Women who do negotiate aggressively are often less likely to be granted what they ask for, also. There’s a new study I recall that women ask for raises at the same rate as men but are not granted raises at the same rate as men.

It depends. I have been penalized for negotiating as well as have been rewarded. I do remember distinctly irritating a hiring manager when I responded to her inquiry of "how much do you want to make" with "whatever is the prevailing market rate is" She wanted me to give her a number and I politely played hard ball not wanting to undersell myself. Anyway the hiring manager decided that approach made me difficult.

Women are often penalized for not being "nice" in the workplace as well. It may happen in the hiring process or show up later in performance reviews. It is a delicate dance of negotiating, being strong and being "non-threatening."

I would like to know if you've been penalized for negotiating as well as rewarded at the same or similar rates of your peers of various gender identities. Do you know that?

I would presume no negotiation tactic has a perfect 0% or 100% success rate for any given gender expression, but I am curious about the relative rates for them and how this can best benefit all related parties.

In that study, was the statistical risk that a female employee would leave the company because not getting a raise the same as for a male employees?

Sounds like they don't negotiate efficiently. "Please give me a raise" is not efficient negotiation, no matter how aggressively or often you say it.

Note that aggressive tactics are not as effective when women do them. We also have studies that state that women who attempt to be assertive similar to men are not received as well as men. So women are disadvantaged because there is no way to ask for a raise or negotiate as effectively as a man in the general case.

Please suggest an efficient negotiation that is proven to work for women at the same rates as it works for men.

There is no efficient negotiation technique that works consistently for men either, you need to understand that people need to look at their situation and figure out the optimal solutions for themselves rather than expect others to give them everything w/o effort, like a forced salary bump based on gender (that's one way to ruin anything remotely close to pay based on merit - hypocrisy much?) would.

Now I realize it's part of human nature to try and get as much as possible for as little as possible, but this takes it way too far.

You must be really daft if can you look at a bunch of stats like "women are paid 30% less than men" and then tell yourself "YES! this is a problem that I completely understand, I understand everything about this and what these people say is exactly what happens in the real world, we have to fix this".

What the hell does "as assertive as men" even mean. Is it some caricature of a man stomping his boss' desk to establish dominance? You're either assertive naturally or you're not, this applies to men or women. Fakes are easily spotted and ignored. Socially withdrawn/inept people or autistic people constantly draw the short straws when negotiating because there's no chance for them to be even close to remotely assertive even though in a STUDYYYYY the "scientists" could claim that "they were as assertive as others" just because they tried (unsuccessfully — a detail so easy to omit/ignore). You don't just go "ok now I'm going to be ASSERTIVE" and suddenly have everyone go your way, if you haven't developed that ability since childhood (or at least for a damn while), at which point you're using it by default.

Jfc, we live too relaxed lives, we have no problems so we invent some.

You haven’t answered my query and your response is presumptuous. My claim is not as absolute as you seem to believe it is. My claim is that on a systematic level, the rate of women attempting to gain more opportunities for better pay, even when using the same negotiation strategies as men, has a smaller success rate than men in the general case. You said this is due to ineffective negotiation tactics.

So, in order to show that this is not specific to gender bias, I am asking you for a negotiation tactic whose rates of success and reception do not have a correlation with gender. If you cannot provide this then I will assume your claim is sourced out of your behind, which has even less clout than the scientists you express chagrin for (at least their stuff has been peer reviewed).

My statement does not imply that there are negotiation strategies for men. It is the same negotiation strategies that men also use. If you can show me a specific study where there is effective negotiation strategies that do not have correlation with gender, then I’d like to see that. Otherwise you’re doing the equivalent of being a new hire at a codebase and complaining it’s shit without taking time to understand any of it. Without appropriate statistical analysis of a situation there is no way to objectively confirm or deny a phenomenon existing. This will be my final response as I don’t believe you are engaging this discussion with a rational mindset.

Your current correlation with the gender is forced, unless you exhausted any other possibilities. Which I really freaking doubt, because you know, real world complexity and all.

Assuming the one thing that I'd be willing to give at least A BIT OF credence to, that is in the gender-related sphere, that women more commonly have personality traits that make them worse at negotiating, I still don't see why we should try to fix that on the employer's side. Educate the women to negotiate instead, from a young age. Giving rewards to those who don't deserve them will lead to sloppiness and bad quality work, and the outrage of those who deserve them.

