University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Negotiation strategies for women impacting the expanding gender earnings gap at midlife

(USC Thesis Other)

Negotiation strategies for women impacting the expanding gender earnings gap at midlife

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Negotiation Strategies for Women Impacting the Expanding Gender Earnings
Gap at Midlife
Monique Marie Rogers
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 2023

© Copyright 2023 by Monique Marie Rogers
All Right Reserved

The Committee for Monique Rogers certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Esther Kim
Maria Ott
Kimberly Hirabayashi, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
This study explored confidence, strategy, and influences on behavior during job negotiation
of senior executive women in the finance industry. The qualitative research examined
participants’ narratives on social barriers, supports, and the overall job negotiation outcome
connected to self-efficacy, behavior, and influences while considering the cumulative impact job
negotiation confidence and strategy have on the gender earnings gap. These outcomes fall within
the conceptual framework of self-efficacy in social cognitive theory. From this perspective, there
were four primary findings: (a) building the capacity for confidence is significant to self-efficacy
in job negotiations; (b) mentors assisted or inspired self-efficacy and impacted job negotiation
strategies; (c) gender bias and stereotypes continue to affect self-efficacy and behavior in job
negotiations, and (d) organizational support structures are needed to improve job negotiation
outcomes for women. The study’s findings fill a gap in the study of gender earnings beyond pay
inequality and decentralized wage-setting. Participants indicated confidence and job negotiation
strategies were key components affecting earnings early in a woman’s career and into midlife.
This study suggests the need for more work and research on gender in organizational
negotiations for earnings and the inclination for women to negotiate for earnings at different
stages during their careers. Additional research may help determine how to support women in
job negotiations and change the gender earnings gap in productive and innovative ways.

v
Dedication
To all the little girls … never stop asking.

vi
Acknowledgments
This dissertation began with the question, "As a woman, how do I ask for more?" For
example, what is the best way to ask for a raise, better benefits, or more time away from work to
be with my family? This question also travels outside the workforce and family to women's
personal needs, wants, and desires. Every day, women of all ages, races, ethnicities, marital
statuses, sexual preferences, socioeconomic statuses, industry and employment positions,
childbearing and caregiving situations, and abilities encounter ways in which asking for more or
perhaps asking for equal earnings and benefits feels not only uncomfortable but also
unachievable. Perhaps even more complicated, what advice would women who have succeeded
in asking for more give to women wanting to do the same thing?
The women contributing to this dissertation and resulting recommendations include
senior executives employed as world-class financial analysts, chief financial officers of large
banking institutions, regional directors of budget and finance, commercial bankers, financial
advisors, presidents and CEOs, financial experts, and board of directors for Fortune 50
companies, co-founders of wealth management firms, and founding members of significant
financial institutions. This work benefited immensely from their experience, wisdom, and
willingness to share their perspectives on the practice of asking for more, specifically during job
negotiations. Their contributions helped derive realistic recommendations for negotiation
strategies for women contained in this work.
I could not fail to mention my debt to the faculty of USC and my dissertation committee,
Drs. Kim Hirabayashi, Esther Kim, and Maria Ott. Each of these women has repeatedly
improved my research, analysis, writing, and perspective on the work of impacting the gender
earnings gap for women through the process of negotiation. It is imperative also to thank the

vii
members of Harvard's Program on Negotiation, who contributed significantly to both the
understanding of the history of negotiation and the importance of specific aspects and practices
of the process of negotiation: Guhan Subramanian, Daniel Shapiro, Brian Mandell, James
Sebenius, Douglas Stone, and Sheila Heen. Considering these exceptional professors and faculty
who influenced this work, a gracious editor's unfailing competence and moral support cannot go
without acknowledgment. Thank you, Dr. Guadalupe Montano, who made publishing this
dissertation both possible and pleasant.
Without family, friends, and colleagues, writing would be unbearable. For loving moral
support, I thank my grandmother, Wanda Poulton; father, Dennis Poulton; my children, Riley and
Samantha Rogers; and my two dogs, KC and DD, who laid at my feet for every word written. In
consideration of friends and colleagues, no one has contributed more to the constructive criticism
of this work than the #ThursdayStrong crew of USC colleagues who encouraged and influenced
this final product through their diligence and cheerfulness. This talented and caring group of
individuals put aside their busy schedules to read drafts and make suggestions. Thank you,
Damien Danielly, Janet Sherlock, Tiffany Jenkins, Derek Wilson, Rodney Mace, Angie
Simonson, and Richard "Bobo" Chen. I give special consideration and appreciation to my
colleague, Captain Chris Monahan, for his assistance in participant research and recruitment. If
the results and recommendations of this dissertation are not perfect, it is not due to the lack of
effort from my family, friends, and colleagues.
Finally, I thank my mentors, Seane Corn and Kasia Urbaniak. No one has contributed
more to this concept of asking for me. From the beginning, these women provided early
encouragement and opportunities to experience and learn how to ask and negotiate. Many of the
great things in this dissertation are owed to these two women. Any errors are solely mine.

viii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................x
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: The Gender Earnings Gap in Midlife ........................................................................1
Context and Background of the Gender Earnings Gap........................................................1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions...................................................................3
Importance of the Study.......................................................................................................3
Overview of Theoretical Foundation and Methodology......................................................4
Definitions............................................................................................................................5
Organization of the Dissertation ..........................................................................................5
Chapter Two: The Gender Earnings Gap and Negotiation..............................................................7
The Gender Earnings Gap....................................................................................................7
Defining Negotiation and the Importance of Negotiation as a Practice ............................11
Effective Negotiation Strategies........................................................................................21
Conceptual Foundation ......................................................................................................25
Summary............................................................................................................................27
Chapter Three: Methodology.........................................................................................................28
Research Questions............................................................................................................28
Overview of Research Design ...........................................................................................28
Research Setting.................................................................................................................29
The Researcher...................................................................................................................30
Data Sources ......................................................................................................................31

ix
Validity and Reliability......................................................................................................35
Ethics..................................................................................................................................35
Chapter Four: Findings..................................................................................................................37
Participants.........................................................................................................................37
Introduction to Findings.....................................................................................................41
Participant Biographies......................................................................................................42
Research Question 1: How Efficacious Are Women in Finance Fields in Job
Negotiations? .....................................................................................................................51
Research Question 2: What Strategies Do Women in Finance Fields Utilize in Job
Negotiations? .....................................................................................................................64
Research Question 3: What Personal and Environmental Influences Do Women in
Finance Fields Perceive As Impacting Their Confidence and Strategies in Job
Negotiations? .....................................................................................................................71
Summary of Findings.........................................................................................................89
Chapter Five: Recommendations...................................................................................................91
Discussion of Findings.......................................................................................................91
Recommendations for Practice ..........................................................................................97
Limitations and Delimitations..........................................................................................103
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................104
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................105
References....................................................................................................................................107
Appendix: Interview Protocol......................................................................................................118
Introduction to the Interview ...........................................................................................118
Screening Interview Questions........................................................................................119
Conclusion to the Interview.........................................................................................................120

x
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Overview 38
Table 2: Participant Race Overview 39
Table 3: Participant Dependent Overview 39
Table 4: Participant Organization Overview 40
Table 5: Findings: Research Question 1 52
Table 6: Findings: Research Question 2 64
Table 7: Findings: Research Question 3 72
Table A1: Interview Protocol 120

xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework With Identified Influences From the Literature 27
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework With Findings Integrated 92

1
Chapter One: The Gender Earnings Gap in Midlife
Nearly every industrialized country has laws requiring women’s equal treatment in the
labor market, yet the gender earnings gap continues to be an aspect of virtually every nation’s
labor market (Kahn, 2012a). Research on earning in the United States indicates it ranks higher in
earning structures than most other industrial countries and cities (Kahn, 2012a; Marrone, 2013),
yet college-educated women in their early 40s at midlife working in similar positions earn 55%
less than their equally educated male counterparts (Barth et al., 2017; Vanke-Smith & Garcia,
2019).
A continuing research gap exists in examining midlife earnings outcomes of women with
equivalent education and experience as men related to the cumulative effects of specific
interactions, such as the ability to negotiate. A study by Lips (2013) revealed that when women
and men appear to have equal levels of education and similar occupations, women do not receive
equal earnings outcomes. Identifying and defining the specific interactions embedded in the
economic contributors and social constraints influencing the gender earnings gap early in a
career can provide the opportunity for appropriate intervention to prevent the earnings gap from
widening in midlife (Babcock & Laschever, 2003; Lips, 2013).
Context and Background of the Gender Earnings Gap
Earnings gaps, pay inequality, and decentralized wage-setting are generally associated
with higher earnings for men than women (Kahn, 2012b). Each contributes to expanding the
gender earnings gap in midlife. Researchers (Lips, 2013; Monti et al., 2020) suggest longitudinal
studies of young people as they progress from early employment during high school to career
employment could help identify specific interactions at which earnings paths toward lower and
higher compensation affect the gender earnings gap in midlife. Supporting this, Babcock and

2
Laschever (2003) identified women’s inability or aversion to negotiate, which potentially affects
the gender earnings gap over time. The reasoning includes why women stay in non-executive
positions, often accept lower wage offers, and do not promote out of positions. Like Lips (2013),
Babcock and Laschever (2003) speculated that the persistence and expansion of the wage gap
between men and women might be traced to the differences in their market salaries at job
entrance and, consequently, women’s failure to negotiate for more earnings during that specific
interaction. Negotiation, as Fisher and Ury (1981) defined, is “the back-and-forth purposefully
designed communication between shared and opposed interests between parties in reaching an
agreement” (p. xxvii).
The context of this study focuses on women serving as senior executives in the finance
fields and centers on the negotiation strategies they utilized to obtain salary and benefits
throughout their careers. Finance fields are often male-dominated, decentralized in wage settings,
and require a negotiation effort for entry and career progression. Finance industries are the
setting for the study due to the opportunities for gender negotiation and the known gender
disparities in earnings in this industry (Eriksson & Sandberg, 2012; Goldin et al., 2017). In
addition, women hold the smallest percentage of executive and leadership positions in maledominated industries (Hultin & Szulkin, 1999), and the finance industry has the most
considerable disparity in gender earnings (Arons, 2008). The small percentage of senior
executive women builds curiosity and interest in the study of self-efficacy, how they negotiated
and obtained their positions, and whether they experienced personal or environmental career
influences.

