadership, is at times an over-focus on the negatives. And the negatives are real, but if we don't balance the negatives with the extraordinary positives, then I worry that we might actually go back to that problem that Madeleine Albright raised about being a young girl and looking up and saying, “Do I see any role models? Do I see a path for myself?” And so it's so important to elevate the fact that women have run, fiercely, competitively, for the U. S. presidency. So if you are a young woman imagining that you might be able to do that, you can. We'll have to see who the first person is to actually break through into the Oval Office, but it's important not to not to undermine the important contributions that women are making in the roles that they are playing. 

Intro (Ralph Ranalli): Welcome back to PolicyCast and our fall 2024 season. I’m your host, Ralph Ranalli. With Vice President Kamala Harris making a strong bid for the U.S. presidency, HKS Women and Public Policy Program Co-Director Hannah Riley Bowles says Harris is just one of many “path-breakers” who have dramatically increased leadership opportunities for women. Yet she says the reaction to Harris’ campaign in both the media and the public sphere also shows how the popular narrative about the efficacy of female leaders still lags behind the reality of what successful women are achieving. And she says that narrative also isn’t supported by the research, including multiple studies showing that on average women are actually rated higher than men for a number of important leadership qualities associated with performance. Hannah is a recognized expert in the study of negotiation and gender and is the Roy E. Larsen Senior Lecturer in Public Policy and Management at the HKS, where she also chairs the Management, Leadership, and Decision Sciences Area and recently completed her tenure as co-director of the Center for Public Leadership. She’s here with me today to talk about how women in leadership roles are really performing, the ways women can successfully attain positions of responsibility and power despite traditional obstacles, and some forward-looking policy recommendations that could make things better. 

Ralph Ranalli: Hannah, welcome to PolicyCast. 

Hannah Riley Bowles: Thank you for having me.

Ralph Ranalli: You're the co director of the Women in Public Policy Program at HKS. You have also recently been co-director of the Center for Public Leadership at HKS. And meanwhile, in less than two months, a woman has a good chance of being elected the leader of the country with the world's largest economy and its most powerful military. So I feel like I'm talking to the right person at the right time. Yet you say there's still a need to quote, change the narrative about women and leadership, unquote. What do you mean by that? What do you see as the current narrative about women and leadership and how does it need to change?

Hannah Riley Bowles: I actually think that the success that Kamala is having, and honestly the success in many respects that Hillary Clinton had, is a good example of the ways in which the narrative on women's leadership needs to change. So for instance, there's a forum event coming up that addresses journalist questions about: Can a woman win? And, honestly. Yes, Hillary Clinton did not win the electoral college. She did not win the election. But the majority of Americans voted for a woman for president. 

And in a lot of respects, I think that it is extremely important to focus on for the narrative with regard to women's leadership. Madeleine Albright used to have this line, I heard it once in a graduation speech she gave, about how she never imagined she would be Secretary of State when she was a young girl. And she said it wasn't because she lacked confidence. It was because she had never seen a Secretary of State in a skirt. 

Ralph Ranalli: Right. 

Hannah Riley Bowles: And she changed that conception. I mean, she was a path breaker in that regard. But nowadays, for young people to imagine a Secretary of State, we've had a whole string of folks play that role, right? Including Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice. It's just no longer incongruent. And the idea of having a highly competitive, female candidate for the U. S. presidency is just simply now a fact of life. It's not incongruent at all. So this whole question of can a woman win... We'll see what happens. But Kamala Harris is already breaking the frame with regard to women's leadership and women's suitability for the presidency. There are so many people looking at her candidacy thinking, this is fabulous.

And I did not take away from Hillary not winning that a woman cannot be president. She ran a really great, frame-breaking campaign. Not good enough to win the whole thing, but she broke the frame. And Kamala Harris is breaking the frame again. And she's breaking the frame in new ways. She's breaking the frame as a woman of color. She's breaking the frame in terms of her relationship with her husband; it is just this fabulous model of partnership that I think a lot of young people can identify with, where they support one another's careers, they trade off in different times of intensity professionally. There are so many things about the role that she's playing right now that is very positive. 

