sex si negociere 1

8/13/2019 Sex Si Negociere 1

1/19

Carrie Menkel-Meadow is Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, 600 New Jersey Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20001. Email: [email protected]. She is currently Chair of the Georgetown-CPR Commission on Ethics and Standards for ADR. Professor Menkel-Meadow formerly was co-director of the Center for the Study of Women at the University of California at Los Angeles, where she taught in both the law school and the womens studies pro-gram. She also served as co-director of UCLAs Center for Racial and Ethnic Conflict Resolution.

0748-4526/00/1000-0357$18.00/0 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation Negotiation Journal October 2000 357

Teaching about Gender and Negotiation:Sex, Truths, and Videotape

Carrie Menkel-Meadow

Empirical evidence and theory frequently present conflicting observationsabout what, if any, role gender plays in negotiation. The author reviews thehistory of theory development on gender and negotiation, and suggeststhat the differing opinions present opportunities for a negotiation teacher.She offers a series of prescriptions on how to make the subject of gender integral to the negotiation class. Among the techniques she describes is theuse of videotape to combat the lie that sex is necessarily a determinant of the way one views or behaves in negotiation.

The continuing inconclusive debate about whether there are gender dif-

ferences in negotiation goals and behavior 1 offers a great opportunity for teaching about gender issues in negotiation theory and practice. Becauseboth theory and empirical research thus far provide conflicting claims and

widely disparate results such as the most recent studies conclusions thatmen negotiate significantly better outcomes than women (Stuhlmacher and Walters 1999); women behave more cooperatively than men (Walters,Stuhlmacher and Meyer 1998); women may obtain lower joint outcomes inintegrative bargaining because of a higher level of concern for the other (Calhoun and Smith 1999); but also that there are no statistically significant


2/19

differences in negotiation outcomes and performance between men and women (Craver and Barnes 1999) both teachers and students of negotia-tion can explore their perspectives on these claims without fear that there is

a simple dispositive answer to this timeless question. This presents an oppor-tunity for exploring the issues in many different ways in negotiationpedagogy and in negotiation practice. For anyone to baldly assert that thereare clear sex-based differences in negotiation behavior is simply a lie thesedays (research findings and practice are too complex to assert anything), andI can use videotape to demonstrate!

Why Do We Care? When the question of gendered behavior comes up, it is always useful to ask

why we care so much about whether there are gender differences in negoti-ation performance? Does it matter that women negotiate differently thanblue-eyed negotiators or tall people (if they do at all)? Whether women andmen conceptualize negotiation differently or whether the two gendersbehave differently in negotiation, there clearly is a perception that they might. These perceptions create stereotypes, expectations, and behaviorsthat themselves flow from these assumptions. Thus, we seek to understand

which of our default, preconceived, or learned assumptions are actually cor-rect and which are not. So, researchers continue to seek answers to

questions about gender difference (unfortunately, mostly in artificial labora-tory settings in social psychology departments) and practitioners continue toamass data through experience and anecdote in order to create descriptionsfrom which we might derive prescriptions.

For some looking at the gender question, there is the hope of takingadvantage of whatever gender-based attribute is thought to exist: Men can benaturally tough in distributive bargaining problems while women willmore collaboratively solve problems. Others seek to improve their perfor-mances by learning to change behaviors, away from stereotypic notions of

how they are expected to behave. So some women will seek to be more cau-tious about cooperatively sharing information when they don t know how it will be used, and some men will work harder at listening better.

For most of us with any sophistication about gender and negotiation, we know that as the conditions and situations of negotiated problems vary,so too will the salience and the expression of gender. Thus, the most effec-tive pedagogy about gender and negotiation is to explore both when gender is or might be salient in a negotiation and when and how the significance of gender (in the demographics of the negotiators and the content of negoti-

ated issues) might and does vary. We are hopefully past the days of the simplest gender stereotyping men are competitive, women are cooperative; men talk and interrupt more,

women use tentative language and seek to please the other; men threatenand assert; women seek to please and concede too much, although as therecent research cited above suggests, there may be some truth in some of

358 Carrie Menkel-Meadow Sex, Truths, and Videotape


3/19

Negotiation Journal October 2000 359

the stereotypes, at least under certain conditions . If we have learned any-thing from the hundreds of studies conducted on gender and negotiation(studies before 1975 are summarized in Rubin and Brown [1975]; more

recent studies are discussed in Watson [1994]), it is that in negotiation gen-der (though a constant for the individual negotiator) is dynamic andinteractive that is, its significance and expression varies under differentconditions and in different situations.

From a pedagogical perspective, it is important to teach about gender and negotiation in a nuanced, and not superficial, way which accounts for the contestedness and complexity of the issues. In thinking about teachingabout gender we should ask ourselves several key questions: Why do wecare about gender (in this particular context, setting, situation)? What are

the underlying theories or assumptions that inform our questions about gen-der? What, if anything, do we know empirically, about the operation of gender in this particular negotiation setting? And what questions should webe asking or analyzing in studying and teaching about gender in any particu-lar negotiation? This essay reviews some of the issues implicated in teachingabout gender and negotiation and suggests a variety of different ways of exploring these issues in negotiation classes and workshops.

Gender Theory in Negotiation

First, it is useful to stop and ask what is gendered in our own negotiationtheory and practices (Gray 1994). Whether teaching traditional competitive,distributive bargaining models or the more likely canon of readers of this

journal, integrative, problem-solving or principled negotiation, where do our concepts come from? As others have noted with respect to cultural assump-tions about our negotiation goals (Avruch 2000), even Getting to YES may be riddled with assumed universalisms like seeking objective criteria, sep-arating the people from the problem and exploring interests. If thoseprinciples, developed by expert male negotiators in particular contexts

(international, consumer, legal, and commercial disputes) were elaboratedby women or in other negotiation contexts, they might look different. For example, when would subjective criteria be the more appropriate choice if it makes you feel better, let s do it that way (especially if the other sideof a negotiation is a loved one, a repeat customer, or a former enemy you aretrying to make peace with)? Why do we look for those self-regarding, Hobbe-sian interests behind the positions, rather than the basic human needs or

wants, going beyond what a negotiation principal might articulate and exam-ine what might actually be his, her, or its (an institution s) real needs ?2