3
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to examine the strategies, self-efficacy, and personal and
environmental influences senior executive women in finance utilize in job negotiations. The
project frames negotiation as a practice of individual self-efficacy through Bandura’s (1989)
social cognitive theory. The theory also provides the ability to view personal and environmental
influences on negotiation behaviors. Three questions guided the project:
1. How efficacious are women in finance fields in job negotiations?
2. What strategies do women in finance fields utilize in job negotiations?
3. What personal and environmental influences do women in finance fields perceive as
impacting their confidence and strategies in job negotiations?
Importance of the Study
The cost of expanding the midlife gender earnings gap is evident in denying women in
midlife equal earnings and opportunities. Many women in midlife are already assuming multiple
roles, experience gender bias, continue to endure penalties of social constructs, deal with
inequities in the judgment of leadership styles, and are often excluded from negotiation
opportunities and strategies (Babcock & Laschever, 2003; Barnett & Baruch, 1985; BaskervilleWatkins & Smith, 2014; Gittell, 2009; Monti et al., 2020.). Goldin and Mitchell (2017) argued
that the widening gender earnings gap denies organizations the talent, education, and expert
leadership senior women offer.
The importance of this dissertation is that it contributes to women gaining access to the
resources, skills, and relationships that directly influence their earnings and livelihood as they
progress in age and career. Beyond the discussion of environmental contributors and social
constraints, a significant contributor to the expanding midlife gender earnings gap is women’s

4
ability to negotiate effectively (Amanatullah & Tinsley, 2013; Babcock & Laschever, 2003;
Lips, 2013; Tinsley et al., 2009; Urbaniak, 2020).
Overview of Theoretical Foundation and Methodology
The theoretical foundation of this study is social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1989, 2000),
which assesses how an individual’s behavior, the external environment, and internal beliefs
relate to each other. Bandura (1989, 2000) contended that individuals can learn new behaviors by
engaging in the behavior or by watching others perform the behavior. This study’s methodology
uses social cognitive theory to explore the triad of reciprocity between the environment that
could affect individual self-efficacy, beliefs, and behavior influencing negotiations.
The research questions for this dissertation specifically explored self-efficacy in
negotiation and the resulting outcomes on the gender earnings gap in midlife. The research
methodology includes qualitative interviews using a non-probability, purposeful sampling
approach (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) of 18 self-identifying senior executive women between the
ages of 40 and 65 working in the finance field. The purposeful sample invited individuals
identifying as female, including transgender women. The qualitative interview method is
appropriate for this research because the process provides essential personal and historical
information about women’s evolving negotiation methods while ensuring the participants are of
the sample criteria for gender, age, position, education, industry, and negotiation experience. The
study intended to collect critical research by exploring women’s narratives on social barriers and
supports, information processing, and the overall negotiation outcome connected to self-efficacy,
behavior, and environmental influences connected to the gender earnings gap in midlife.

5
Definitions
This section provides definitions of terms frequently used throughout the research and the
dissertation.
• Backlash: the strong adverse and negative reactions by others that women often
experience when negotiating (Amanatullah & Tinsley, 2013; Tinsley et al., 2009).
• BATNA: acronym for the best alternative to a negotiated agreement and the alternative to
unsuccessful negotiation attempts (Fisher & Ury, 1981).
• Decision-making process: an interpersonal negotiation that may occur whenever one
person cannot achieve objectives independently (Thompson et al., 1995).
• Earnings or benefits: any form of work payment, including salary, commission, health
and medical benefits, work schedule flexibility, and other work-related incentives.
• Negotiation: the back-and-forth purposefully designed communication between shared
and opposed interests between parties in reaching an agreement (Fisher & Ury, 1981).
• Party: a person (or group of people with common interests) who acts in solidarity with
their interests or preferences in a negotiation (Thompson et al., 1995).
Organization of the Dissertation
This study contains five chapters. Chapter One presents the problem of practice
researched, the context of the problem, and the theoretical framework and methodology. Chapter
Two reviews current literature relevant to negotiation and the gender earnings gap. Chapter
Three details the assumed needs for this study and methodology regarding the choice of
participants, data collection, and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and
analyzed. Finally, Chapter Five offers recommendations based on data and literature for

6
addressing negotiation barriers for women, recommendations for further research, and limitations
and delimitations.

7
Chapter Two: The Gender Earnings Gap and Negotiation
This chapter begins by providing an overview of the history and understanding of the
gender earnings gap and negotiation as it impacts earnings into midlife. The second section
discusses research by significant contributing practitioners defining negotiation and its
importance as an ongoing practice. The third section reviews research and literature on gender
differences in negotiation. The final section explores the literature and strategies of negotiators
contributing to the field of negotiation as a practice.
The Gender Earnings Gap
The preponderance of evidence designed to explain the gender pay gap focuses on gender
differences and social constructs. However, other relevant and cumulative factors evident in
midlife expose opportunities to understand the expanding gender earnings gap. For example,
differences in negotiation experience and skills, understanding the individual market value of
worth, and effectively navigating the social costs of negotiating can all create a cumulative effect
of a lower wage structure (Beyer et al., 2019) and a significant earnings gap in midlife.
Research of varying methods details the economic contributors and social constraints
influencing the gender earnings gap (Barnett & Baruch, 1985; Monti et al., 2020; Simon, 1995;
Soares et al., 2007). Earnings gaps can indicate the cumulative effects of women in midlife
assuming primary care provider roles and adjusting their work-lives early to accommodate their
family roles (Gittell, 2009). The involvement in multiple roles (paid worker, wife, mother,
caregiver) reveals consequences to women’s employment (Barnett & Baruch, 1985), including
delayed career and education opportunities and acceptance of lower wages (Simon, 1995). While
marriage and childbearing tend to affect men’s earnings and position positively, they have the
opposite effect on women (Gittell, 2009). When the traditional family model applies, there is an

8
early marriage economic wage premium for men and a penalty for women realized in midlife
(Gittell, 2009).
Men are often provided the glass escalator to higher-paid jobs, while women experience a
glass ceiling, plateauing in earnings and position (Northouse, 2019). Men can be unwilling to
interact with and help women preserve positions and advantage (Baskerville-Watkins & Smith,
2014). In workplaces or industries where men dominate positions of power, women’s increasing
presence often threatens men’s positions (Baskerville-Watkins & Smith, 2014). Northouse
(2019) indicated that many career development opportunities purposefully exclude women in
leadership. These exclusions include fewer responsibilities in the same jobs as men, less
encouragement, exclusion from critical networks and groups, and less formal job training than
their male counterparts (Baskerville-Watkins & Smith, 2014). Over time, these exclusions
contribute to a more significant gap in earnings and position for women approaching midlife
(Angelov et al., 2016; Monti et al., 2020; Northouse, 2019).
Earnings gaps, pay inequality, and decentralized wage-setting (Kahn, 2012b) contribute
to the expansion of the gender earnings gap in midlife. In the early years of women’s
employment and family caretaking, they often assume the overload of family responsibilities
(Simon, 1995; Soares et al., 2007) and accept lower pay, reduced education commitments, and
delayed job industry entrance. Lips (2013) and Monti et al. (2020) noted that longitudinal studies
could help identify specific interactions at which earnings paths toward lower and higher
compensation affect the gender earnings gap.
Babcock and Laschever (2003) identify the inability or aversion of women to negotiate as
reasoning for why women stay in non-executive positions, often expect or accept lower wage
offers, and remain at the same job. Like Lips (2013), Babcock and Laschever (2003) speculated

9
that the persistence and expansion of the wage gap between men and women are due to the
differences in the entering market salaries and, consequently, women’s failure to negotiate for
more earnings during that specific interaction. Women reported salary expectations between 3%
and 32% lower than men for the same job, with no evidence that men were more qualified
(Babcock & Laschever, 2007). Women’s estimate of fair pay averages 4% less than men’s
estimates for their first jobs and 23% less than men for career peak pay (Babcock & Laschever,
2007). Further research (Amanatullah & Tinsley, 2013; Tinsley et al., 2009) on the conflict and
backlash women often experience during negotiation reveals the effects on gender earnings and
the cumulative effect of the earnings gap into midlife.
Researchers agree that the penalties for women not negotiating extend far beyond the
monetary (Babcock & Laschever, 2003). The accumulated costs can affect the individual
woman, their families, and their communities, directly impacting the global and U.S. economies
(Arons, 2008; Catalyst, 2021; Nilsson, 2022). Avoiding or failing to negotiate industry entry
salary perpetuates the smaller disparities into exponential differences called the accumulation of
disadvantage (Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, 2012). These accumulations of
disadvantages relate to this study’s theoretical framework and the triad of reciprocity of
environmental influences that could affect individual self-efficacy, beliefs, and behavior
influencing negotiations.
The Accumulated Cost to Women
Women and organizations suffer when women do not successfully negotiate to receive
the earnings and resources needed to thrive (Babcock & Laschever, 2003). Considering this data,
the disparity in earnings contributes to the median gender earnings gap by $10,435 annually. By
midlife and near retirement, a full-time working woman will have foregone nearly $434,000 in

10
income ($706,000 if in the finance industry) during her career (Arons, 2008). Assuming a 6%
annual rate of return, a study by the Center for American Progress (Arons, 2008) discovered that
investing 20% of those earnings potentially yields another $323,000 in retirement savings. The
savings would boost a woman’s retirement income by an estimated 1.6 million (Arons, 2008).
The $434,000 in lost earnings represents only a portion of the gender earnings gap, as the
center’s study (Arons, 2008) did not account for the losses in benefits, the median differences in
full-time wages among age groups, and women who work part-time or take leave of the
workforce as unpaid caregivers.
The Accumulated Cost to Family and Community
The cumulative effect of the gender earnings gap into midlife and over women’s lifetimes
significantly contributes to their struggle to gain economic equality and security. According to
the center’s study (Arons, 2008), women lag behind men in terms of financial stability, collect
less than men for retirement, and are more likely to live in poverty. Historically, women are
more prone to be laid off during a recession (Arons, 2008) or leave the workforce during a crisis,
such as the COVID-19 pandemic (Woodbridge et al., 2021). In addition, earnings gaps do not
account for wealth and opportunities associated with salaries, such as promotions, bonuses, stock
options, or pensions. Further research indicates that when women’s earnings and resources are
lacking, families are often left without basic needs, potentially leaving entire communities in
decline (Nilsson, 2022). In this consideration, negotiation as a job skill for women creates the
opportunity to uplift individual women, the families they support, and the communities in which
they live.