I think another part of the frame that I worry about, or the narrative about women's leadership, is at times an over-focus on the negatives. And the negatives are real, but if we don't balance the negatives with the extraordinary positives, then I worry that we might actually go back to that problem that Madeleine Albright raised about being a young girl and looking up and saying, “Do I see any role models? Do I see a path for myself?” And so it's so important to elevate the fact that women have run, fiercely, competitively, for the U. S. presidency. So if you are a young woman imagining that you might be able to do that, you can. We'll have to see who the first person is to actually break through into the Oval Office, but it's important not to not to undermine the important contributions that women are making in the roles that they are playing. 

There are women world leaders all across the globe who are changing the face of what it means to be a head of state. We're honored right now to have the former New Zealand prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, as a visitor at the Harvard Kennedy School. And she stepped onto the stage as a very young person, as a young person having a child, while serving as head of state. And her leadership, particularly during COVID, and then I think also, particularly in the face of a terrorist attack with her country was so exemplary. She was somebody who stepped forward, and so many people have learned from the examples of her leadership during that period. 

Now, we have all these positive examples. We also have lots of really clear evidence that women—including some of the folks that we've been talking about—as politicians are more vulnerable to ferocious online attacks. I just went to a panel yesterday on technology-facilitated, gender-based violence. And one of the things that they were talking about is the targeting of female politicians in very kind of gendered, sexualized ways. But I want to name that threat and that problem, but not allow that to take away from the extraordinary contributions that women are able to take.

I can give you another example to connect back to some of the research we've been doing lately. And that is, I was at a panel at an important institution talking about women's leadership. And one very senior person said, "You know, people don't like women as they become leaders. They don't like female leaders." And I thought, "Oh my gosh." And actually when the statement was presented, it was: Research shows that women don't like female or the people don't like female leaders. And I thought, “Oh my gosh, could I run an experiment and get that effect? Maybe, if I manipulated all the right contexts—if you didn't know the leader, if she acted in a very authoritarian way, it was a male-dominated context, yes, I could probably show that effect. 

But there is no evidence that on a kind of global or general basis that women rising into leadership are disliked. In effect, if anything, now the meta-analyses, the studies of studies are showing women coming out on average actually rated higher than men in a lot of important leadership qualities that are associated with performance, both by followers and by people who are experts, say their bosses or trained judges who are evaluating performance. Now, I don't think that women are necessarily innately better leaders than men. I think probably there's a more competitive, difficult gauntlet for women to get up into these top positions. One argument is that you have a more select group of women in these leadership roles and that's why you're seeing those effects. But we have these global statements that are 20 years old about people not liking women as leaders or not choosing women as leaders. 

Here's another example. So we did this whole review of leadership under what conditions are men more likely to be selected as leaders than are women. So again, let me go back to those conditions in which I thought I might be able to get this effect of disliking women. I want to have a fair amount of ambiguity. You got to not know her necessarily personally or her leadership competencies because that, that will kind of open the door for stereotyping. And then I want to thrust her into a counter stereotypical role or set of behaviors that make her gender salient and that kind of violate gender-based expectations, right? So those are a set of findings related to the evaluation of women. Women are more likely to be negatively evaluated in these studies where you don't actually know a lot about their leadership competencies. You just get a quick snapshot of them and they're placed in this counter stereotypic role or counter stereotypic set of behaviors.

Now, let’s go over to the findings related to the emergence of female leaders. Men are more likely to arise as leaders in masculine stereotypic domains, but particularly if leaders are chosen within 20 minutes or less. I mean, that's pretty striking, right? 

Ralph Ranalli: Right. What do you think that means?

Hannah Riley Bowles: When you have to make a snap judgment, people do carry around these implicit associations. In fact, there are these wonderful studies that take gender aside, but just look at facial structure, that people will sort who looks like a leader into different types of roles based on the sort of stereotypic masculine characteristics or stereotypically feminine characteristics of a facial structure. 

Ralph Ranalli: We sort of default to our implicit biases, right? 