This distinction between interests and needs or concerns may seemonly semantic. I prefer to see them as additive; however, interests and needsactually represent, in shorthand, a feminist critique of the very goals of nego-tiation activity. There may be very different content to what is needed or

what one s interests are. Even if defined as instrumental joint gain (animprovement over individual maximization), the goals of a negotiation that


4/19

seeks to maximize joint interests does not necessarily consider whether theprimary or basic social needs of the parties have been met, whether justicehas been done, or whether there are benefits or harms to those standing out-

side of the negotiation.Thus, at least one gendered critique of negotiation theory is that the very goals of a negotiation may be situationally differentiated (social welfare vs. Pareto-optimality for the parties) and gender itself might construct differ-ent goals in different situations (relationship, family, international,environmental) which clearly might affect how those goals might be pur-sued (differentiated behaviors). Are we to meet, share, satisfy, satisfice, fulfill,or maximize needs or interests? All negotiation concepts might have gen-dered valences. And, as Roger Fisher and his various colleagues have now

recognized,3

not all genders would necessarily separate the people from theproblem. Even if it makes analytic sense to focus on the substance of theproblem, the people may be the problem to be solved. To the extent thatfeminist theory has controversially focused on women s particular concernsabout the relationship aspect of negotiations, 4 then once again the theoriesand canons of our practice may need to be reexamined in light of how both genders would define and describe their negotiation goals, purposes, andimplementations. A good teacher, then, begins by questioning whether theconcepts she is teaching are themselves gendered, and reflects on what

might be elaborated and expanded upon by being viewed from other per-spectives. 5This sensitivity to the gendered nature of negotiation theory has its

counterweight in the contested nature of gender itself and thus requires thenegotiation teacher to be somewhat conversant in the controversies of gen-der theory (Menkel-Meadow and Diamond 1991). In both law and theconstituent social science disciplines which inform negotiation research andpractice (game theory, economics, psychology, communications, anthropol-ogy, sociology, political science and international relations), feminists and

gender theorists have queried the assumed universalisms of their fields whenthe knowledge creators have mostly been men. Thus, gender theory in each field initially sought to understand whether including the second sex (deBeauvoir 1949) as not just another variable but as a different viewpoint,might transform the very concepts of the field. Consider whether twofemale prisoners would both rationally defect. Might it not depend on such relational possibilities as one being the mother of the other or the two beingsisters? Such an outpouring of feminist difference scholarship, reinventingcategories, suggesting new ones and developing new theories as occurred in

a variety of disciplines and subfields has not really prospered in negotiationtheory. (Perhaps because the male canon of integrative bargaining or jointgain seemed so female-friendly [in theory, if not in practice 6]?)

This first wave of scholarship spawned a second wave of critique thatfeared a new essentialism, and called greater attention to assumed universalgender differences (in theories and in behaviors) than both equality feminists



5/19


(Epstein 1988) and diversity feminists (Harris 1990) were willing to tolerate.For equality feminists, the genders were on average more alike than differ-ent, and differences in the tails of distribution of behaviors by gender were

made too much of. For such

sameness

theorists, men and women are morealike than different, and human variation includes as much difference withingender categories as between them. So, for example, we might find both female and male attorneys in the categories of competitive or cooperative or effective or ineffective negotiators (Williams 1979). Diversity feminists focusedinstead on the differences among women, by race, ethnicity, class, and other dimensions, casting doubt on whether there was such a viable concept or testable variable as a woman s way of being, or negotiating.

This, in turn, raised the question of why the gender problem in nego-

tiation (or any other field of human activity) has so often beenconceptualized as the woman problem. The gender question becomes theexpression of the woman problem Why are women less effective innegotiation, less competitive, achieving lower monetary or point outcomes,rather than, why are men less likely to place value on relationship preserva-tion or less likely to process and hear information? Thus, if we focus ongender in negotiation we must note that there are two genders and thatmale negotiating behavior (if such a thing exists) is just as problematic and

worth scrutinizing as female negotiation behavior. 7 The deconstruction of

false gender labels is often just as empowering to men (who want to be col-laborative and information sharing in negotiation without the stigma of being a negotiation sissy ) as it is to women who are strong interest-maxi-mizing competitors.

To the extent that gender is now argued to be socially constructed (by a variety of social forces, including situation), whether gender exists andhow it is constructed in a particular negotiation is as interesting an aspectof negotiation analysis as any other aspect of a negotiation process that wemight study or observe. The operation of gender is itself more variable.

Mothers are now professionals as well as mothers; thus, individuals occupy a variety of social roles that may influence behavior, mediated through a vari-ety of different social categories of being. And, the significance of gender might change within any interaction itself. To the extent that a woman feelsshe is the same as a man (in a negotiation context), but is treated differ-ently by a man who has more conventional gendered expectations, her reactions might change (whether to deal with the gender issue explicitly,conform to gender type, or respond with a strong counter-gender behav-ior), depending on the situation, context, and the other negotiator(s).

The question of what difference a difference of gender (Eisenstein and Jardine 1985) makes certainly seems to be elusive in the aggregations of datasupplied by laboratory studies, but is apparently still endlessly fascinating inthe individual cases we analyze and tell stories about. Gender theory pre-sents different explanations or sources for whatever gender differences may be thought to exist (which are replicated below in how negotiation analysts


6/19

have theorized the role of gender in negotiation), including biological essen-tialism, socialization, power and dominance theories, and situational andinteractive differences in the expression of gendered characteristics (see, for

example: Deaux [1976]; Maccoby and Jacklin [1974]; Kantor [1977]; Henley [1977]; Hennig and Jardim [1977]; Fausto-Sterling [1985]; Tavris [1992]; Tan-nen [1993], Thorne [1993]; and Hess and Ferree [1987]).