11
The Cost to the Global and U.S. Economy
Consumerism among women globally and in the United States is attributed to the fact
that women often buy for themselves and negotiate more often for their families and children.
Women control about $31.8 trillion of annual consumer spending globally and $6.4 trillion in the
United States (Catalyst, 2021). Furthermore, women make 85% of all consumer purchases in the
United States and drive 70% to 80% of consumer spending. Nilsson (2022) reported women lead
the majority of household purchases, with 89% of women worldwide indicating they control or
negotiate the daily shopping needs, household chores, and food preparation. In the United States,
61% of women believe that their finances are worse or about the same compared to 5 years ago
(Nilsson, 2022). As a result, women as primary negotiators, purchasers, and caretakers often take
second, sometimes third, jobs to make ends meet.
Defining Negotiation and the Importance of Negotiation as a Practice
For this study, negotiation was defined broadly as a back-and-forth purposefully designed
communication that occurs when shared and opposed interests between parties are brought to
discussion to reach an agreement (Fisher & Ury, 1981). In similar terms, it may also be an
interpersonal decision-making process used whenever one person cannot achieve objectives
independently (Thompson et al., 1995). A party in a negotiation is a person (or group of people
with common interests) who acts in solidarity with their interests or preferences (Thompson et
al., 1995). Many researchers relate decision-making to negotiation (Fisher et al., 2011;
Kahneman, 2013; Ury, 1993; Voss, 2016), as negotiation can be any communication between
two or more parties to influence or persuade a decision. Researchers (Fisher et al., 2011;
Kahneman, 2013; Taleb, 2010; Ury, 1993; Voss, 2016) have also come to an understanding of

12
the flaws in human thinking related to decision-making and negotiation due to human emotion,
intuition, and the anticipation of adverse outcomes related to previous experiences.
Kahneman (2013) claimed that when it comes to thinking, humans are often dissuaded or
influenced by systematic biases in decisions and intuitive preferences that consistently violate the
rules of rational choice. Breen (2018) added that irrelevant noises, superficial comments at
inappropriate times, and attractiveness can influence decisions during negotiation. Breen (2018)
discussed claims of humans as seriously irrational beings, especially in moments requiring
negotiated thought. According to Kahneman (2013), the ability to think in controlled, slow,
deliberate, or effortful ways may be restricted (Breen, 2018; Kahneman, 2013; Shleifer, 2012).
There are realities of emotional moments requiring negotiated thought occurring personally and
professionally throughout a person’s career and life, which signal the negotiation and
renegotiation of their existence (Thompson et al., 1995) These realities require negotiation to
become an individual and professional practice (Fisher & Ury, 1981; Fisher et al., 2011;
Thompson et al., 1995).
Fisher and Ury (1981) sought to systemize the negotiation process as a form of decisionmaking in personal and professional life. Ury (1993) further explained that the outcome of
negotiations affects many individual lives, even those who are not personally negotiating at the
moment. Fisher et al. (2011) explained how the negotiation process can become stressful and
complex. Furthermore, remaining soft in negotiations to preserve relationships can result in
giving up one’s position. Simultaneously, remaining hard to win one’s position strains the
relationship or potentially compromises the outcome altogether (Fisher et al., 2011). From this
place, negotiation becomes an exercise in joint problem-solving between the parties. A
successful result involves brainstorming together about satisfying interests while staying within

13
the boundaries (Fisher et al., 2011; Ury, 1993; Voss, 2016). Natural obstacles in human decisionmaking prevent collaboration between parties and require a systematic approach (Ury, 1993;
Voss, 2016).
Ury (1993) designed five basic tenets for the systematic approach of negotiating. The first
is to be aware and responsible for personal reactions and to have the capacity to separate the
person and emotion from the problem. The interaction can feel like an attack or a hostile
situation, and an individual may react impulsively by giving in to preserve the relationship or
striking back if feeling violated (Voss, 2016). Ury (1993) and Voss (2016) indicated that striking
back often leaves both sides as losers in the negotiation.
The second tenet focuses on the other person’s interest in creating the “right climate for
joint problem solving” (Ury, 1993, p. 12) and uncovering why the other person is negotiating.
Ury (1993) explained that most individuals know no other way to negotiate other than digging
into a position and trying to get the other party to give in. The “dig into position” (Ury, 1993, p.
12) is a conventional tactic and often the only tactic many individuals know to use in negotiation.
The position does not usually lead to solving the joint problem, only more tension, and denies the
opportunity to know what the other side is thinking and why they want what they want (Voss,
2016). Ury (1993) recommended acknowledging their points and feelings to overcome the other
person’s negative emotions, defensiveness, fear, distrust, and aggression. Figuring out the other
person’s interests and diffusing emotions (Voss, 2016) leads to uncovering more information
about that individual’s position. Voss (2016) referred to this information in negotiation processes
in terms of a black swan theory, or the unknown unknowns, inspired by Taleb (2010), who
explained how flawed stories from our past shape our views of the world and our future

14
expectations. Uncovering the black swans of the other party creates more options, leading to
solutions for both sides.
Working cooperatively to generate a win-win option between positions is the third tenet.
Ury (1993) explained that inventing options for mutual gain is a negotiator’s greatest
opportunity. While it may not always be possible to obtain the preferred position, it is often
possible to still satisfy personal interests. Dwelling in a unique position alone can blind the
negotiation process. Fisher and Ury (1981) pointed out that looking for solutions that will satisfy
the other side is always beneficial. Kahneman (2013) described this process as framing, while
Ury (1993) described the process as reframing to deal with the problem. Ury (1993)
recommended beginning the reframing process by inventing or imagining mutually acceptable
options with the other position and then evaluating the standards of those options later.
The fourth tenet establishes a mutually agreed-upon standard for evaluating possible
solutions. Ury (1993) encouraged the concept of “building a golden bridge” (p. 12) to a solution
for both positions. This golden bridge includes helping the other position save face and making
the outcome look like a victory for them. Voss (2016) furthered this practice by explaining that a
successful negotiation is often about the other party convincing themselves that the solution
wanted is their idea.
The final tenet acknowledges that even if the negotiation follows a planned process, the
other position may still refuse to cooperate, believing they can overcome the opposing position
with power. At this point, threats and coercion are tempting but will often backfire (Ury, 1993;
Voss, 2016). Ury (1993) encouraged using power for education over an escalation in these
situations. Meaning using power to educate the other position that they cannot come to a solution
alone, but only together can both positions be satisfied. Additional elements influencing

15
negotiation effectiveness include style, personality, emotional intelligence, and motivation
(Pérez-Yus et al., 2020).
Gender Differences in Negotiation
Gender differences in initiating and engaging in negotiations contribute to the gender
earnings gap (Babcock & Laschever, 2007). Founding research (Fisher & Ury, 1981) reveals that
the uncertainty of the negotiator, the amount of information available, and the reputations of the
parties involved can significantly affect the process and outcome. Negotiation and the
uncertainty of the process often elevate feelings in women, including emotions triggering
anxiety, stress, and resistance (Babcock & Laschever, 2007; Kolb, 2013; Thompson et al., 1995;
Urbaniak, 2020). Research (Shan et al., 2016; Sinaceur et al., 2011; Stuhlmache & Walters,
1999) attributes gender differences in negotiation outcomes to the differences in men’s and
women’s behaviors as related to levels of assertiveness, agreeableness, anger, threats,
competitiveness, and collaboration.
Substantial literature (Andersen et al., 2021; Dittrich et al., 2014) indicates that gender
differences in negotiation depend on context as it pertains to the role of the negotiator, the gender
of the other party (Dimotakis et al., 2012), and the potential for backlash for women
(Amanatullah & Tinsley, 2013; Tinsley et al., 2009). In the context of this study, backlash is
defined as the strong adverse and negative reactions from others that women often experience
when negotiating, especially when they do so aggressively (Amanatullah & Tinsley, 2013;
Tinsley et al., 2009). Wade (2001) argued that women learn from various sources that making
requests of any kind for themselves is not considered appropriate feminine behavior and can
result in backlash. For men, aggressive behaviors often correlate with a successful negotiation
performance (Sinaceur et al., 2011) and a demonstration of masculinity (Mazei et al., 2022).

16
Social normative lessons reinforced by gender roles in the negotiation context create a more
profound need to understand the influence of gender roles.
The Importance of Context and Gender Roles in Negotiation
The goals and strategic responses of negotiation require attention to the context of the
situation. Negotiators may conceptualize gender roles depending on the negotiation situation’s
structure, defined as either integrative or distributive (Dobrijevic, 2014). For example,
researchers indicate that distributive negotiation contexts require aggressiveness and
manipulation, while integrative contexts require cooperation and more open communication
(Dimotakis et al., 2012). When negotiators demonstrate their natural behaviors, they experience
greater situational matches for outcomes (Dimotakis et al., 2012). However, research shows that
negotiation often involves strategic responses requiring men and women to manifest natural and
unnatural (or learned) behaviors for the negotiator to fulfill situational requirements (Dobrijevic,
2014).
Research on Negotiation Behaviors of Men
Some studies have found that men tend to be primarily assertive and pragmatic during
negotiations (Dobrijevic, 2014; Kray & Haselhuhn, 2012; Mazei et al., 2022). Assertiveness or
anger can convey intimidating perceptions (e.g., being tough or hard-hitting) and is especially
effective when coupled with a threat (Sinaceur et al., 2011). These behaviors often correlate with
successful negotiation performance rewards (Sinaceur et al., 2011) and the performance of
masculinity or manhood (Mazei et al., 2022). A masculine behavior, defined as aggressive or
assertive behavior, is often associated with negotiation success for men.
Research (Kennedy & Kray, 2015; Kray & Haselhuhn, 2012) indicates men perceive
their negotiation performance as affecting their masculine status. The success or failure of a

17
negotiation for a man endorses the perception of masculinity and contributes to identifying as a
real man (Gilmore, 1990; Kennedy & Kray, 2015). Alternatively, many men feel anxiety when
this status becomes questioned during interactions (Gilmore, 1990; Kray & Haselhuhn, 2012). A
man is often judged not for being good but for whether he was useful in his role and whether he
was either efficient or defective in that process (Gilmore, 1990). The connection of negotiation to
masculinity encourages men to prove their usefulness and manhood (Vandello & Bosson, 2013)
by winning the negotiation (Dobrijevic, 2014). Assertive masculine behavior can indicate
winning in a negotiation while simultaneously improving perceived manhood.
Men are acutely motivated to win in negotiation (Kray & Haselhuhn, 2012) and liken
negotiation to winning a ballgame or a wrestling match (Turiano & Atallah, 2017). In that
context, there is a clear winner and loser, which plays a central role in how men behave during a
negotiation (Mazei et al., 2022). Research accounted for the usage of lower ethical standards in
negotiation tactics in men (Haselhuhn et al., 2014; Kray et al., 2001) when they engage in
aggressive behaviors as an exhibition of masculinity (Kray & Haselhuhn, 2012; Mazei et al.,
2022). Studies (Kray & Haselhuhn, 2012) indicated across multiple negotiation contexts that
men viewed misrepresenting the existence of a competing offer to enhance personal gain
(N. Nelson et al., 2015). Furthering this context, men viewed falsifying offers as more morally
justifiable for their behavior than when the other party misrepresented offers during the
negotiation process (Kray & Haselhuhn, 2012). Men exhibit consistent pragmatism in their
ethical reasoning during negotiation, which reveals more self-motivational bias (Kray &
Haselhuhn, 2012; Mazei et al., 2022).