Hannah Riley Bowles: Right. Implicit biases, implicit associations. Now implicit associations come from the structure of society. Right. So if you ask somebody to lead a military type of venture, what you're going to do is you're going to conjure up what are my images of military leaders. And when you conjure that up, you're going to end up with images of people who are male, right? And so somebody who steps in with a very, say, soft features or feminine look, that's going to be incongruent with your image of an effective military leader. So in these quick judgments, yes, that's where the researchers are going to find their clearest effects, right?

Ralph Ranalli: Yeah.

Hannah Riley Bowles: There’s also very clear evidence that as we get to know people—let me talk at the group level for a moment, which is different than the political level because there are entrenched power dynamics at a very high political level—within a group level, what research shows is that, yes, well, people do make some snap judgments about what does a leader look like in the beginning in terms of who they choose to listen to or defer to or who they identify as a leader. As people work with one another over time, and they begin to recognize more clearly who is bringing which differential types of skills or competencies to the group, they tend to focus more on those things that they know about what people are contributing than to those characteristics. 

Ralph Ranalli: As I’m listening the word that keeps jumping to my mind is thoughtfulness, you know? And for me it goes back to that media example that you cited earlier. I also saw a New York Times story that asked: “Is America ready to elect a woman?” And my mind immediately went back to Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote. It just so happens that American democracy just has this systemic quirk that doesn't count the popular vote. But she was clearly the popular choice for president. And I was just sort of flabbergasted by how thoughtless that was. So I guess my question is, is there a way to build more thoughtfulness into the way leaders are chosen? Since we know that snap judgments and implicit biases result in these biased decisions, if there was a way to build some more thoughtfulness into the system of choosing leaders, could that lead to more equity?

Hannah Riley Bowles: Yes. So if you look, for instance, to the work of Iris Bohnet, where she talks about equity by design, a lot of the things that she is basically encouraging are factors. Her work and my work are very much in conversation. I’m typically looking at individual agency from the bottom up, and then she’s thinking about: Well, what are we learning from some of those things for organizational design questions? And a lot of what she is advising is basically getting people to focus more on objective criteria for their decisions, more thoughtful evaluations, not getting anchored on past bias practices. It's trying to get people connected to the work, rather than historic patterns. So absolutely. I mean, that is a kind of classic behavioral science intervention. And that's what we show also in our work is that when you have situations where people are provided with more objective criteria for the evaluation of leaders say, or for the conduct of a negotiation, if we want to talk about that work, when you have more objective information you're just less likely to get gender effects. People will focus more on the task. It’s more when they just don't know exactly how to evaluate things that they're likely to draw on some of these stereotypes or historic patterns.

But there’s another behavioral science thing that comes out of that example: Can women win? I'd like to connect this to our colleague, Todd Rogers’ work, right? 

Ralph Ranalli: Todd’s a behavioral scientist. 

Hannah Riley Bowles: Todd’s a behavioral scientist on our faculty. One of his most famous findings was showing campaigns that they get greater turnout if they say “everybody's voting” than if they say, “nobody's voting and you need to show up,” right? Because what people do is they follow the norm. And so if we keep saying, can a woman win and let me talk about how Hillary didn't win, the message that you're then sending to young people about “Is leadership a path for me?” is this narrative that's focusing on the failure frame rather than on the success frame. 

Let me draw on some other work by our colleagues. Erica Chenoweth and Zoe Marks have shown that authoritarian regimes tend to be very gendered, and they tend to emphasize traditional gender roles. I remember reading this Mussolini quote that more or less said, women serve in the home and men serve in the field, the men were supposed to be out fighting for the state and the women were supposed to be at home tending the hearth. And so, in political systems, it is not necessarily the case that if people were paying better attention and making more accurate decisions with objective criteria that you would get gender equitable outcomes. I want to be clear about that.

Ralph Ranalli: I did want to return to what you said a little bit ago you mentioned negotiation and individual agency. You've spent a lot of your career studying women and negotiation. What got you started in that area, and why did you choose negotiation specifically as a topic where you wanted to focus?