The effects of gender as a variable in negotiation practice have them-selves been theorized, and students of negotiation should be aware of both the theory and the empirical tests of those theories. Sources of presumedgender differences in negotiation are now analyzed in at least four basic cate-gories. The most conventional and standard explanation for gender differences in negotiation behavior is socialization : Men and women are

simply socialized in different ways and to value things differently, which pro-duces different expectations, behaviors, perceptions, outcomes, and levelsof satisfaction in negotiation. So, as the standard story goes, men are morecompetitive, assertive, direct, have higher expectations, achieve more for themselves (and their clients in agent situations), but may also be more stub-born, less creative and problem solving and less focused on relationship

while more focused on task and self. Women are accommodating, fear com-petition, have excessive concern for the other, but are better listeners, seek integrative and fair solutions and are most comfortable when negotiating

with other women. Though the socialization theory is prevalent and basic(and actually covers for the even more basic biological determinism which no one seriously argues for in our field anymore), it actually has notbeen tested. If gender socialization is the crucial variable, then we shouldlook at differences based on actual socialization practices. After a reading of portions of Carol Gilligan s In a Different Voice in my negotiation classes, Ialways ask students to reflect on and report on their own socialization expe-riences. What we learn is that, like most conceptions of gender as acategory, gender socialization is itself a dynamic and changing process.

Women have now participated in team sports, men have taken danceclasses, both boys and girls have been reared by single mothers, with or without siblings, children have been reared by substitute parents when both parents are working, so that conventional and gendered patterns of socializa-tion may be breaking down somewhat. 8 To fully test socialization theories,negotiators would have to be sorted by different socialization practices(across genders) and then we could see if gender differences in negotiationstill persisted.

A more common explanation for gender difference is that of situa-

tional power (or social structure or place as Deborah Kolb calls it (Kolb1992). Since women have less access to power and the powerful are moreefficacious in negotiation, then power, not gender, determines negotiationoutcomes. To the extent that women achieve positions of power, they too

will exhibit the characteristics of powerful and efficacious negotiators(whether from a competitive or an integrative perspective). Status or power,



7/19


then, is the real variable. And, since gender is merely correlated with low power or low status, findings of gender differences are artifacts of a different

variable relationship.

Others argue that gender and status operate in an additive model thatcan produce more complex dynamics in assessing negotiating behavior. Women in positions of high power will exhibit different negotiating behav-iors and achieve different outcomes than men in high-power settings, and

women and men with little power likewise behave differently. One study, for example, found that women in some lower-power settings are, in fact, themost stubborn and competitive of negotiators, particularly when confrontedby negotiation partners who are high-power males (Watson 1994). Low-power males were more inclined to withdraw. To this so-called additive

model, I would add the notion of gender plus (or gender minus), that is,gender as a demographic characteristic that interacts not only with power and status, but also with other demographic characteristics of the negotia-tors. As dimensions separate from power crudely defined, race, ethnicity,class, occupation, familial status, and other sociological statuses will interactdifferentially with gender to produce different negotiation expectations,goals, and behaviors. Ian Ayres studies of negotiations in the car purchasingarena, for example, found that black females were the most disadvantaged inthe prices demanded of them (Ayres 1991 and 1995). This gender plus the-

ory, then, acknowledges that gender is a separate prism through which other demographic factors may be refracted each negotiator brings an inter-sectionality (Crenshaw 1989) of a variety of personal characteristics which may affect perceptions and expectations of the other and may constrain thenegotiation repertoires available for any negotiator.

Finally, a more modern theory which seeks to beg the question of essentialist or innate differences suggests that perhaps others stereotypicexpectations of gender-conforming behaviors will produce such behaviorsor at least influence behavioral choices and outcomes. This last theory is

often the most sophisticated at recognizing that negotiations are interactive,and thus different behaviors and outcomes may depend on whether thenegotiation pair is same sex or mixed sex and may depend on the size anduniformity of gender composition of each negotiation team. To the extentthat how one behaves in a negotiation is interdependent with the other negotiators behavior (whether in a dyadic or multiparty negotiation), gen-dered behavior will be socially constructed from the interaction of theexpectations, choices, and behaviors that each party enacts in relation tothe perceptions, behaviors, and assumed assumptions of the others. The

gendered quality of negotiation behavior may shift from moment tomoment as participants enact behaviors, confront them, respond to them,ignore them, shift them, or engage in any number of infinitely complicatedmaneuvers around or through gender stereotyping. Thus, negotiation behav-iors may be a particularly rich, albeit difficult, environment in which to test


8/19

the post-modern and ever-changing enactments of self and other through the constructed and interpretative moves of the negotiation dance.

Recent meta-reviews of empirical studies of gender differences in nego-

tiation (Watson 1994; Walters and Stuhlmacher 1998; Craver and Barnes1999) have somewhat disconcertingly replicated the earlier work of Rubinand Brown (1975). The empirical results are all over the map. For every study which seems to suggest some gender difference (women are morecooperative; men are more competitive), there is another that finds no statis-tically significant difference in negotiation performance, whether measuredby integrative and joint gain outcomes or by more competitive outcomes.Some of the studies have pointed to the situational or moderating factor complexity (such as one study which demonstrates that overly cooperative

women may actually achieve poorer joint gain solutions because they set-tle too early, do not probe for more information, or fail to hold on to their own interests [Calhoun and Smith 1999]), but this is consistent with research that finds similar results for friends or others in close relationships

who bargain with each other (Bazerman 2000).One useful frame from which to analyze these studies, when assigned

to students for reading, discussion and critique, is the source of sample. My own review of this literature reveals that most of the data on which we baseour empirical conclusions about negotiation behavior are social psychology

laboratory simulations, prisoner dilemma games and, more recently, somedata from negotiation courses in law, international relations, and businessschools. Very few of these studies measure negotiation performance inactual negotiations where real situational power and statuses actually dodifferentiate the negotiators, which is not usually the case in student set-tings. Interestingly, the findings from law school negotiation classes almostuniformly find no gender differences in outcomes, though a recent study (Farber and Rickenberg 1999) documents a common result of lower satisfac-tion and confidence in women negotiators, even when their outcomes were

the same as male students. (Of course, another way to express this is thatthe men were overconfident and too self-satisfied!)

Teaching StrategiesSo, given the complexity of empirical findings and competing theories, how does one teach about gender? My answers are pervasively, complexedly, par-ticipatorily, and in multi-media formats. Because we, as scholars,practitioners, and teachers are still as curious about these questions as areour students, the study of gender in negotiation is an especially rich area for

mutual and cooperative learning. Some of the ways in which the richnessand contestability of the material can add to the learning are summarized inthe following prescriptive principles:

1. Recognize that gender and gender theory is itself dynamic and changing. Students have been socialized differently than many of us have.Many have studied gender and culture more rigorously in university programs



9/19


than have we. (I seldom encounter a law student these days who has not beenexposed to Carol Gilligan or Deborah Tannen in college.) Be prepared to learnfrom your students and create and use exercises throughout a negotiation

course that explore the differences, along all dimensions, of your students.Essentialist claims about gender, race, identity, etc. are disfavored in many cir-cles; instead, explore how gender interacts with other characteristics.