18
Research on Negotiation Behaviors of Women
Some research has also found differences in how women engage in negotiation. For
instance, Babcock and Laschever (2007) found that women are more collaborative and
communal. Research (Florea et al., 2003) suggests most women approach negotiation in the
context of social interaction with a tendency to reference conceptual principles of justice or
guided by the considerations of the people involved. Fisher and Ury (1981) indicated that women
often emphasize their interests, not their position, and are usually sensitive, inclusive, and
collaborative with others’ needs. Turiano and Atallah (2017) suggested that women seek
collaboration over confrontation more often, discover creative negotiation solutions, demonstrate
empathy, and build trust among colleagues. Collaborative styles lead to satisfaction with the
negotiation and feelings of fairness in the process (Marks & Harold, 2011).
Women are more likely to negotiate on behalf of others (clients, team members, family,
community, etc.) than themselves (Babcock & Laschever, 2007). Amanatullah and Morris
(2010) found that women negotiators who advocated for themselves were more likely to make
concessions because they feared social penalty, backlash, and judgment for pressing their ask.
Women engaging in the same negotiation but on behalf of others did not fear social
repercussions for behaving assertively, made fewer concessions, and negotiated greater outcomes
(Tinsley et al., 2009). For instance, women obtain worse bargaining outcomes than men when
assuming an employee’s role and improved results when acting as an employer (Dittrich et al.,
2014). Wade (2001) suggested that women can readily negotiate for resources and rewards for
others. In contrast, doing so for themselves creates a potential backlash and may disrupt the
parties’ relationship.

19
Women experience a desire for harmony during negotiations that encourages empathy
and a more responsive approach to others (Babcock & Laschever, 2007; Florea et al., 2003).
When women approach the negotiating table, they bring different ideas than men and contribute
other solutions to the same problems that men alone have been unable to solve (Florea et al.,
2003). Scholars indicate this can be helpful in negotiation processes, as the other party may
perceive a woman as likable, more reasonable, and generally easier with which to negotiate
(Turiano & Atallah, 2017). Further research (Babcock & Laschever, 2007; Wade, 2001)
indicates the desire for harmony in a negotiation environment may work as a double bind to
prevent women from asking at the negotiating table so as not to upset the relationship with the
other party.
The COVID-19 Pandemic and Negotiation Behaviors of Women
During the COVID-19 pandemic, women faced unique challenges in negotiating due to
the significant disruptions and changes in the workplace. The pandemic brought about
unprecedented circumstances, including economic uncertainty and organizational changes that
disproportionately affected women’s responsibilities at home, including increased caregiving and
household duties (Collins et al., 2021; Woodbridge et al., 2021). Caregiving by women directly
influenced the family-work conflict (Woodbridge et al., 2021), and many women who remained
in the workforce faced increased complexity in negotiating their roles as professionals and
caregivers. During the pandemic, women strategized on the need for flexibility and created
alternative work arrangements to accommodate the evolving circumstances (D. L. Couch et al.,
2021), reducing their hours four to five times more than men and receiving less training (Collins
et al., 2021; Peters, 2021). Studies indicated women leveraged collective knowledge during the
pandemic and negotiated more benefits for their families and staff (D.L. Couch et al., 2021). The

20
pandemic also took an unequal toll and significantly impacted women’s mental health
(Oleschuk, 2020). For many senior executive women, negotiating during the pandemic required
acknowledging and addressing individual and others’ physical, mental, and emotional wellbeing.
The Impact of Gender Stereotypes on Negotiation
A multitude of studies (Bowles et al., 2022; Kennedy & Kray, 2015; Kolb, 2009) indicate
that it is not that men negotiate better than women but that gender stereotypes affect negotiation
based on gender schemas or implicit sets of assumptions about how each gender should or
should not behave. For example, an aggressive negotiation encounter punishes women associated
with the harmonious, feminine collaborative stereotype (Babcock & Laschever, 2007) and
rewards strategies related to the male stereotype (Sinaceur et al., 2011), even when nonaggressive approaches lead to more positive long-term outcomes (Hüffmeier et al., 2014).
Female stereotypes accordingly place female negotiators at a disadvantage (Shan et al., 2016),
while men in alignment with the assertive gender stereotype experience a greater advantage
(Hong & van der Wijst, 2013) and endorse their masculinity (Gilmore, 1990; Kennedy & Kray,
2015).
Gender stereotypes in negotiation create penalties for women and men, generating
backlash for women (Kulik & Olekalns, 2012) and unethical conduct from men (Kray &
Haselhuhn, 2012). Men and women experience the pressure to succeed in negotiation in a maledominated society where gender stereotypes are prominent (Dobrijevic, 2014). The fixed views
of masculinity associated with winning negotiations promote goals to prove oneself, leading to
more leniency in ethical judgments than collaborative decision-making for men (Kray &
Haselhuhn, 2012). Male stereotypes differing from gender stereotypes can produce more self-

21
interest as a challenge to masculinity (Kray & Haselhuhn, 2012), while women encounter social
and financial backlash when they negotiate assertively (Kray & Locke, 2008).
Alternative research (Dobrijevic, 2014) on gender stereotypes indicates women do not
use more cooperative or collaborative negotiation strategies than men. Instead, the study posits
that women focus on conflict avoidance and mutual relationships, which are interpreted as
collaborative negotiation (Dobrijevic, 2014). While men may focus on winning, they also focus
on collaborative problem-solving (Dobrijevic, 2014). Some researchers (Babcock & Laschever,
2007; Maitr et al., 2021) suggested women are naturally more risk-averse and do not want to
negotiate. Kolb (2009) suggested negotiation is a dimension of positioning in which gender
stereotypes are a shifting dimension of individual identity (masculine or feminine) associated
with the unique position of power shaped by the context. Other research (Andersen et al., 2021;
Hüffmeier et al., 2014) indicates that the characteristics or importance of the negotiated item
drives the individual’s strategy and influences the masculine or feminine approach in
negotiation. Finally, other research (Bowles et al., 2022) claims gender alone is a poor predictor
in negotiation and that negotiators must consider the social-cultural context of gender norms as
more influential than gender stereotypes.
Effective Negotiation Strategies
Tinsley et al. (2009) suggested that when it comes to negotiation practices, gender
categories are part of our nature and deeply ingrained into societal constructs. Presenting or
arguing individuals out of gender stereotypes, many of which are unconscious, is unlikely in our
current society. Studies (Tinsley et al., 2009) revealed that men and women judged assertive
women more harshly in negotiation processes and expressed no awareness that they had judged
them severely. Babcock and Laschever (2007) suggested that when a woman believes that

22
gender stereotypes are inappropriate and perhaps offensive, it may be enough to influence a
woman not to negotiate or negotiate ineffectively. Babcock and Laschever (2007) acknowledged
that gender stereotypes can make women uncomfortable about demonstrating negotiation
abilities and even damage self-confidence at crucial moments. Conversely, some researchers and
negotiators (Poumpouras, 2020; Tinsley et al., 2009; Urbaniak, 2020) agree that when gender
stereotypes can exist on a scale of negotiating, the stereotypes can be a motivating strength for a
woman to use during the process. Literature (Poumpouras, 2020; Tinsley et al., 2009; Urbaniak,
2020) suggests there are environments in which women and men can effectively negotiate with
or without gender stereotypes.
Creating a Supportive Environment for Negotiation
Moffitt and Peppet (2004) suggested negotiation is about control and examining
fundamental assumptions that require giving up the current understanding of control. For
example, negotiation behavior is often understood as competitive and one-sided, includes
threatening positions while treating same party views as obvious and correct, and advocating in
ways that discourage inquiry from the other party (Kray & Haselhuhn, 2012; Mazei et al., 2022;
N. Nelson et al., 2015). Researchers (Fisher et al., 2011; Moffitt & Peppet, 2004) suggest the
first step to effective negotiation combines giving up this understanding and creating an
environment of advocacy and inquiry to get to a minimally acceptable level of perceived control.
Fisher and Ury (1981) and Fisher et al. (2011) indicated creating a lower perception of control
generates opportunities to collect essential perspectives and interests from the other party that
can disconfirm (or confirm) fundamental party assumptions.

23
Disentangle the Relationship from the Substance
The relationship between the negotiation parties tends to become entangled with the
negotiation substance. Some researchers (Fisher et al., 2011) suggest a difficulty in negotiation is
that the parties’ relationship becomes entangled with the discussion of the substance, resulting in
expressed anger toward each other. Sinaceur et al. (2011) found that being confident and in
control of one’s feelings and decisions facilitated more positive effects than anger, even when
delivering a threat. Disentangling the relationship from the substance can help an individual
maintain control to create collaboration and joint party gains (Moffitt & Peppet, 2004).
Deliberately assessing one’s beliefs and relationship views in negotiation environments is an
adaptive skill for maintaining the effectiveness of the outcome.
Focus on the Interests
Researchers show non-competitive similarities and interests exist between parties that can
add value for both sides during a negotiation (Bordone & Moffitt, 2006). Parties can resolve
disputes by making the most of the differences in preferences, priorities, or resources (Bordone
& Moffitt, 2006; Fisher et al., 2011). For instance, two parties negotiating over an orange may
discover one party desires only the orange peel and the other only the pulp. Parties often assume
that interests must be opposed because positions are opposed (Fisher et al., 2011). Uncovering
the other parties’ interests leads to discovering more information about their position (Voss,
2016) and creating an agreement. While it may not always be possible to obtain the preferred
position in the negotiation, it is often possible to still satisfy personal interests.
Invent Options for Mutual Gain
Ury (1993) explained that a negotiator’s greatest opportunity is inventing options for
mutual gain and recommended creating or imagining mutually acceptable possibilities with the

24
other party and evaluating those options’ standards later. Kray (2007) found that taking the other
party’s perspective aids in constructing offers and mutually beneficial arguments. For instance, a
person may negotiate working from home for a decrease in pay. As a result, conflict and
relationship tension at the bargaining table are reduced, and overall outcomes are effective
(Fisher et al., 2011; Hüffmeier et al., 2014; Kray, 2007; Ury, 1993). Two parties, negotiating
creatively for their interest, can stimulate each other to invent a mutually advantageous win-win
solution.
Employer Role in Creating a Supportive Environment for Negotiation
An employer plays a significant role in creating a supportive negotiation environment and
addressing inequalities in the workplace because employers have the authority to establish the
terms and conditions of employment, including wages, benefits, working hours, and policy. The
terms set by the employer can directly influence income and inequalities within the organization.
Research indicates when employers or organizations provide supportive environments, employee
retention increases (Yusliza et al., 2021). Employers typically hold more power than the
individual employee due to their control over resources, job security, and decision-making.
Employers play a pivotal role in negotiating and determining salary structures at the
organization. Gender, race, and other demographics can influence employers’ negotiation
outcomes, potentially leading to disparities and earnings gaps (Meeussen et al., 2021). If these
practices are biased or discriminatory, women may face disadvantages regarding opportunities,
promotions, and career advancement (Peters, 2021). If the employer neglects issues of
discrimination, harassment, pay disparities, or exclusion, it can perpetuate inequalities and
exacerbate power imbalances.