Hannah Riley Bowles: That’s a great question. I got caught up in negotiation a very long time ago, because I was interested in how people solve problems, including grand scale problems. So my first work in the negotiation field was with Roger Fisher, God rest his soul, who's now passed away. He wrote the book, “Getting to Yes,” but he was doing work with the folks on both sides of the South African conflict. He was doing a lot of work in Central America. He was doing work really all around the world, helping people develop their conflict management, negotiation, and problem-solving competencies. And he would work with people on both sides. 

And so that’s where I got kind of caught up in this initially was just this importance of enhancing people's capacity to solve problems together. And I ended up honestly got caught up in the gender thing because I was over doing my doctoral work at Harvard Business School and Linda Babcock was there. She was interested in women don't ask, and I was kind of like, I don’t believe this, these women at Harvard Business School, they’re so fierce. Look at them. They’re so competent. Like, how can this be, you know? And then we were finding effects when we went and looked at the classroom exercises and a variety of other places. And so what got me into this was saying, why would this happen?

And so what that spawned was a whole bunch of research looking at the conditions under which you get gender effects. So one of the things that came out of my dissertation was actually just looking at whether you’re negotiating for yourself or for somebody else. Which is one that I still love and there's been a lot of research subsequently and even meta-analysis showing these effects. But basically, it's a really nice example where it shows that it's not about women as negotiators. So our first studies, we just simply ran pay negotiation, and we said you're either negotiating for yourself or you're negotiating for somebody else. In the early studies, we ran them with young people, and then we ran them with executives. And particularly with executives, one consistent finding that we had was that women were more assertive negotiating the pay of others than their own pay. Right? So they were coming out with better outcomes when they were advocating for others. We didn't get any real effects around self versus other for men. But for the female executives in particular, they were killing it. They got the best outcomes of anybody when you said, “Go in there and get this person better compensation.”

The point is, it’s not about the person, it’s about the context, and research has shown, subsequently, my research and others, has shown that, particularly within western cultures, that we idealize women putting others before themselves. And so, the idea of making claim and then making claim to money in particular—I think it’s a status linked resource. It’s associated with the male breadwinner, even if that doesn’t really reflect the structure of families, the majority of certainly U.S. families anymore. But it’s this masculine, stereotypic, power-status-linked resource and you're individually competing for more of it for yourself. And so what we’ve shown is that, and others have shown, is that women are more likely to encounter resistance when they’re advocating for themselves than for others, particularly around things like pay. And resistance in the form of “I don't really know if I want to work with this woman” or resistance in the form of people breaking off a deal or not giving people what they’re asking for.

So if I could go back to the leadership stuff, we now have decades of research on gender and negotiation, showing these two basic situational factors. One is the degree of ambiguity: Do people understand what they’re supposed to be doing? Do they have objective criteria and clear instructions? And then the degree of the perceived relevance and salience of gender within the situation. Those two factors have really important influence on whether you're going to get gender results. 

So, going back to the relevance and salience, for instance, there’s this one terrific study where they ran a competitive bargaining negotiation over motorcycle headlamps and you're an automobile executive. Competitive negotiation, very masculine, stereotypically. Now they switch it so that it’s the same negotiation economically, the underlying structure is the same. But they say you’re negotiating for lamp beads for jewelry rather than headlamps and all of a sudden, the gender effects go away because you’re not like pretending to take on this role. I think the average guy in a negotiation class knows as little about being an automobile executive as does the average woman in the class. But there is this way of inhabiting a kind of stereotypical space. It's just easier if it belongs to roles that you’ve played in your life. 

But then if you give people clear information about what they’re supposed to be negotiating, doesn’t matter if they’re being automobile executives or it doesn’t matter if they're negotiating lamp beads, you’re really not going to get the effects. And so we had taken those decades of research on gender and negotiation illuminating these two really important contextual factors, and then we said, wow, would this also show up in the literature on leadership? Would it also show up on the literature on risk taking? And so in this recent review that we published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, we showed that there’s a remarkable parallelism across these different domains of the importance of attending to ambiguity and the importance of attending to the relevance and salience of gender or other identities in context. You know, there are other identities that may be more salient. 