2. If you teach about gender in negotiation, you should read gender theory literature and empirical scholarship. Gender studies explore thecomplex ways in which gender is understood in our culture and to teach gender and negotiation one needs to be conversant in this literature just asone must understand game theory to teach prisoner s dilemma games innegotiation courses.

3. Talk about gender issues pervasively and in context (along withother similar topics). Don t simply reserve a single class for the gender andrace and culture aspects of negotiation. These are not discrete variables innegotiation, but are always already operating in negotiations and simulations.

When the issue comes up in class, address it and discuss it in the context of particular negotiation problems, simulations, and questions. Make it a part of the list of issues that you explore along with all others. This prevents it frombeing marginalized or trivialized on the one day that it blows up 9 or comesup in a particular setting.

4. Assign some of the research studies and rigorous theory for classdiscussion. To the extent that the research studies probably match students disparate views about how gender operates in negotiation, discussion canbe both realistic, stimulating, theory-developing and helpful at the sametime. Stereotype-breaking behaviors and perspectives can be helpful toall students both those who fear they fulfill stereotypes and want tochange behaviors and those who feel they deviate from conventional gen-der expectations.

5. Explore the contradictions and complexity in the material. My ownpersonal favorite issue at the moment is to explore the contradictory claimsthat women, who are claimed to be less powerful, are disadvantaged innegotiation and mediation settings (Grillo 1991), but are more likely to beexpert in talking, communication (Tannen 1990), and collaborative problemsolving. 10

6. Explore gender issues in simulations and videotaped illustrationsof negotiations as part of the agenda of debriefing and discussion (dis-cussed more fully in the next section).

7. Encourage students to explore their own questions and issuesabout gender roles in negotiation. Over the years, many of my studentshave done research, reflection and empirical papers on gender issues innegotiation. Analyze and discuss real-world issues as they come up, pre-


10/19

sented by students or films and television programs depicting negotiationsessions (Menkel-Meadow 1999).

8. Be aware of your own gender power. How gender is raised, dis-cussed and considered in any negotiation teaching situation depends on how the instructor presents it and who the instructor is. The gender dynamics inmy classes, I suspect, are different (since I am a female, middle-aged, well-pub-lished feminist scholar, as well as a negotiation teacher and scholar) from thosein classes led by older white men or younger men or women instructors.

9. Consider what your teaching goals are. Mine are to acknowledgethat gender may matter in negotiation in conceptualization of goals, inbehaviors, and possibly even in outcomes but that how it matters is very complicated and worth thinking about and planning for, as one would planfor any other issue in a negotiation. Planning issues include: How am I likely to be perceived? How am I perceiving the other side? Who else should webring along? What, if anything, should be done to counteract stereotypicexpectations? How should I present myself? How should I prepare for thenegotiation? Who should do the opening? The brainstorming or bargaining?The closing? What might need to be said explicitly? What might be managedtacitly (clothing, room set-ups, team coordination, task specialization, etc.)?

What should be considered afterward? Evaluation? Leaving openers?

Some ExamplesTo illustrate some of the different (and multi-media) ways in which I teach about gender and negotiation, let me give three examples.

Like many of us, I use the Thomas-Kilmann MODE (management of dif-ferences exercise) paper and pencil test (Thomas 1975) of modes of conflictresolution behavior, following one of the negotiation simulations in my course. After the students have completed the 30-item test and totaled their scores in the five different categories (competing, accommodating, compro-mising, avoiding, and collaborating), I ask them to physically movethemselves into groups representing their scores. In the groups, I ask themto consider the advantages and disadvantages of this quality and then to look around the room to comment on whether there are any observations to bemade about where others in the class have appeared. In some years, thereare obvious gender groupings more men as competitors, more women asaccommodators. Often the students express disbelief in how someonetested, when their experience of that person was different in prior simula-tions. In any event, this is a good place to discuss gender and whether thesemodes of conflict handling 11 are thought to be gender related, either in the-ory or in practice, when utilized immediately following a particular negotiation. Students can compare their self-scores with what others in theclass have experienced about them, based on prior exercises, so there aremultiple layers of information and data to explore about this issue.



11/19


As a second example, I integrate discussion of gender in both individualand class debriefings of videotaped negotiation simulations. In my negotia-tion course (taught in a law school, occasionally with some business

students, foreign lawyers, government officials, and others enrolled), each student participates in several videotaped simulations each semester (with atleast one litigation/dispute and one transactional negotiation). At least onenegotiation is conducted one-on-one and at least one is conducted in teams(usually, but not always two-on-two). The simulations I use are my own, writ-ten over a twenty-year period of teaching, and are drawn from real cases,

with rich and dynamically changing facts (real people play clients to the stu-dents lawyer roles and thus individually vary their personal preferences andnegotiation goals within a given set of facts, designed to contain both dis-

tributive and integrative elements). Each class usually presents a rich mix of gendered variations female and male clients, female and male lawyers,same-sex negotiation pairs, mixed-sex negotiation pairs, mixed teams andsame-sex teams, same-sex multiparty groups and mixed-sex multiparty groups. (Despite the obvious studiable matrices here, I have never systemati-cally aggregated gender behaviors or outcomes for all my years of teaching,though I keep informal data collections for each individual class, which Idestroy at the end of the semester. 12 )

When debriefing a videotaped simulation, I ask students to self-describe

their negotiation goals and then ask them to conduct (both orally with meand other students, then written, after the debriefing) a self-critique of their performances, in light of their own goals and planned for and perceivedgoals of the other parties. This allows gender issues to emerge naturalisti-cally, if students raise them on their own, and if not, I may ask specificperformance or planning questions that will elicit issues or concerns aboutgender, such as: How did you plan to deal with the other side? Was thereanything in how the other side approached you that you found surprising,interesting, troubling? Did you assign specific subject matter expertise or

specific tasks to particular members of the team? Why or why not? What par-ticular attributes did you find useful/helpful/troubling/problematic in your own team or in the other team? What instructions, if any, did you have from

your client, on this issue/behavior? What if anything, can we note, frombody language, word choices, metaphors used (Thornburg 1995)?

