The prevailing view is that men are more assertive and dominating and women are more communal and obliging in negotiations. Another prevailing view is that power induces assertiveness.   Then, what happens when women hold the higher power in relationship to men? Do these gender differences occur even when women have more power?

In an attempt to address the interplay of power, gender and negotiation behaviors, Nelson and colleagues conducted a study with 146 pairs where participants simulated employment terms negotiations in high power (CFO) against low-power (job candidate) pairs, in one of four pair compositions: both female, both male, or mixed sex with either female or male in power.

As expected, while men and women were equally collaborative in negotiations, women were less dominating and made more compromises, obliging their negotiation partners. Surprisingly, women’s power status did not have an effect on their negotiation behaviors. In other words, unlike men, female negotiators showed these gender-typed behaviors regardless of their positions (CFO vs. job candidate).

How well did these strategies work in negotiations? The researchers found that strategies like dominance and cooperation, tended to make the negotiation partner respond in kind, with the same strategy. However, obliging was not reciprocated, but in fact tended to lead to more dominating and less compromise in the other party’s response. In short, obliging allowed the opponent to drive a harder bargain and exploit the obliging person.

Taken together, negotiators should expect their behaviors to be reciprocated; if they choose to be assertive to maximize their gains, they should be aware that it will also lead the other party to be assertive. Likewise, they can expect cooperation to be mutual. However, they should be careful not to oblige, because it is likely to be exploited. In addition, the findings suggest that climbing the ladder may not be sufficient to free female negotiators from obliging and the pitfalls of gender-typed behaviors.