But then let’s take this back to like this type of stuff that Iris is doing. We can then look at these patterns and then say: Okay, what does that mean for the individual advice that we give? What does that mean for the advice we give to managers? What does that mean for the advice that we would give in terms of organizational design or practices? 

Ralph Ranalli: You said that the truth is more nuanced about how women are quote unquote doing in terms of leadership positions. There are places where women are actually killing it. And then there are places where they’re maybe underrepresented. 

Hannah Riley Bowles: So there are spaces like certainly the NGO sector—women dominate in the NGO sector—certainly in the healthcare sector, you're seeing women highly prominent in education sectors. Look at like, university presidents. I mean, there are lots of spaces where… In government. There’s a lot of spaces where you see a lot of women’s leadership. So let's talk about the historic masculine stereotypicality. Less in some domains than in others, but then there are industries that are like particular industries where they've just been historically male dominated. If you look at things like transportation, energy, infrastructure, technology. 

So what I think is really important again let's go back to our women, good negotiators, right? It’s like, well, wait a minute. If all I do is switch whether you're negotiating for yourself or somebody else and I can get different effects, we don’t really have good things to say about globally what women are like as negotiators, right? Similarly, I don’t think we have a lot globally to say about women as leaders, although I can share with you one effect that seems remarkably robust. We need to celebrate the places where women are thriving and leading in really important ways and point to those and then also look at those areas where, and ask the question, well, why aren’t they there? We know they’re very effective and we’re actually seeing them even in those places where they’re less well represented playing very important and value creating roles. What are the barriers in those spaces? Now, some people, if I point to the nonprofit sector, I’ll get an eye roll from some people like, well, that's not where the money is. That’s not where the power is. Okay. That's really interesting. Okay. So why is that a barrier? You know, it's not about leadership competence, so what are we learning from that about how we break open some of these spaces?

Ralph Ranalli: Well, that’s interesting because about 12 years ago, you interviewed 50 top female leaders about their paths to attaining leadership positions. And I think you came up with this dual path theory where one was called navigating and the other was called pioneering and pioneering sounds a lot like you what you were just talking about where your efforts were not aimed at moving through the social hierarchy but emphasizing leadership that was recognized to serve the collective good. Can you talk a little bit about what you’ve learned about those two paths? 

Hannah Riley Bowles: Thank you so much. I’m going to concede upfront that I worked later with a doctoral student who came up with better labels than navigating and pioneering. She calls them gold star versus North Star, which I thought was so great and fit very much with the research. So navigators, which are like the gold stars, is this idea that you're working your way through the existing system and you’re saying, I have achieved all of those things that are required. So you interview this executive, and she’ll say to you, I have cross-functional team experience. I have international experience. I've done X, Y, Z. That is why I’m qualified for this job. 

And then the people who were more pioneering—North Stars—what they were doing was telling a story into which people were buying. And actually a wonderful example that I use in that article is Margaret Thatcher. So in Margaret Thatcher’s autobiography, she basically explains why she could never, in the beginning, early on, she explains, I could never lead the party because I've never held this role and I’ve never held that role and a woman has never held any of these important roles that are required in order to be the leader of the party. But what actually she did was she just said, I just care so much about my party, I’m going to get on my soapbox and I’m going to get anybody to listen to me who’s willing, and I’m going to tell you where I think my party needs to go. And it was through that vision, that North Star, her vision of where things needed to go. 

The other thing about the Gold Stars or the Navigators is that they’re really trying to persuade gatekeepers, will you let me up this next level? You know, can I get on the chutes and ladders? Where the North Star people are these pioneers, they were getting like 360-degree support, you know? So another example was an entrepreneur who discovered whole foods early on and was a path breaker in the sale of whole foods. And she just said I turned my first stores into a laboratory and I would educate my clients, and then I would educate investors. So it was all about: "Can I persuade you of why this vision is so important and why everybody should buy into it? 

Going back to this gender thing, I think particularly when you are in a historically male dominated, masculine, stereotypically entrenched space, it is harder for women to do that chutes and ladders thing. Right? Because I haven’t done those things that you’re going to require of me. Even though I really could be helpful to you right now leading this organization, right? 