If gender issues are raised by students, I ask how the other side per-ceived the issue. Gender, like culture or race, may be differentially perceivedand experienced (Gadlin 1994). It is often rewarding to explore how differ-ent perceptions of how gender operated in particular interactions may have

affected communication and bargaining patterns or behaviors. Sometimes when an issue is particularly salient for a student (a woman who feels she isnot assertive enough, a man who fears he is being too cooperative), it canbecome a part of the learning agenda an issue for both me and the stu-dent to watch in subsequent interactions.


12/19

Because negotiation students in a classroom setting (or a multiday workshop) have repeated interactions with each other, these issues can betracked and compared in different contexts and in interactions with different

people. For example, for many years now, there have always been a number of students quite hostile to the problem-solving, Getting to YES canon (Zim-merman 2000; White 1981) who insist that it is a dog-eat-dog, zero-sum,competitive world of scarce resources (especially in the litigation environ-ment) in which strong, assertive, and competitive behaviors are always mostappropriate. In my classes, such students have been mostly, but not exclu-sively, male. When they identify themselves (as they usually do in classdiscussions or through aggressive behavior demonstrated in the many in-class simulations we do), other students consider and prepare their strategies

for interacting with these students (complicated for them by a belief that I will reward them for collaborative problem-solving behaviors and Pareto-optimal outcomes).

Thus, behaviors, both strategic and gendered, will vary depending on whom one perceives one s opponent to be and I rotate (not predictably) stu-dent assignments so that they must develop plans and different behavioralrepertoires for different kinds of student-partners and opponents. The advan-tage of a class conducted over time is that it allows context, repeat play,reputation and experimentation with new behaviors all to coexist and, when

it works well, to maximize the learning environment. If gender is seen as anissue, by a student or by me, it will be raised as it emerges from the negotia-tion activity generated by the course, in its full complexity and context.

As was demonstrated in the videotape I presented at the Hewlett 2000Negotiation Pedagogy conference this past spring, different participants

viewing the tape (of a multiparty contractual-transactional-business negotia-tion) drew different conclusions from their observations of the samebehaviors. Where a very attractive woman wearing a relatively low-cutsweater was seen by some to be playing the role of an ineffective female,

others saw her as using her sexual power to gain force and strength in anegotiation with many parties, but with a particularly strong male on theother side.

These reactions (taken somewhat out of context by one-shot viewers) were surprising to me (and the participants in the videotape who had cometo know each other so well during many repeat play negotiations in acourse, that they interpreted their behavior as casual and relaxed, rather than sexualized 13 ). The woman in question had been one of the most wellprepared, intelligent and solution-seeking students in the course, and I had

not noticed her clothing or body language much. Rather, I focused more onher words and analysis, thus demonstrating that gender may be in the eyes of the beholder and differentially beheld, depending on the context and rela-tionship of the negotiators. To truthfully debrief such videotapes, one

would have to ask the participants to report (perhaps as in simultaneoustranslation), exactly what they were thinking at the moment of an action or



13/19


reaction in a negotiation. Whether any particular moment of gendered behavior or reaction actually affects the overall outcome requires close atten-tion to the full text (both verbal and nonverbal) of the particular negotiation.

In reviewing parts of videotapes with a whole class, gender can bemade an issue for all to observe, either by simply waiting for class-generatedgender observations to emerge or through more pointed, instructor-sug-gested questions, such as: What observations do you have, if any, about how gender may have affected these (particular) interactions 14? What might Mark or Susan have done differently to deal with x ? Have others of you experi-enced this issue/dilemma? What have you done?

Such questions should be interspersed with references to the literatureon gender differences so that students can compare, contrast, and explain

how their own behavior does or does not comport with the research find-ings. (My own experience is that gender relations in negotiations, at least inlaw schools, is dynamic and changes from class to class, dependent on thegender ratio and critical masses in the class, the force-field of the argumentsabout appropriate theoretical and behavioral models, and the other classesthat students are taking. My own unsystematic conclusion is that conven-tional gender stereotypes of negotiation behavior are becoming lesscommon, at least among the equals of students in a class. 15 This is a highly contextual conclusion, of course, and may be different for those who teach

in single-sex environments, single gender-dominant environments, or in situ-ations or workshops with differential power dynamics. 16 )Finally, perhaps the best way to explore gender issues is to have stu-

dents rigorously pursue their own research and practice interests and tostudy their own hypotheses about gender interactions in negotiation. Thispast year, when I casually opined that, after viewing all the videotaped simu-lations from my negotiation class, I was prepared to announce that all gender stereotypes had been defied (as a rule, the woman did more talking, agendasetting, topic control, substantive solution suggesting and brainstorming

than the men in the class, which was split 50-50 in enrollment), one studentdecided to rigorously test my observation. After obtaining permission from the other students in the class to view

their videotaped negotiation simulations, Mona Ross performed a detailedcontent analysis of all of the mixed gender negotiations for one of the prob-lems. In addition to content analysis, she coded such items as talk time,agenda setting and agenda control, interruptions, questioning, informationrequests, responses, listening, expressions of empathy or understanding of other sides stated needs, interests, preferences, assertions, threats, voice

quality and tone (soft, loud, quick, slow), nonverbal displays (head nodding,posture), emotional variability/volatility, persistence, solution suggestions,offer patterns, agreement drafting, use of principles to respond or request,and the nature of discussion topics introduced and responded to (law, facts,needs, relationship concerns, options, etc.). I report some of her findings inher own words (Ross 2000):


14/19

In general, these negotiation sessions deviated quite dramatically from gen-der-stereotype assumptions about men and women negotiators. In all butone group, the woman took control early on and dictated the direction of the negotiation throughout the session. In the only group that did not fol-low this pattern, Bob seemed to try to take control, but Jane held her ground primarily by asking pointed questions and demanding Bob giveprincipled reasons for his assertions. Thus, it seems that when a womanfinds herself up against a competitive male, practicing principled negotia-tion may in fact be an equalizing force.

For their part, most of the men were better listeners than the women afinding that seems to contradict a wealth of research that says men arepoor listeners. In almost every session, the woman interrupted the menmore often than vice versa. The women also often spoke with great forceand assertiveness, while one or two of the men, in contrast, were quitepassive and cautious in their language.