25
Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement
Experts (Fisher et al., 2011; Kray, 2007; Voss, 2016) agree that the primary traits of
effective negotiation are planning, preparation, and skill. Developing an attractive or best
alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) is significant to this process. Fisher et al. (2011)
suggested that spending time listing and evaluating alternatives, establishing a course of action
with the highest expected outcome, and calculating the lowest-valued acceptable result can
create an effective negotiation position or strategy. Kray (2007) supports researching
alternatives, collecting comparison data, and obtaining critical information about the other party
in advance to psychologically anchor the discussion and outcomes. Maintaining the BATNA and
the ability to walk away presents a powerful strategic leverage point for negotiators regardless of
gender.
Conceptual Foundation
This study focused on senior executive women currently employed in finance and
centered on the self-efficacy and strategies for negotiation utilized to obtain earnings and
benefits throughout their careers. Bandura’s (1989) social cognitive theory provides the
foundation for the conceptual framework of how negotiation impacts the gender earnings gap in
midlife. Social cognitive theory suggests examining human agency influenced by environmental,
situational, and behavioral factors (Bandura, 1989, 2000) and examining human agency,
specifically the exercise of agency through self-efficacy, as a determinant of human motivation,
affect, and action.
The social cognitive theory provides a lens to evaluate the dynamics of women as they
negotiate earnings and benefits related to job satisfaction and their decision to stay or leave their
position, an organization, or an industry. The theory presumes that change will occur once the

26
individual self-efficacy of a woman’s ability to negotiate on behalf of her needs (earnings and
benefits) improves. This framework focuses on interactions between women’s behavior as
negotiators and interpersonal decision-makers, their internal belief systems, and the external
environment regulated by their self-efficacy (Bandura, 1989, 2000). Confidence and well-being
for women depend on having a sense that their negotiation strategies are communal, sensitive,
and inclusive of others’ needs (Fisher & Ury, 1981; Florea et al., 2003).
The social cognitive theory provides a model for examining women’s behavior in a
negotiation environment as it influences their self-efficacy, ability to negotiate earnings and
benefits, and feelings of satisfaction. The theory also considered how the organizational
environment influences women’s negotiation roles and behaviors and the accumulation of
disadvantages (Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, 2012) from failing to negotiate
for resources. These accumulations of disadvantages relate to the framework of this study and
the triad of reciprocity of environmental influences that could affect individual self-efficacy,
beliefs, and behavior influencing future negotiations. Figure 1 reveals critical concepts for this
study, which emerged from the literature review, including the gender stereotypes expectations
for women negotiators, the penalty and backlash for violating those stereotypes, and the double
bind of women’s complex negotiating identities. Other research (Kolb, 2009; Kray et al., 2001)
indicates that gender schemas or implicit sets of behaviors influence negotiation due to gender
stereotypes. Bowles et al. (2022) suggested that it is more beneficial to consider situational or
environmental factors that might shape gender effects in the negotiation. Environment, behavior,
and personal factors position women as less effective negotiators.

27
Figure 1
Conceptual Framework With Identified Influences From the Literature
Summary
The literature review and conceptual framework seek to study paths of effective
negotiation behaviors and strategies for women to impact the gender earnings gap in midlife. The
core concepts of this study included reviewing negotiation as a practice connected to selfefficacy, understanding how women internally and externally experience negotiation, and how
negotiation behaviors are a means to narrow the gender earnings gap in midlife. The additional
information gained as part of the personal narratives and historical information gathered from
participants includes differences in negotiation experience and skills, understanding of the
individual market value of worth, and understanding of the personal and environmental
influences of negotiation.

28
Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter outlines the qualitative research design for studying the gender earnings gap
in midlife as impacted by the practice of negotiation. The purpose of this study was to examine
the strategies, self-efficacy, and personal and environmental influences senior executive women
in finance utilize in job negotiations. This section begins by restating the main research
questions, outlining the sampling criteria, and explaining the study’s methodology and interview
protocols. Furthermore, the section acknowledges my positionality, the methods that ensured
credibility and trustworthiness during the study, and the embedded study practices supporting
ethics.
Research Questions
1. How efficacious are women in finance fields in job negotiations?
2. What strategies do women in finance fields utilize in job negotiations?
3. What personal and environmental influences do women in finance fields perceive
as impacting their confidence and strategies in job negotiations?
Overview of Research Design
The current study utilized a qualitative methodological design approach with semistructured interviews lasting 45–60 minutes for each participant. The semi-structured interview
allowed for preliminary standardized open-ended questions regarding each participant’s
experience with negotiation, and further probing questions collected additional narratives of
personal experiences. The semi-structured interview utilized inductive analysis as a data
collection method wherein questions were flexible and assisted the data-gathering process when
the interview was the most significant portion of the research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Openended interview questions kept the interview highly focused, mainly to ensure efficient use of

29
time. The interview responses were located and compared during the analysis of transcription
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interview and probing questions stimulated the participant narratives
by utilizing questions focused on (a) the participants’ experiences and behaviors, (b) opinions
and values, (c) feelings, (d) knowledge, (e) sensory, and (f) background/demographic (Patton,
2015).
Patton (2015) revealed that researchers cannot observe thoughts, feelings, and intentions,
nor observe how individuals organize their world and the meanings attached to what goes on in
that world. Patton (2015) concluded that a semi-structured interview with some standardized
open-ended questions, followed by additional probing questions, allows researchers to access
participants’ perspectives. The added standardized open-ended questions gathered personal
narratives of the individual experience and emotions that quantitative data-collecting methods
might miss. This study used non-probability purposive sampling versus randomized sampling to
ensure that viewpoints from diverse groups of women were captured and presented.
Research Setting
This study focused on 18 women in middle age (37–63) with higher education and
working in executive-level positions (C-suite or high leadership positions) in the finance field or
industry. The finance industry was a setting for study due to its opportunities for gender
negotiation and the known gender disparities in earnings (Eriksson & Sandberg, 2012; Goldin et
al., 2017). In addition, women hold the smallest percentage of executive and leadership positions
in male-dominated industries such as finance (Hultin & Szulkin, 1999), resulting in an interest in
how these women negotiated the earnings, obtained their positions, and whether they experience
earning disparities based on their gender.

30
The Researcher
This study discusses the gender disparity in earnings and the practice of negotiation
through the positionality lens of a White, heterosexual woman. These are the identities most
salient to me, my experiences, and specific social distinctiveness. It was significant to consider
these identities before discussing and examining this research. These identities informed my
view of the world and the midlife gender earnings gap in specific ways. For example, as a
heterosexual woman with my upbringing, a consistent expectation existed to marry a man and
build a family. Advanced education, career pursuit, or a personal income separate from my
spouse were not expected or encouraged. However, a family and a well-managed home were
expected. In addition, once I was married and had children, I was expected to care for most of
the children’s needs, schooling, health and activities, and the home’s needs while balancing my
spouse’s needs and our family business.
Professionally, as a woman, I was expected to support my spouse in our family business.
I would never be CEO, have a leadership position above him, or earn more income. My work
and career became an extension of his work. My job and education supported our family
business, just as my mother and grandmothers had done in their family businesses. My
professional aspirations and educational pursuits for journalism and writing were shifted to
business and marketing to support the family business further. This directly affected my career
choices, ability to negotiate, and earnings in midlife. My positionalities may affect my
perspective on gender power dynamics, traditional social roles, and negotiation practices as they
relate to women who do not share my salient identities or life experiences.
Mitigating potential biases and assumptions during the research and interviews with
participants required awareness of insider-outsider issues, positionality issues, and the resulting

31
intersecting factors (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). At times, there were connections of similar
experiences between the research participants and me. Creswell and Creswell (2018) offered
practices to minimize biases and assumptions potentially compromising the research. One
participant was personally known to me; therefore, I limited the sharing of my personal
experiences to not influence or override the content or methods of the study. A second practice I
imposed was reflexivity, or constantly reflecting on my emotions and noting the reflections
during the interviews to ensure beliefs or opinions did not affect the data collecting or the
findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I recorded personal relationships and reactions to the
participant narrative as part of gathering data.
Data Sources
Data sources for this study were qualitative interviews with a screening. Key
demographic data about women, their position in the workplace and industry, and
recommendations from other women of similar demographics, informed whether each selfselected participant was eligible and willing to participate in the semi-structured interviews. A
purposeful sample of 18 participants who self-identify as female, middle-aged (37–63), educated,
executive level, and participated in at least three work-related negotiations or more within the
last year were selected for a semi-structured online interview protocol. Recruitment strategies for
data sources utilized a selection of women networked on LinkedIn and public and private
Facebook groups. Twenty women responded to the study. Two were self-eliminated due to
interview availability, leaving 18 participants in the study.
Interview
I conducted 18 interviews lasting 45–60 minutes. The interviews encouraged participants
to identify significant negotiation-related occupation experiences throughout their lives and

32
careers (Nelson, 2010). The interview began by explaining the participant demographic
qualifications of the study, followed by gaining consent and discussing privacy concerns about
recording the interview. Once qualification and consent were granted and privacy concerns were
agreed upon, I asked identifying questions, including name, age, race, education, industry,
location, position, and earnings. Once I determined that the participant met the criteria for the
study, the interview began, followed by relevant probing questions.
Participants
A purposeful sample of 18 women was selected and interviewed. A non-probability,
purposeful sampling approach (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) was an appropriate method to ensure
the participants were of the intended demographic sample criteria (age, race, gender, location,
position, current earnings). Participants self-identified as female, middle-aged (37–63), educated
(graduate degree or higher), executive level (C-suite or high leadership position), working in the
finance industry, and having participated in three or more negotiations within the last year. The
purposeful sample included any individual identifying as female, including transgender women.
Participants provided personal narratives on power relations, structure, and the overall
emancipatory goal of reducing the gender earnings gap through negotiation methods for women.
Instrumentation
The qualitative interview was the primary data collection instrument in this study. Using
inductive analysis as a data collection method (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), the qualitative, semistructured interview included 10–15 open interview questions in the appendix. The open
interview questions stimulated participant discussion on self-efficacy and outcomes across past
negotiation experiences. Interview questions about negotiation outcomes during their careers that
led into midlife were asked. Probing questions about feelings of support, internal and external

33
barriers, negotiation success and failure, and negotiation anxiety were asked. The participants
were encouraged to elaborate and share about their negotiations, earnings, promotions, positions,
and overall history at length.
The study’s conceptual framework supports this qualitative instrumentation through the
representation of the experience in the negotiation process, from the initiating point of selfefficacy and negotiation behaviors to practical negotiation actions and earnings outcomes in
midlife. These paths are personal and often particular to the individual woman and her
experience. Therefore, the qualitative, semi-structured interview using inductive analysis
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) was a proper data collection method to obtain the individual
narratives related to negotiation and personal experience.
Data Collection Procedures
The participants and I were in various parts of the United States. I determined that Zoom
was an efficient and convenient tool for the interviews. Zoom provides a face-to-face virtual
experience, recording features, and the option to store data files locally for security. Interviews
were conducted, lasting 45–60 minutes. Otter.ai was determined to be a reliable and secure
transcription service with the opportunity to store files locally for security. The recordings were
downloaded locally, with transcriptions stored on a private, encrypted, protected, secured drive.
Interviews were conducted virtually using secure video conferencing software at no
expense to the participants. All interviews were transcribed verbatim by the external transcribing
service, Otter.ai. Informed by relevant literature and theories (Creswell & Creswell, 2018;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), I crafted a codebook using a thematic process and analysis using prior
codes. I added emergent codes during analysis to ensure qualitative findings represented the

