International Journal of Conflict Management

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present how previous research has shown that, in negotiations that have integrative potential, men negotiate greater outcomes than do women. The primary purpose of this set of studies was to determine whether gender difference could be attributed to more effective performance in dividing value, more effective performance in creating value, or both.

Design/methodology/approach – In study 1, participants negotiated a case situation that had integrative potential. Participants were randomly assigned to a side of the case and to a negotiation counterpart. This provided a comparison of all possible dyad gender combinations – female-female, female-male, and male-male. Statistical tests included actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) analysis, ANOVA, ?², and t-tests. Study 2 replicated a sub-set of the study 1 tests using a different sample and a different negotiation case situation.

Findings – Male-male dyads created more value than female-female dyads in both study 1 and study 2. No differences were found in the proportion of the negotiation “pie” claimed by men versus women. These combined results indicate that, in mixed-motive negotiations, gender differences in individual-level outcomes are a function of the amount of value created by the dyad, not in differences in the division of value.

Originality/value – The paper extends research regarding gender and negotiation performance by pinpointing that, while men obtain greater outcomes than women in negotiations that have integrative potential, the difference in outcomes emanates from differences in creating value, not from differences in dividing value.