The women also seemed to employ more repertoires than the men. The women would shift from sounding empathetic for their own client or their opponent s client to behaving quite forward and aggressive. They seemedprepared to turn on and turn off their competitive side.

The fact that these negotiations took place within the context of a law school course about negotiation is crucial. Training and education canhelp reduce differences between male and female negotiators. . . .Gender parity in the classroom and greater equality in the legal profession as a

whole, may finally be impacting the manner in which male and female law students resolve disputes. By behaving out of type, these women may help eliminate the perception that women are less adept negotiators. Themore men and women learn to broaden their repertoires, the sooner weare likely to break the cycle of gender stereotyping in legal negotiations.

Obviously, one law school course with a small n of studied negotiationscannot substitute for the many years of research conducted in a variety of other settings. At the same time, this in-depth study sought to explore, with the tools of conversation and content analysis, the quality of the negotiationprocess, as well as its outcomes.

The rigorous research and paper written by Mona Ross are importantfor those of us who teach negotiation for several reasons. In process, it dis-plays the possibility of new knowledge generated by the work of a new generation of negotiation students, scholars and practitioners, using rela-tively newer teaching and research technologies (videotaped negotiations,coding protocols developed by prior researchers) to explore age-old ques-tions. In substance, it provides a sophisticated and hopeful analysis thatgender stereotypes are breaking down and negotiation repertoires arebecoming more attuned to the context of substantive negotiation situationsas more and more students are taught to negotiate, rather than to improvisefrom and react to untutored assumptions.



15/19


NOTES

This essay is based on a talk delivered at the Hewlett 2000 Conference: Focus on Negotiation Ped-agogy at Harvard University, 11 March 2000. The author would like to express her thanks to:

Howard Gadlin for comments; the participants in the Hewlett 2000 Negotiation Pedagogy Confer-ence for a stimulating conversation about these issues; Margaret Martin for research assistance;and as always, Bill Breslin, for good counsel and editing.

1. For some of the classic expositions of this debate, in both theoretical and empirical forms,see for example: Rubin and Brown (1975); Kolb and Coolidge (1991); Menkel-Meadow (1994 and1985); Craver (1990); Ayres (1991); Weingarten and Douvan (1985); Watson (1994); Gwartney-Gibbs and Lach (1991); Jack and Jack (1989); and Burton, Farmer, Gee, Johnson, and Williams(1991).

2. I labeled the concerns of parties in a negotiation as needs, as well as interests, in an arti-cle on negotiation from a social justice perspective. See Menkel-Meadow (1984). Others have usedthe same terminology in the international setting. For example, see Burton (1990).

3. Fisher and Brown (1988) and Stone, Patton and Heen (1999).4. For example, see Gilligan (1982); Menkel-Meadow (1994); Tannen (1990); and Landry andDonnellon (1999). For a really distressing distortion of gender difference, see H. Rubin (1997), in

which women are advised to use their special female traits to negotiate strategically (and com-petitively and shrewdly) to get what they want in a man s world. Of course, men too haveemphasized other aspects of the negotiation process, such as the relationship, identity, and social

justice concerns of recognition and empowerment (Baruch Bush and Folger [1994]).5. This essay is concerned primarily with gender but much of what is said here can be consid-

ered in relation to other diversity, identity, or cultural issues in negotiation. Whose theories andpractices define what the goal in a negotiation is and how negotiation should be practiced andevaluated?

6. Some of our most important concepts do, in fact, come from a woman Mary Parker Fol-

lett. For a sampling of her work, along with commentaries by today s scholars, see Graham (1995).See also Davis (1991); Kolb (1995); and Menkel-Meadow (2000).7. Modern gender theory actually problematizes the existence of only two genders, not only

in biological categories (Kessler and McKenna 1978), but in cultural ones as well (Butler 1990).8. And of course, may raise the difficult question of whether some gender difference may be

biological, if not cultural, where socialization processes are similar but gender differences remain.9. As it did once for me when three male students froze out the one female in their negotia-

tion group by talking about sports she didn t follow, and then taunted her with sexual innuendos. As I watched the session from a separate viewing room, it was clear she expected me, the instruc-tor, to come and rescue her (I didn t) from what she thought was inappropriate classroombehavior. Since my simulations are supposed to simulate the real world, I did not intervene andinstead the whole class, later watching the videotape, had to analyze what she might have done

and what behaviors she might want to develop to deal with such situations in the real world. (Iregard the classroom of a negotiation course as a real world.)10. Similar contradictions exist in the critical race literature. While the same scholar asserts

that minorities will be disadvantaged in mediation processes because of their relative powerless-ness (Delgado 1985), in other contexts he asserts that minorities before the law will beempowered by using narrative strategies (Delgado 1989), a process most likely to be used in medi-ation or negotiation settings where talk is not constrained by formal legal evidence rules.

11. It is useful to point out that the Thomas-Kilmann test was developed for the use of pre-sumed male business managers and, in its original form, was deeply sexist (all the parties arehe s ). I use a modernized h/s/he language form of the test.

12. In my view, and at most universities, the collection of formal data for publication pur-poses from one s own students requires Human Subjects Experimentation and Protection

committee approval.13. Could this also be a general phenomenon of older teachers not seeing the changedcasual cross-gender interactions that seem more sexualized to those of us from a different age?

14. Mary Rowe suggests playing videotapes without the sound to analyze the nonverbal con-duct and messages conveyed.

15. Charles Craver (1990) also notes that the shared experience and expert training of anegotiation class may minimize gender differences within the class setting. (Craver 1990).


16/19

16. For example, negotiation workshops in corporate, governmental or other organizationalcontexts in which hierarchies of employees and managers participate together or, as I have beendoing for years, gender-segregated negotiation workshops for women lawyers or women managers.

REFERENCES AND A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Author s Note: This list includes all works cited in the essay and includes several other relevantsources on the issues of gender differences in negotiation.

Aries, E. 1996. Men and women in interaction: Reconsidering the differences. New York:Oxford University Press.

Avruch, K., 2000. Culture and negotiation pedagogy. Negotiation Journal 16(4): 339-346. Ayres, I. 1991. Fair driving; Gender and race discrimination in retail car negotiations. Harvard

Law Review 104: 817-872.