34
diverse perspectives and narratives while categorizing them for analysis. I also uploaded the
transcripts to Atlas.ti to capture additional emergent themes for analysis.
I retained recordings and transcriptions for study record-keeping purposes per USC
institutional policy. I retained the recordings and transcriptions for future research use. I
destroyed direct identifiers and the key to the codes upon completion of the research.
Data Analysis
Sequential steps for qualitative data analysis of the participant interviews and
transcriptions followed the five-step data analysis framework by Creswell and Creswell (2018)
supporting qualitative research. In Step 1 of this process, I purposefully transcribed and sorted
the interviews for clarity and consistency in the pattern of speech and words used (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). For example, I addressed unidentified words or vague statements unaddressed
during the interview post-interview by contacting the participant for meaning or clarity. Step 2
required reviewing the transcriptions for overall meaning, general ideas, depth, credibility, and
use of the interview data (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This included the additional notes I made
describing reactions and thoughts during the interview and the notes the participant described.
Step 3 involved coding the data with a word, often the interviewee’s actual term, to describe a
category in the participants’ narratives (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The fourth step in data
analysis used coding to generate a theme defined by the categories (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The final step was depicting and describing the themes represented in the qualitative narratives
of the interviews (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The study organized and presented emerging themes from multiple participant
perspectives using their narrative quotations. Descriptive information about each participant
accompanied each narrative to connect the narrative to the participants’ demographic identities to

35
analyze self-efficacy and negotiation action. Negotiation behaviors derived from Kahneman’s
(2013) eight decision-making elements and the adapted conceptual framework triangulated
coherent justification for the themes uncovered through data analysis (Creswell & Creswell,
2018).
Validity and Reliability
In this study, I was the primary instrument of data collection. The credibility and
trustworthiness of the data collection process, data analysis, and data collection instrument
determined the study’s validity and reliability. During the data collection stage, I engaged in
reflexivity by constantly reflecting on personal emotions or reactions in the research process to
ensure data collecting or the findings were not affected (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Secondarily,
as a practice of member checking (Creswell & Creswell, 2018), the participants received their
polished or semi-polished transcribed interview for review to confirm, correct, and add further
comments to their responses.
Ethics
The protection of the participants was central to this research. The institutional review
board approved the information gathering for this study. Guidelines provided by the University
of Southern California’s Office for the Protection of Research Subjects for Informed Consent
Information (Shahnazarian et al., 2013) guided the practice required to grant information for
distribution to participants and gather permission to participate. Participant involvement was
confidential and voluntary, and they were welcome to decline contributions at any point in the
study without pressure. Patton (2015) indicated that the interviewer’s primary task is gathering
data. The interviewer is neither a judge, a therapist, nor an unresponsive instrument to learning
about any suffering and pain reported by participants during the interview (Patton, 2015).

36
Necessary steps to minimize harm included the protection of participant identities and privacy by
assigning numerical values or pseudonyms depending on their demand for privacy (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Furthermore, I excluded identifiable information, such as family names, company
names, and other specific identifiers, from the study’s findings for privacy and protection. I
destroyed direct identifiers and/or the key to the codes upon completion of the research.

37
Chapter Four: Findings
This qualitative study aimed to examine the negotiation strategies, self-efficacy, and
personal and environmental influences senior executive women in finance utilize in job
negotiations. The study’s interview questions and conceptual framework focused on how
individual self-efficacy influences individual beliefs and behaviors about negotiation. The
participants’ experiences and narratives demonstrated the importance of strategy, confidence,
and influences on negotiation in finance. From this perspective, several themes emerged from the
analysis of their narratives that addressed the effect of negotiation on the gender earnings gap at
midlife. Emerging themes from the data analysis contributed to the confidence, influences, and
overarching strategies women in finance utilized during job negotiations.
Participants
A purposeful sample of 18 women with the demographic characteristics of the qualitative
sample shown in Table 1 was selected and interviewed. Each participant discussed their
experiences as a woman in the finance field and defined the negotiation strategies they utilized
throughout their career. All were assigned pseudonyms to protect their identities, and I redacted
organizations or other identifying information mentioned from the interview transcript for
confidentiality. To further protect the participants’ identities, I broadly described job titles and
degrees not specific to the location or organization. Table 1 provides an overview of the
participants, including their position titles, highest education, and years in the finance industry.

38
Table 1
Participant Overview
Participant
pseudonym Title Education Age
Range
Years in
industry
Athena Financial advisor Bachelor’s 37–50 27
Beatrice
Director, business
partnerships and
negotiations
MBA 37–50 16
Cassandra Head of finance MBA 37–50 23
Dana
Partner, chief innovation
officer of strategy and
growth
Post-undergraduate 51–55 25
Ellen Director of global benefits Bachelor’s 51–55 30
Fiona Chief financial officer Bachelor’s 51–55 30
Gwendolyn Executive vice president and
chief operating officer MBA 51–55 25
Hermione President and chief executive
officer Master’s 56–63 6
Iris Senior vice president MBA 51–55 32
Jette Regional director Master’s 56–63 20
Kathleen Vice president of finance MBA 40–50 5
Lilith Board member, treasury tech
and leadership MBA 51–55 32
Maxine President and chief executive
officer Bachelor’s 51–55 30
Nora
Board director, financial
expert in vulture
investments
MBA 56–63 35
Ophelia Budget manager MBA 51–55 33
Phyllis Director, financial expert, and
board member MBA 56–63 38
Quinn Chief executive officer Bachelor’s 56–63 28
Roxanne Co-founder and managing
vice president Bachelor’s 51–55 18
The majority of the participants identified themselves as Caucasian. Three identified as
Asian American, three as African American, one as Hispanic, and one as multi-racial. Table 2
provides an overview of the participants’ race brackets.

39
Table 2
Participant Race Overview
Race Participants
African American 3
Asian American 3
Caucasian 10
Hispanic 1
Multi-racial 1
The majority of participants identified their relationship status as married; 13 were
married to men, and one was married to a woman. Two classified themselves as divorced, one as
single, and one as a widow. Table 3 provides an overview of the number of dependents for each
participant. Dependents included the number of children, parents, and others for which the
participants provide caregiving.
Table 3
Participant Dependent Overview
Dependents Participant
0 1
1 to 2 9
3 or more 8

40
Most participants worked for organizations on the West Coast of the United States. Six
participants worked in the central portions of the United States, and two worked on the East
Coast of the United States. Table 4 shows the sector of organization of each participant’s
company.
Table 4
Participant Organization Overview
Financial organization sector Participant
Government 4
Non-Profit 2
Private 4
Public 5
Self-employed 3

41
Research Questions
The study examined the strategies women in finance utilize in job negotiations and the
influences of those negotiation strategies into midlife. The results were divided into three parts to
provide the specific outcomes for each research question.
1. How efficacious are women in finance fields in job negotiations?
2. What strategies do women in finance fields utilize in job negotiations?
3. What personal and environmental influences do women in finance fields perceive
as impacting their confidence and strategies in job negotiations?
Introduction to Findings
This section describes the organization of the findings. The results are divided into three
parts. Each section comprises the related lived experiences, effective negotiation strategies, and
influences contributing to the participants’ overarching strategies during job negotiations.
Although corporate sectors vary, all participants were engaged in jobs in or primarily involved in
finance. All participants held higher education degrees and were employed as senior executives
or in senior leadership roles at their organizations. All participants experienced pay, position, or
professional negotiations during the last 3 years and were employed before and during the
COVID-19 pandemic. The participants were at midlife, with 17 women identified as aged 40 or
over and one identified as age 37.
The first section provides biography summaries for each participant based on the first and
second interview questions with findings related to confidence and self-efficacy. The
participants’ biographies give an overview of confidence and self-efficacy in job negotiations.
Their narratives provide descriptive moments of successes, challenges, losses, and failures that
shaped their unique outlook, confidence, and self-efficacy related to the research question, “How

42
efficacious are women in finance fields in job negotiations?” The narratives of the participants’
experiences offer a unique view, a personal perspective, and an individual attitude around the
formation of negotiation strategies throughout their careers.
The second part of this section includes the findings on the interviewees’ negotiation
strategies. This section answers the research question, “What strategies do women in finance
fields utilize in job negotiations?” The section reviews the participants’ learned negotiation
strategies from personal experience, higher education, and on-the-job or professional exposure.
The third part of this section includes the findings on internal and external negotiation
influences. This section answered the research question, “What personal and environmental
influences do women in finance fields perceive as impacting their confidence and strategies in
job negotiations?” The section highlights the barriers and challenges women in finance encounter
as they negotiate in professional settings. At some point during their careers and negotiation
experiences, all participants experienced gender constraints or paradoxes.
Participant Biographies
The inclusion of participant descriptions in the following section introduces the
individuals in the context of their executive and leadership positions and overviews their
confidence and self-efficacy in job negotiations. Emerging connections in biography resonated
with participants and confidence to varying degrees. Participants’ biography narratives also
provide some insight into the individual attitudes and influence around the formation of
negotiation strategies throughout their careers.
Athena
Athena described her experience with negotiation as learning to negotiate for everything
by the age of 2. She grew up with exposure to negotiation from an early age, as her parents did

43
not speak English, and she was their translator. She negotiated on their behalf, whether for a
vehicle purchase or a house.
Athena described negotiation as a part of life in her profession. She stated, “I’m pretty
confident. I know how to get my way. I know how to use the right conversation, have the right
ideas, or use the right variables to help people make the right kinds of decisions.” Even when the
negotiations do not go her way, she stated the conversation and opportunity to bring her ideas
and the other parties’ ideas together often leads to the best outcome or compromise. Athena
works for a prominent investment and wealth management firm.
Beatrice
Beatrice described her first experience in negotiation when buying and selling a car. By
the time she finished college, she had gained enough knowledge to attempt to negotiate her first
job offer. On a scale of 1 to 10, she described her negotiation abilities as “a solid 8 for
competence and skill.” Beatrice has attended courses and received executive education,
mentorship, and training from other external parties. She received formalized training through
her MBA program. She also noted that she leads a negotiation team for a large Fortune 50
company.
Cassandra
Cassandra learned about negotiations during business school and performed many merger
and acquisition negotiations at her previous company. She defined her negotiation experience as
“discussing the purchase price and all financial terms” with the other parties. She described her
above-average negotiation skills as “not high up there, so something in between.”
Cassandra indicated she is often more knowledgeable than her counterparts during
negotiations because of her financial expertise. Usually, in her dealings, the other party does not

44
have her specialized knowledge of acquisitions and finance. While she said this allows her to
take advantage of the situation, she prefers to remain fair and ensure the terms are agreeable to
both parties in the negotiation. Cassandra works for a private capital investment firm.
Dana
Dana credited her understanding of negotiation to working on a highly specialized team
of five people in a business unit working on investments for innovation strategy to build
workflow relevancy across several hundred software applications. She described this as
“building out a global partner ecosystem of about 350 information technology vendors.” During
this experience, she managed a multi-billion-dollar budget and described this as a significant
practice in negotiation. She described herself as “extremely” confident in negotiating as a
professional executive and as a former Olympic athlete.
Dana indicated her role, responsibility, title, and compensation were to execute
significant contractual agreements with enterprises, commercial providers, and commercial
payers. As the only woman on this team of five strategists, she stated that the core of her
negotiation success was her ability to build relationships, rapport, trust, and credibility.
Ellen
Ellen described being “somewhat confident” in her negotiation skills and has received
previous negotiation training through online platforms and manager-leadership training. She is a
subject matter expert in her industry and manages a budget of over $200 million. Ellen described
negotiations as broader than just a paycheck, particularly job negotiations. Negotiation factors
could include work environment, opportunities, intrinsic rewards, remote work, time off as a
working mom, and complimentary electric vehicle parking or onsite dry cleaning.