Ralph Ranalli: Right. Or even if you do have those qualifications, you have implicit biases that are going to handicap you if you are up against a equally qualified male candidate. 

Hannah Riley Bowles: Right. You don’t look like what we usually invest in around here. And so the people who are doing this, they’re like breaking the frame. Can I go back to the negotiation stuff though? So, while I early on was working on what are those contextual factors that influence whether we get gender effects, my more recent research is focused on how women use negotiation to change contexts. And one really important thing that we found when we went out and we looked at what are early career, mid-career, senior executives negotiating to advance their careers. 

One thing that we found, which came out after blind coding—we really weren’t expecting it going in—was that women did more of what was called bending negotiations than men. And that was saying that the chutes and ladders path or like the typical things that are offered, that's not really fitting for me. And I’d like to do something different. So one way in which they were using this was to deal with work and family. So they were rising up into levels of an organization where you hadn’t had people with substantial caregiving responsibilities. And they were saying things like: “My dad is really sick. He's in another state. I can do this job, but I need one week a month. I’m going to be closer to my dad or my parents.”

But the other thing that they did, which was fascinating, going back to your example, was they were saying: “You know, you've always had an engineer in this job. I don’t have an engineering degree, but I don't know how much they’re using their engineering degrees. I know this operation, I have a strategic vision.”  And they were negotiating alternative career paths, breaking those historic frames in the organization. And in ways that, yes, that were about their career advancement, but were also breaking open paths, like if we go back to our Madeleine Albright example, breaking open paths for other people to come up through and take alternative paths in the organization. Frame breakers and their individual agency in breaking those frames and pioneering new paths are really important.

And maybe that goes back to our beginning question: How should we be changing the narratives? Let’s celebrate the extraordinary degree to which women have broken paths and are contributing. And yes, the boulders are there and the gremlins are hiding and we’ve got to deal with some pretty important stuff. But we’ve got to be able to hold both of those things at the same time to retain the energy and resilience and inspire the next generation to pursue these roles. 

Ralph Ranalli: Yeah, it’s fairly meta to think that changing the overall narrative seems to require changing individual narratives, going from Gold Star to North Star. You work on your own narrative, and you create your own story, as opposed to trying to be a character in the institutional story.

Hannah Riley Bowles: If the old story doesn’t include you in it, you have to write your new story. I’m actually doing more work now with diverse young people from historically marginalized, backgrounds. And they are not only negotiating with employers to do things different, they're negotiating with their parents to say, “I don't want to get married yet,” or, “I’m going to move independently to another city to work or to study,” in ways that are unfathomable to the traditional narrative. And I think we need to celebrate their courage and the importance of their agency in making change. 

Ralph Ranalli: Can we talk about men for just a second before we wrap up? Because you did a study that talked about a growing attention to the importance of factoring men’s experience into increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion. I believe it used MBA students, and it demonstrated that if men received affirmation, it decreased their anxiety and increased their openness to what you were calling displays of dominance by women. And you also wrote a book about engaged fatherhood. So I don’t know if there’s a way to tie those two things together, but they both seem to fascinatingly flip the page over to the other side.  

Hannah Riley Bowles: I love that. And I’m so appreciative you said that... So let me name a few ways in which I think it’s really important to bring men into these conversations. One is that a lot of the effect that we’ve documented in relation to gender are really more about power and status, right? So, you and I actually originally started this conversation because you were looking at that review that we recently published showing the remarkable parallels between the psychological experience of power and the gender effects associated with being male versus female. So some of these effects that we've historically associated with gender—and this is a long-time feminist argument too but now we have more psychological science behind it—are really just about power. 

So if you just talk about effects of men and women, and then you don’t think about those power dynamics, you're in essence disappearing the experience of men from historically marginalized groups. So for instance, Black men in the United States, East Asian men face very similar barriers, gay white men versus straight white men face many of the similar barriers in negotiation that’s now been documented that were traditionally associated with quote unquote women, right? And so these intersecting characteristics are really important. So if you don’t bring men, if you don’t bring intersectional perspectives and diverse men into the picture, you’re really just talking about white privileged men and women. And that’s obviously a mistake. 