. 1995. Further evidence of discrimination in new car negotiations and estimates of itscause. Michigan Law Review 94: 109-47.Bartlett, K. 1995. Tradition, change and the idea of progress in feminist legal thought. Wisconsin

Law Review 1995: 303-343.Baruch Bush, R. and J. P. Folger, 1994. The promise of mediation . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Bazerman, M., J. Curhan, and D. Moore. 2000. The death and rebirth of the social psychology of

negotiation. In Handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal processes , edited by G.Fletcher and M. Clark. London: Blackwell s.

Burrell, N. et.al. 1988. Gender-based perceptual biases in mediation. Communication Research447-453.

Burton, J. 1990. Conflict: Human needs theory. New York: St. Martin s Press.Burton, L., L. Farmer, E. Gee, L. Johnson, and G. Williams. 1991. Feminist theory, professional

ethics and gender-related distinctions in attorney negotiating styles. Journal of Dispute Res- olution 1991(2): 199-251.Butler, J. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Calhoun, P. and W.P. Smith. 1999. Integrative bargaining: Does gender make a difference? The

International Journal of Conflict Management 10: 203-224.Cobb S. and J. Rifkin. 1991. Practice and paradox: Deconstructing neutrality in mediation. Law &

Social Inquiry 16: 35-62.Conley, J. and W. M. O Barr. 1998. Just words: Law, language and power. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.Craver, C. 1990. The impact of gender on clinical negotiating achievement. Ohio State Journal of

Dispute Resolution 6: 1-18.Craver, C. and D. Barnes, 1999. Gender, risk taking, and negotiation performance. Michigan Jour-

nal on Gender & Law 5: 299-352.Crenshaw, K. 1989. Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago

Legal Forum 1989: 139-167.Croson, R and N. Buchan. 1999. Gene and culture: International experimental evidence from trust

games. American Economic Review 89: 386-91.Davis, A. 1991. An interview with Mary Parker Follett. In Negotiation theory and practice , edited

by J.W. Breslin and J. Z. Rubin. Cambridge, Mass.: PON Books (The Program on Negotiationat Harvard Law School).

DeBeauvoir, S. 1949. The second sex. New York: Knopf.Deaux, K. 1976. The behavior of women and men. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole.Delgado, R. and C. Dunn. 1985. Fairness and formality: Mimimizing the risk of prejudice in alterna-

tive dispute resolution. Wisconsin Law Review 1985: 1359-1404. . 1989. Storytelling for oppositionists and others: A plea for narrative. Michigan Law Review 87: 2411-2441.

Eagly, A.H. 1987. Sex differences in social behavior: A social role interpretation. Hillsdale, N.J.:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Eisenstein, H. and A. Jardine 1985. The future of difference. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Univer-sity Press.



17/19


Epstein, C. F., 1988. Deceptive distinctions: Sex gender and the social order. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Farber S. R. and M. Rickenberg. 1999. Underconfident women and over-confident men: Gender and sense of competence in a simulated negotiation. Yale Journal of Law & Feminism 11:

271-303.Fausto-Sterling, A. 1985. Myths of gender: Biological theories about women and men. New York:Basic Books.

Fisher, R., W. Ury, and B. Patton. 1991. Getting to YES: Negotiating agreement without giving in.2nd. ed. New York: Penguin.

Fisher, R. and S. Brown 1988. Getting together: Building a relationship that gets to YES. Boston:Houghton Mifflin.

Gadlin H. 1994. Conflict resolution, cultural differences and the culture of racism. Negotiation Journal 10(1): 33-47.

Graham, P., ed. 1995. Mary Parker Follett: Prophet of management: A celebration of writings from the 1920s. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Gilkey R.W. and L. Greenhalgh. 1991. The role of personality in successful negotiating. In Negotia-

tion theory and practice , edited by J.W. Breslin and J.Z. Rubin. Cambridge, Mass. : PONBooks (The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School).Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice: Psychological theory and women s development. Cam-

bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Gray, B., 1994. The gender-based foundations of negotiation theory. Research on negotiation in

organizations 4: 3-36. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.Greatbatch D. and R. Dingwall. 1989. Selective facilitation: Some preliminary observations on a

strategy used by divorce mediators. Law & Society Review 23: 613-41.Grillo T. 1991. The mediation alternative: Process dangers for women. Yale Law Journal 100:

1545-1610.Gwartney-Gibbs and D. Lach. 1991. Workplace dispute resolution and gender inequality. Negotia-

tion Journal 7(2): 187-199.

Halpern, J. and J. M. Parks. 1996. Vive la difference: Differences between males and females inprocess and outcomes in a low-conflict negotiation. The International Journal of Conflict Management 7: 45-70.

Hare-Mustin R. and J. Marecek. 1988. The meaning of difference: Gender theory, postmodernismand psychology. American Psychologist 43: 455-464.

Harris, A. 1990. Race and essentialism in feminist legal theory. Stanford Law Review 42: 581-616.Hartwell S. 1992. Women negotiating: Assertiveness and relatedness. In Constructing and recon-

structing gender: The links among communication, language and gender , edited by L.A.M. Perry, L. Turner, and H. Sterk. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Heen, S. 1996. Defining gender differences: Is the proof in the process? Negotiation Journal 12(1): 9-17.

Henley, N. 1977. Body politics: Power, sex and non-verbal communication. Englewood, N.J.:

Prentice-Hall.Hennig, M. and A. Jardim, 1977. The managerial woman. New York: Pocket Books.Hess B.B. and M.M. Ferree. 1987. Analyzing gender: A handbook of social science research.

Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.Hill E. 1990. Alternative dispute resolution in a feminist voice. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Res-

olution 5: 337-379.Hughes, S. 1995. Elizabeth s story: Exploring power imbalances in divorce mediation. Georgetown

Journal of Legal Ethics 8: 553-96. Jack R. and D. Jack. 1989. Moral vision and professional decisions: The changing values of

women and men lawyers. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Kantor, R. M. 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.Kessler S.J. and W. McKenna. 1978. Gender: An ethnomethodological approach. Chicago: Univer-

sity of Chicago Press.Kolb, D. and G. Coolidge. 1991. Her place at the table: A consideration of gender issues in negotia-tion. In Negotiation theory and practice , edited by J.W. Breslin and J.Z. Rubin. Cambridge,Mass: PON Books (The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School).