45
Ellen described negotiation strategy as a practice of preparation. She indicated she
engages in negotiation by preparing a “summary of everything I’ve accomplished, where I’ve
gone above and beyond, where I’ve stretched, and how I’ve performed as a leader and a
manager.” Ellen works for a sizeable finance-technology firm.
Fiona
Fiona attributed her learning process of negotiation to trial and error. She studied some
negotiation practices in college and actively negotiated on the job. Being 30 years into her
career, she said she felt very confident about performing negotiations in her position. Fiona
credits her confidence to experiencing successful negotiations. “That’s pretty much it; that builds
your competence when you’re successful in negotiating.”
Fiona has negotiated contracts, labor union agreements, and salaries throughout her
career that “usually have a positive outcome.” She indicated that a successful negotiation builds
confidence for the next go-round. Fiona works for a city government and law enforcement entity.
Gwendolyn
Gwendolyn attributes her learning of negotiation to early childhood. “I probably
negotiated all through childhood; I’m one of seven children. My father was a business owner. So,
I heard about his negotiations at the dinner table.” She also negotiated for pay during high school
and college and learned about negotiations formally in a graduate course. She described her
negotiation training as “more informal than formal.”
Gwendolyn indicated that her confidence in negotiation depends on her expertise and
preparation. In situations where she has much functional knowledge, she is very confident. She
also stated, “Having my position and my talking points prepared in advance makes me feel more
confident.” Gwendolyn is employed at a financial services firm.

46
Hermione
Hermione describes her introduction to negotiation as “a little bit of textbook and then
indoctrination by fire.” She attended business school for her undergraduate degree, worked for a
government institution, and then began a career managing and operating a multi-million dollar
international transport facility. She described herself as “fairly confident” and credits her
confidence in negotiation experience to understanding the desired result or outcome. She also
suggests knowing the people on the other side of the table and their motives and tending to a
mutual relationship.
Hermione discussed negotiating current union agreements and how each union has a
different personality. She said, “Sometimes you have to get a bit louder and more direct. It’s very
strategic. … You adjust your style based on what their needs are, who is in the room, what your
end result is.” Hermione leads a large international transport facility.
Iris
Iris learned about the process of negotiation through work and life experiences. She
described her early career negotiation experiences as “clunky,” but she built her confidence and
gained experience through repetition. She now feels stronger in her negotiation abilities and rates
her negotiation skills as an 8 out of 10. Iris stated, “You’d think at this point at my age and
experience level that I would be, you know, maybe higher. ... There’s always this little tinge of a
lack of confidence going into a certain degree of negotiations.”
The negotiation strategies Iris shared are “two-pronged.” The first prong is to “have a
degree of self-awareness or self-discovery of what you are really good at and what you bring to a
team.” The second prong is to document, reflect, and share successes. Every month, Iris blocks
time to create a lengthy list of contributions to assist in conversations with her boss about her

47
worth to the company, her ranking, and her justified earnings. Iris works at a national public
financial and lending institution.
Jette
Jette was previously involved with managing finances and individuals in prior
employment. She currently oversees a $30 million budget and the operations of three facilities.
Previously, she was required to negotiate from the position of the employer. Now, she negotiates
from the position of the employee. She indicated her negotiation confidence level is “on a scale
of 1 to 10, probably a 7 or 8.”
Jette credited her confidence in negotiation to knowing her value and the value she brings
to the organization. She indicated she is not great at bragging and that negotiation becomes
difficult for her because she knows the perspective from the other position due to her previous
experience. Jette works for a large government entity.
Kathleen
Kathleen attributed her negotiation abilities to having previously worked in sales and has
“built more confidence over the last 5 years working in acquisitions negotiating deals.” She
indicated there are many negotiation opportunities and other compromises made in the sales
process. She credited her husband for contributing to her perspective and clarity around
negotiation promotions. She indicated that her husband has “been one to push and introduce that
topic [negotiation] pretty hard with me outside of just this basic business.”
Kathleen believed successful negotiations occur by asking for what you want and being
open to a conversation even when you may not like what you hear, which may not be easy. This
often means handling harsh feedback or information, taking it in, and processing it. She stated,
“Staying in the conversation means being ready for what might come back at you.” Kathleen was

48
recently promoted from senior finance director to vice president of finance for an educational
entity.
Lilith
Lilith described herself as “very confident” in negotiations and credited her confidence
level to knowing her worth to the business. She indicated that she has a “personal board of
directors” that has helped her strengthen her negotiation muscle, and this board provides
feedback on opportunities in her industry. She stated she has not had to interview for jobs or seek
jobs, as most of her options are presented to her for consideration. Lilith recalled, “Most of the
negotiation is ... is the job of good fit? What are the skills or strengths that I need to be
successful? And what am I going to gain? And then, obviously, the financial piece of it.”
Lilith reinforced the concept of the BATNA by encouraging women to decide their
target, research their value and what they bring to the organization, and be upfront. She
remarked, “I don’t want people to think they shouldn’t negotiate. You should know what your
BATNA is.” Lilith is a board member and a treasury and leadership executive for a sizeable
finance and banking institution.
Maxine
Maxine learned about the negotiation process through previous experiences and working
with human resources. She mentioned, “HR would come to you with a job position that was open
to see if you were interested and then talk to you about the cost of living and what the job pays.”
Through those conversations, Maxine would negotiate positions, job grades, and salaries within a
range.
Over the last couple of years, she has spent more time with colleagues asking about the
properties of their contracts and job roles. When asked about her confidence in negotiations, she

49
said, “I could definitely get better.” Previously, she used an attorney to provide insight into
specific industry and employment requests for the positions of presidents and CEOs to assist in
her job negotiations. She indicated that exposure to negotiation opportunities and colleagues who
share their employment contract information has contributed to her confidence in what to ask for
in negotiation. Maxine oversees the budget for a large non-profit organization.
Nora
Nora described her negotiation learning experience as self-taught: “I had no preparation;
nobody coached me. I got offered my first job and was thrown in.” Nora recommends
“negotiating from a position of strength, … not just knowing what you should be asking for, but
feeling like you deserve it.” She implied that the negotiation process for herself can be “hit or
miss.” Sometimes, she is very comfortable negotiating for herself; other times, she is shy about
negotiating.
Nora stated she is “not real confident” in her negotiation skills. She indicated that she
probably does not prepare as well as she should in researching an agreement’s number and terms.
Nora said, “What I haven’t been as good about, but I’ve gotten better at, is doing my research.”
Nora is a board director and financial expert serving organizations in financial distress.
Ophelia
Ophelia experienced negotiation in the public sector for the majority of her career. She
suggested that negotiation in the public sector is a different process because the increases in pay
and position are centralized and set, especially in lower positions. Ophelia stated, “For most of
my career, it was you apply, you get promotions, and the promotions had set amounts that you
get increases while you promote. So, there weren’t as many opportunities to negotiate until I got
into the higher levels of the jobs.”

50
Ophelia shared that her job negotiation skills are “not great” and attributes that to the set
promotions and pay during most of her career: “I’ll just sort of go along with whatever; even
when I became the director, they offered this sort of salary range, and I just accepted that.”
Recently, she was recruited from retirement to a director position overseeing a billion-dollar
budget for a large city. While offered the maximum pay range to leave retirement for the
position, she indicated, “I didn’t negotiate for higher vacation time off. So, they set me at the
amount of zero, you know, no experience. Now, that was terrible negotiating.” Ophelia left
retirement to accept a position as the budget manager for a large city.
Phyllis
Phyllis learned about negotiation in a master’s program and then through experience. She
indicated she is very confident in negotiations and attributed that to “lots of experience and
successful outcomes.” She added that having mentors and career coaches can help women
“bounce things off of and understand where the different boundaries are, in terms of how far you
can stretch your ask.”
Phyllis indicated that her MBA program introduced her to BATNA: “It’s stuck with me
forever. I’m always constantly thinking about that [BATNA] in any negotiation.” Phyllis is a
director, financial expert, and board member who serves a large energy organization.
Quinn
Quinn described her negotiation learning experience as “kind of self-taught.” She
attended courses in her undergraduate in labor relations and negotiations but described those
courses as more “theoretical.” When she described her negotiation learning process, she
indicated that she “basically just did some research on my own and started to just sort of selfnegotiate, and initially, was quite successful.”

51
Quinn stated she is very confident in her negotiation skills. She credited her confidence to
her past successes in professional, personal, and contractual negotiations. She said, “I have been
quite successful and push fairly hard on that [negotiations]. … It’s actually garnered quite a bit
of confidence in my ability.” Quinn is the CEO managing the finances of a non-profit
organization serving a large city.
Roxanne
Roxanne recalled learning about negotiation at a very young age through playing sports:
“I was playing sports and learning all about competition and how to practice and other forms of
training that could put me in a better position to play, especially when I got to a competitive
level.” She credits playing sports with giving her the concepts of negotiation in practice and
advantage to gain the position and play needed for her advancement.
Roxanne rated her confidence in negotiation as 10 out of 10. She stated her negotiation
style is more feminine rather than masculine, direct, or dominant: “It is more about building the
value and creating the scenario where each person in the negotiation feels like they got the best
part of the deal.” Roxanne co-founded the extensive wealth management and annuity firm where
she works.
Research Question 1: How Efficacious Are Women in Finance Fields in Job Negotiations?
The interviewees experienced several contributors to their confidence during
negotiations. This section overviews the participants’ confidence and self-efficacy. During the
analysis, participant narratives revealed various themes centered around self-efficacy and
confidence affecting job negotiation. Table 5 shows the emerging themes.