A second way in which the gender research is bringing in men, which relates to the study, that you were referencing, but I’m going to try to connect it to a larger body of work, is showing that there are ways, and we've looked for so long at ways in which women fall into gender traps. And now there's growing research about traps that men fall into, and particularly in situations where they feel threatened. And there’s a growing number of studies now showing that if you expose men to a threat, maybe particularly an identity threat or a masculinity threat, that they then don’t act like their best selves either, right? So they may end up being likely to engage in conflict, or they would make a lower quality decision than they might make if they were not experiencing that threat. So that particular study was looking at basically like affirmation as a kind of inoculation to threat manipulation.

I think actually, one of the most stable effects—looking at the ways in which men and women lead—is that women are more participatory, more democratic leaders across a lot of contexts than men are typically. But I also wonder, and this is not demonstrated, about the degree to which we should be paying attention to threats to men's masculinity and power. There is some evidence on this—whether the authoritarianism could be a trap for men—because when women are coming out evaluated higher than men it tends to be associated with these, more participatory and democratic leadership practices. So maybe that's a trap we should think about. 

But then on the fatherhood, I’m so glad you raised this because, if we’re striving for gender equality, which I want to clarify, is about equality of opportunity. And we’ve never run that experiment. We may still end up with more men in leadership roles and more women doing primary caregiving roles. We don’t know that. But, for gender equality of giving people opportunity of choice, we need to be looking at unpaid as well as paid labor, right? 

So number one, we were talking about the gender gap in authority positions. You're not going to really address that by piling paid labor on top of unpaid labor for women. That's an obvious barrier and constraint. I think what’s also really important is that there is, in this book on engaged fatherhood, it's engaged fatherhood for men, for families and for gender equality. And we got to collaborate, and I'm continuing to collaborate with these mostly men who study fatherhood from a men's perspective and the importance for men of getting invited into that space, the importance for their identities, for their mental health, for their social wellbeing and just kind of life gratification. And I think you particularly hear. From young men, I know you hear this at the Kennedy School, that they want to actually be engaged fathers. They want to be engaged in families. 

And so, I’m grateful to be part of this growing group of scholars, and then also folks in practice who are saying, listen, this is not just about women and women’s problems. This is about giving everybody better opportunities and thinking about the frames that we’re using in unpaid as well as paid labor. And so, thank you for bringing that in, because if we’re leaving men out of the picture, we're really constrained in the progress that we’re going to make for everyone.

Ralph Ranalli: Right. So, we need to wrap up, but this being PolicyCast, we have to end with policy. So, if you had your moment where they said, Hannah, you’re in charge. Give us some policy ideas that would help create more and better female leaders. What would your recommendations be? What are some concrete things that we could do?

Hannah Riley Bowles: Well, it’s hard to separate women’s leadership from, women’s, workforce participation more broadly and the structure of society. I honestly think that more family friendly policies that are more engaging of men are extremely important. So, actually, if you look at Claudia Golden who just won the Nobel for her historic work looking at gender inequality over time, and she mostly looks at college educated women, so she actually looks at a lot of these women who would be very good candidates for leadership roles. And what she emphasizes is that where the gaps really occur is in time greedy labor. Leadership roles are very often time greedy. And one of the reasons why we look to men for time greedy work is because we associate caregiving with women and not with men. And to the extent that we can break down those assumptions and invite everybody into unpaid care work as well as paid labor and the work of building our society and communities. I think that's, if I had to choose one thing, I think that’s where I would focus.  

Another thing that I think is very important, which I’ve been writing about lately, and this is more of an organizational thing than a national thing, but we over focus on pay when we talk about negotiation. And if you look at the gender pay gap, it's really better explained by the, the types of jobs that men and women are in than it is by discrimination for the same work and role. And so, if all we cared about is the gender pay gap, what we want to do is get women into better paying jobs. And you want to think about negotiating your career paths and the roles that you're in, rather than just about the money that you're getting in the particular role that you're in. So from an organizational perspective, I think what you see are policies that make sure that it is transparent, not only pay standards, but the broader range of resources. And again people may lean forward and tell women what the family-friendly opportunities and tell men are what are some of these other types of opportunities that they think they might want. I think that we really need to standardize the type of information that is made available. It doesn't mean that everybody gets the same deal, but everybody should understand what are those options. 