Kolb, D. and J. Williams. 2000. The shadow negotiation: How women can master the hiddenagendas that determine bargaining success. New York: Simon and Schuster.


18/19

Kolb, D. 1992. Women s work: Peacemaking in organizations. In Hidden conflict in organizations: Uncovering behind-the-scenes disputes , edited by D. Kolb and J. Bartunek. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

. 1995. The love for three oranges or: What did we miss about Ms. Follett in the library?

Negotiation Journal 11(4): 339-348.Lafree G. and C. Rack. 1996. The effects of participants ethnicity and gender on monetary out-comes in mediated and adjudicated cases. Law & Society Review 30: 767-797.

Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and women s place. New York: Harper & Row.Landry, E. M. and A. Donnellon, 1999. Teaching negotiation with a feminist perspective. Negotia-

tion Journal 15(1): 21-29.Lind E. A., Y. Huo, and T. Tyler. 1994. . . .And justice for all: Ethnicity, gender and preferences for

dispute resolution procedures. Law & Human Behavior 18: 269-290.Maccoby E. and C.N. Jacklin. 1974. The psychology of sex differences. Stanford: Stanford Univer-

sity Press.Menkel-Meadow, C. 1984. Toward another view of legal negotiation: The structure of problem

solving. UCLA Law Review 31: 754-842.

. 1985. Portia in a different voice: Speculations on a women s lawyering process. BerkeleyWomen s Law Journal 1: 39-63. . 1989. Exploring a research agenda of the feminization of the legal profession: Theories of

gender and social change. Law & Social Inquiry 14: 289-319. . 1994. Portia redux: Another look at gender, feminism, and legal ethics. Virginia Journal

of Social Policy and the Law 2: 75-114. . 1996a. What s gender got to do with it? The politics and morality of an ethic of care. NYU

Review of Law & Social Change 22: 265-293. . 1996b. Women s ways of knowing law: Feminist epistemology, pedagogy, and jurispru-

dence. In Knowledge, difference & power: Essays inspired by women s ways of knowing ,edited by N. Goldberger, J. Tarule, B. Clinche, and M. Belenky. New York: Basic Books.

. 1999. The sense and sensibilities of lawyers: Lawyering in literature, narratives, film and

television, and ethical choices regarding career and craft. McGeorge Law Review 31: 1-24. . 2000. Mothers and fathers of invention: The intellectual founders of ADR. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 16.

. and S.S. Diamond. 1991. The content, method and epistemology of gender in sociolegalstudies. Law & Society Review 25: 221-238.

Morrill, C., M. Johnson, and T. Harrison. 1998. Voice and context in simulated everyday legal dis-course: The influence of sex differences and social ties. Law & Society Review 32: 639-662.

Northrup, T. 1994. The uneasy partnership between conflict theory and feminist theory. Unpub-lished manuscript, Syracuse University.

Pruitt D., P. Carnevale, B. Forcey, and M.. Van Slyck. 1986. Gender effects in negotiation: Con-stituent surveillance and contentious behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology22: 264-275.

Rack, C. 1999. Negotiated justice: Gender and ethnic minority bargaining patterns in the metrocourt study. Hamline Journal of Public Law & Policy 20: 211-298.Rifkin, J. 1984. Mediation from a feminist perspective: Problems and promise. Law & Inequality

21: 2-12.Rose, C. 1995. Bargaining and gender. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 18: 547-563.Ross, M. 1999. The role of gender in negotiations: Breaking the cycle of stereotyping. Paper pre-

pared for a class, Negotiation and Mediation, Georgetown Law Center, Washington, fall1999.

Rubin H. 1997. The princessa: Machiavelli for women. New York: Dell.Rubin J.Z. and B.R. Brown, 1975. The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation. New

York:Academic Press.Ruble T.L. and J. Schneer. 1994. Gender differences in conflict handling styles: Less than meets

the eye? In Conflict and gender , edited by A. Taylor and J. Beinstein Miller. Cresskill, N.J.:Hampton Press.Stamato, L. 1992. Sexual harassment in the workplace: Is mediation an appropriate forum? Media-

tion Quarterly 10(2)): 167-172.Stone, D., B. Patton, and S. Heen 1999. Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters

most. New York: Viking.Stuhlmacher A. and A. Walters. 1999. Gender differences in negotiation outcome: A meta-analysis.

Personnel Psychology 52: 653-677.



19/19

Tavris, C. 1992. The mismeasure of woman. New York: Simon & Schuster.Tannen, D. 1990. You just don t understand: Women and men in conversation. New York:

William Morrow. . 1993. Gender and conversational interaction. New York: Oxford.

Taylor A. and J.B. Miller. 1994. Conflict and gender. Cresskill, N.Y.: Hampton Press.Thomas, K. 1975. Conflict and conflict management. In The handbook of industrial and organizational psychology , edited by M.D. Dunnette. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Thornburg, E.G. 1995. Metaphors matter: How images of battle, sports and sex shape the adver-sary system. Wisconsin Women s Law Journal 10: 225-281.

Thorne, B. 1993. Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

. and N. Henley. 1975. She said/He said: Language and sex: Differences and dominance.Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.

Walters, A., A. Stuhlmacher and L. Meyer, 1998. Gender and negotiator competitiveness: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76: 1-29.

Watson, C. 1994. Gender differences in negotiating behavior and outcomes: Fact or artifact? In

Conflict and gender , edited by A. Taylor and J. Beinstein Miller. Cresskill, N.J.: HamptonPress. . 1994. Gender versus power as a predictor of negotiation behavior and outcomes. Negotia-

tion Journal 10(2): 117-127. Weingarten H. and E. Douvan. 1985. Male and female visions of mediation. Negotiation Journal

1(4): 349-358. West, R. 1988. Jurisprudence and gender. University of Chicago Law Review 55: 1-72. . 1998. Caring for justice. New York: New York University Press.

White, J. J. 1984. The pros and cons of Getting to YES. Journal of Legal Education 34: 115-124. . 1980. Machiavelli and the bar: Ethical limitations on lying in negotiations. American Bar

Foundation Research Journal 1980: 926-938. Williams, G. 1983. Legal negotiation and settlement. St. Paul, Minn.: West.

Zimmerman, J. 2000. Dear diary: Shoot me. Harvard Law Record 14 January 2000.

sex si negociere 1

Documents