Sounds to me like "it has to be correlated to gender" was a quick solution to get some quick stats published.

I would suggest that flirting probably works more effectively for women. While not salary negotiations, it certainly seemed to work during the TV show the apprentice for other negotiations. I never saw any men use that tactic.

You can play this game all day, at what point is the other party at fault?

Possible counterpoint conclusion: when a woman says "please give me a raise" and a man says "please give me a raise" people are more likely to listen to a man.

You're injecting a whole lot of assumption on how these negotiations are happening.

Who the hell says "please give me a raise"? You've already put yourself in a position of weakness, man or woman.

I deserve a raise because...3 reasons. I have accomplished xyz and want a raise.

In my younger years I said I wanted a raise of 20 percent immediately after telling my manager that I told a coworker "to go fuck himself" twice.

You're basing this off of statistics that ignore how these negotiations happen. Or really any sort of nuance that makes a difference in the real world. Like the quality of work the individual outputs or how much the company needs them, or how well they're perceived by their peers overall, or just how smartly they approach their employer when negotiating.

"Please give me a raise" is not a negotiation. To negotiate properly you need a trump card, "please give me a raise" doesn't show one.

> In general, women tend to negotiate less aggressively (there's research supporting that), so if your friend was paid less, it doesn't necessarily mean there was discrimination.

That's not a given. Courts tend to look at end results, not how you get there.

>In general, women tend to negotiate less aggressively (there's research supporting that), so if your friend was paid less, it doesn't necessarily mean there was discrimination.

The real question is why aggressive negotiation for doing the same job should lead to fairly different salaries. Forget gender, race, etc. If I can negotiate a higher salary than my coworker who does the same job, I'm not seeing a really good reason why I should get paid more.

If we are going to normalize this reason, then it's two faced for a company not to mention it. When it comes to the internal dialogue, performance reviews, etc, are all about the work you did, and how it impacted the company. If aggressive negotiation is a valid strategy, I would like the company to be transparent about it. List it at the same level as your work performance when listing the criteria by which you are evaluated.

Edit:

Too many of us treat salaries as a game. When we play board games, we often accept rather arbitrary rules. One of the rules that many put on this salary game is: "Well, he gets more pay for the same work because he can negotiate well". Somehow, we don't accept it as a rule in the "school game": "Well, Alice got a higher grade than Bob on this essay because she negotiated better. She brings me two apples a week, and recently threatened to stop giving me apples and give them to Ms Brown of geography."

I'm not, BTW, arguing against negotiating if you're an employee. I'm arguing that companies paying significantly different for similar work just because of negotiation prowess is fundamentally an admission that "Yes, we will pay people differently for the same work." It shouldn't need to become an issue where one group (women, here) feels disadvantaged. It's a problem even if there is no systemic bias. The appropriate thing for the company to do when an employee shows that the market is paying better is to do a salary adjustment (if they can afford it) for all similar employees (barring small deltas for individual performance differences). Without this attitude, they are fundamentally creating an "us vs them" scenario ("company" vs "employees"). Sooner or later, that mentality leads to a large amount of cynicism and an unwillingness to view themselves as a cohesive group ("I'm just going to do my job - I don't care about corporate goals, and am not here to improve the company beyond what they pay me for").

> The real question is why aggressive negotiation for doing the same job should lead to fairly different salaries.

Because the most effective and stable reason to use in negotiation is that you are better and more valuable than the field of other employees and applicants.

There are multiple people with the job “MLB pitcher” or “NFL quarterback” and all their salaries are public. Is it surprising that some of them make wildly more than others?

I think the range of talent and ability for people with the job “senior software engineer” is much wider than the range of talent of “NFL quarterback”.

Because, if you are a knowldege worker, even if you have the same job title you are not doing exactly the same job. There are really two choices here:

- allow people with the same job title (e.g. "Software developer") earn different salaries

- introduce fine grained competence levels (e.g "Software developer, level 23") and require promotion, based on detailed performance review, for every single request for a raise.

I prefer the former, because I don't like bureaucracy, but non-discrimination advocates are pushing towards the latter.