I think the other thing that’s happened in terms of policy that’s very useful is that organizations have been asked to report their gender pay gaps. And they report them at the organization level and it’s not exactly a nonsense number. It's not that insightful in itself, because again, it’s mostly explained by the jobs that men and women are in. But what's happened from that, even though it's kind of a gross number, organizations are then motivated to say, “Well, wait a minute, wait a minute, it’s 80 percent because we have a ton of women and they’re paid the same as men in the jobs that they’re in.” But then all of a sudden what they realize is, “Geez, if we were going to correct that, we need to get a bunch of women higher up.” So I think reporting at an organizational level those kinds of things. Not in a punitive way, but in a way kind of like: “Okay, can we now then look at why is that what's going on there?” I think that's very important. Transparency. Inclusiveness. 

Ralph Ranalli: Well, Hannah this has been a really enjoyable and interesting conversation, and I can’t wait to see what happens, both in the near-term future and in the longer term future with women in leadership. I appreciate your work, and you taking the time to be here.

Hannah Riley Bowles: Well, thank you. I think there’s a lot of reason for optimism, and we need to keep shining that light. Thanks for having me. Really appreciate it.

Outro (Ralph Ranalli): Thanks for listening. If you haven’t already, please subscribe to PolicyCast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcasting app. We’ll be back with another episode soon, talking about solutions to the housing crisis with HKS Professor Justin de Benedictis-Kessner and former Burlington Vermont mayor Miro Wienberger. So until then, remember to speak bravely, and listen generously. 

More from PolicyCast

Why empowered women are authoritarianism’s targets—and how they can be its undoing, dr. rochelle walensky on making public health policy under fire.

• Harvard Business School →
• Faculty & Research →
• December 2015
• Harvard Business Review

Control the Negotiation Before It Begins

• Format: Print
• Find it at Harvard
• Register to Read

About The Author

Deepak Malhotra

More from the author.

• August 2022
• Faculty Research

Rocket Science

Negotiating peace in colombia.

• September 2021 (Revised October 2021)

Project Restart: Deciding the Future of English Football

• Rocket Science  By: Joshua Schwartzstein and Deepak Malhotra
• Negotiating Peace in Colombia  By: Deepak Malhotra and Cody Smith
• Project Restart: Deciding the Future of English Football  By: Nour Kteily and Deepak Malhotra

Embracing Gen AI at Work

by H. James Wilson and Paul R. Daugherty

Summary .   

Today artificial intelligence can be harnessed by nearly anyone, using commands in everyday language instead of code. Soon it will transform more than 40% of all work activity, according to the authors’ research. In this new era of collaboration between humans and machines, the ability to leverage AI effectively will be critical to your professional success.

This article describes the three kinds of “fusion skills” you need to get the best results from gen AI. Intelligent interrogation involves instructing large language models to perform in ways that generate better outcomes—by, say, breaking processes down into steps or visualizing multiple potential paths to a solution. Judgment integration is about incorporating expert and ethical human discernment to make AI’s output more trustworthy, reliable, and accurate. It entails augmenting a model’s training sources with authoritative knowledge bases when necessary, keeping biases out of prompts, ensuring the privacy of any data used by the models, and scrutinizing suspect output. With reciprocal apprenticing, you tailor gen AI to your company’s specific business context by including rich organizational data and know-how into the commands you give it. As you become better at doing that, you yourself learn how to train the AI to tackle more-sophisticated challenges.

The AI revolution is already here. Learning these three skills will prepare you to thrive in it.

Generative artificial intelligence is expected to radically transform all kinds of jobs over the next few years. No longer the exclusive purview of technologists, AI can now be put to work by nearly anyone, using commands in everyday language instead of code. According to our research, most business functions and more than 40% of all U.S. work activity can be augmented, automated, or reinvented with gen AI. The changes are expected to have the largest impact on the legal, banking, insurance, and capital-market sectors—followed by retail, travel, health, and energy.

Partner Center