52
Table 5
Findings: Research Question 1
Overarching theme Subthemes
Women’s confidence gap impacted job
negotiations.
Strategies for building the capacity for
self-efficacy
Mentorships built self-efficacy.
Industry experience and expertise built
improved self-efficacy.
Fear negatively impacted self-efficacy.
Confidence and Self-Efficacy
The research findings suggested that most participants were confident in their negotiation
skills. Of the 18 participants, 10 (55%) indicated they were “very,” “extremely,” or “pretty”
confident in their negotiating skills. Athena revealed she was confident in negotiation and said,
“I know how to get my way. I know how to use the right conversation, have the right ideas, or
use the right variables.” Quinn said, “I’m very confident. Often, people have said, ‘Can you help
negotiate for me?’ So, I will say that I feel very confident about it.”
Six participants said they could improve or were confident in areas of job negotiation
related to their expertise. Cassandra indicated that she felt average in her confidence in
negotiation and said, “I wouldn’t say I’m high up there, but I’m not bad either. So, something in
between.” When rating her confidence in negotiation, Maxine said, “I could definitely get
better.” For Gwendolyn, confidence was connected to areas of expertise. Gwendolyn said, “I’d
say I’m fairly confident. There are some areas where I have less expertise and less confidence.
And where I have a lot of functional and technical expertise, I’m very confident.” Roxanne
responded similarly: “If it’s in my field and what I know, then I’m very confident. I would say
that I’m a 10 out of 10.”

53
Two participants mentioned they experienced lower confidence levels and indicated they
were “not real confident” or “not great” at negotiation. Ellen indicated she was “somewhat
confident.” Ophelia, who has over 30 years of experience in a large government municipality,
said, “My negotiating skills for jobs are not great. I don’t think I have great negotiating skills in
that area because for most of my career, that [earnings] was set.”
All participants indicated that confidence was an essential component of job negotiations.
The feeling of confidence varied between participants related to their self-efficacy in job
negotiations. Athena, Quinn, and eight other participants indicated they were very confident.
Some participants, like Cassandra and Maxine, suggested they could improve in confidence,
while Gwendolyn and Roxanne said they were confident in areas of negotiation related to their
expertise. Ellen and Ophelia rated their confidence levels lower than most participants. The
portrayal of confidence and self-efficacy impacted the job negotiations highlighted by each
woman.
Strategies for Building the Capacity for Self-Efficacy
Participants indicated that building the capacity for confidence in job negotiation was a
requirement for self-efficacy. Most participants, 16 (88%) of the women, recommended focusing
on self-worth and building personal strengths to build confidence. Participants said developing
confidence was an ongoing process that requires self-awareness, continuous self-development,
and practice. Iris, Maxine, Jette, Phyllis, Roxanne, and Beatrice indicated building capacity for
confidence was an ongoing process that required self-awareness, continuous self-development,
and practice in various approaches.
Iris, a senior vice president for a national finance firm, incorporated self-awareness into
her confidence-building practice. Iris recalled, “The confidence piece, I think, is really just

54
getting to a point in my life where I appreciate very strong self-awareness and self-reflection.”
As the president and chief executive officer of a non-profit organization, Maxine also connected
self-awareness and self-worth to building capacity for confidence:
I think once you understand and know your worth, then you ask for your worth. If you
don’t know your strengths, and you don’t know the talents and experience you bring to a
job, then you don’t always fully ask for what you’re worth.
Jette, an executive at a large municipality, was similar to Maxine and connected confidence to
knowing the personal value and the value added to the organization. Jette indicated,
Generally speaking, I think that my confidence level comes from knowing my value and
my value added to the organization. I’m looking to say, “What should I be paid? What’s
the value? What is that, and what’s reasonable from my prior position?”
Five of the women participating in this study mentioned continuous self-development
built their confidence. Participants indicated they sought self-development in multiple ways.
Phyllis and Roxanne, who each possess lengthy careers in finance, sought continuous selfdevelopment through education and practice as integral components of building their capacity for
confidence over time. Phyllis indicated her MBA program contributed to her confidence in
negotiation and considered continuous education and practice as an ongoing process for building
capacity in confidence:
I would say take a course that is really good for negotiating. I think the book that was in
my course was called Getting to Yes. So, either read the book or take a course where you
can do some [negotiating] practice.
Roxanne spoke about her self-development in building confidence through exposing “flat sides”
and creating personal strengths:

55
I heard long ago that if you hear something once, you don’t have to believe it. But if you
hear it three times, you may want to work on that. That might be a flat side for you. So,
I’m good at diving into those flat sides and ensuring I get stronger.
Four participants mentioned practice as an essential component of building confidence.
Beatrice, an experienced negotiator for a Fortune 50 company, indicated practice in both
personal and professional settings contributed to her confidence:
Practice. Practice with real results. I find it [building confidence in negotiating] is one of
those concepts that’s easy to learn about in theory, but it is much more tangible … when
you actually do it yourself, and there are real stakes at play.
As much as positive factors built confidence, negative aspects significantly hindered
confidence. Ten (55%) of the participants discussed low self-esteem, low self-awareness, and
being self-critical affected their capacity for confidence. Ophelia mentioned her confidence was
not great as it related to job negotiations:
Well, my confidence isn’t great. I don’t feel I’m the best negotiator even though I know I
have a lot of experience that people value. I just am not overly confident. I don’t know
why I don’t negotiate better. … I don’t know that I do a very good job in general of being
my best advocate.
Nora, a well-experienced financial expert serving organizations in financial distress, added, “A
lot of times I feel vulnerable because I really want the job, or I really need the job.” Nora
indicated feeling vulnerable could harm her self-efficacy and challenge her negotiating
confidence:
Sometimes, I really feel comfortable, and I negotiate hard for myself. And sometimes I’m
shy about it, and I don’t. … I’ve gotten better over time. But the need to make money, the

56
need to do well for my family, if I’m going to spend my time, I want to be compensated
for it. So, it’s hit or miss with me.
Nora, a financial expert service organizations in financial distress, continued to explain her lived
experience, further affected by systemic inequities as an executive Black woman with over 30
years of experience in the finance industry:
And women in the [distressed] finance industry, especially when I entered it years ago,
we were still scarce… There were six of us. … In most of the places, I was the only
woman in the room. Definitely the only Black person in the room. And so, it’s not an
environment where you feel like you have the latitude to just be like, “I’m going to ask
for this.”
Developing a clear understanding of strengths and values influenced many participants’
confidence. Conversely, self-reflecting and navigating feelings of vulnerability were also helpful
in building experience and confidence capacity. While both Ophelia and Nora categorized
themselves as less confident than they could be in job negotiations, they were self-aware of the
factors impacting their confidence levels. Noteworthy to mention were instances where a few
participants, such as Nora, spontaneously mentioned they felt their gender, race, and ethnicity
affected their confidence and self-efficacy during job negotiations.
Mentorships and Support Systems Built Self-Efficacy
Mentorships comprised of colleagues, peers, and family members contributed to the
participants’ confidence and self-efficacy. Connecting with mentors, colleagues, and professional
networks benefitted participant’s job negotiations. Nearly all participants mentioned professional
and personal mentorship as important in learning negotiation. Acquiring a mentor or developing

57
a support system exposed participants to negotiation possibilities from individuals in similar
roles and industries, providing valuable insights and practices for their negotiation confidence.
Mentorships were essential factors in developing confidence and self-efficacy in
negotiation. Of the 18 participants, 10 (55%) said their negotiation mentors were professional
executives or leaders. Participants also suggested that they purposefully sought mentors inside
and outside their organizations. Dana described her mentors as “individuals [who] are more
tenured than me.” Dana also stated, “I’m always looking to others for education, networking, and
business development … to coach and guide me through the process.” Lilith described current
and former professional mentors as her “personal board of directors” who contributed to her job
negotiation strategy:
As opportunities were presented, I ran them by what I call my personal board of
directors. They would give me feedback on opportunities, where I was too late, areas
where I shouldn’t lead up, … areas where there are still opportunities to push, and what
the industry looks like.
Mentors intentionally took tenured financial executives like Fiona, Iris, and Roxanne
aside for coaching on negotiation skills. Fiona recalled receiving “lots of discussions and
guidance” from a mentor who would “bring issues or concerns about how to approach
something.” Fiona described this mentor as “someone who was not my direct manager, but at a
higher executive level than I was, who had more years of experience.” Several participants
indicated that having a mentor to confide in helped with their confidence in negotiation. These
mentorships included personal one-on-one coaching and watching other professionals formally
utilize negotiation strategies. Exposure to many different mentors, specifically a female mentor,
helped Iris develop and increase her negotiation confidence:

58
There are a multitude of people that have acted as mentors, whether it be formally or
informally. … I distinctly remember less than 15 years into my career, a vice president,
who was a female, having a conversation with me. She took the time to take me aside and
let me know how valuable I was and that I should acknowledge my value and my
contributions. … I consider that a crucible moment.
Roxanne experienced an increase in confidence as she watched and then utilized her
mentor’s skillful job negotiations: “And it [confidence] was really as a result of his mentorship
and his willingness to help me grow.” Roxanne remembered her confidence building as she
worked beside her mentor:
I started off as his admin assistant, and he got eight promotions while I was with him.
And each time he got a promotion, I also got a promotion. … I really learned from
watching him negotiate his contracts. … Right after he got promoted, I would ask for my
own promotion.
While acknowledging the value of mentorship, a few participants explained their reluctance to
reach out for a mentor due to systemic racial and gender issues. Quinn, a chief executive officer
of a sizeable non-profit organization, indicated her gender, ethnicity, and race made her hesitant
to reach out or accept mentorship:
I was really reluctant to reach out to others. I think, partly because of being a woman and
a person of color, I think I was a bit afraid … to reach out to anyone to really mentor me.
So, I have to say I haven’t really been mentored by anyone to really hone in on my
negotiation skills.
Women in this study revealed that seeking advice or help from others in similar
circumstances or family connections generated support and new ideas, which supported

59
confidence and self-efficacy in job negotiation. Six participants mentioned garnering support
from others. These participants said support from family or a close network assisted with
building skills and strategy during a job negotiation for successful outcomes. Iris, Gwendolyn,
and Kathleen credited their husbands as significant support for helping to build their job
negotiation confidence. Iris stated,
My husband has been my biggest fan. As I’ve grown through my career, … I would
roleplay [negotiations] with him. … And he was able to give me objective feedback. And
that’s tremendous to have that strong partner in your life.
Gwendolyn indicated that her husband contributed to her negotiation confidence. She stated,
“My husband was a professional negotiator. So, he would give me unsolicited advice.” Similarly,
Kathleen indicated that her husband was “probably the one who has pushed me the most from a
negotiating perspective.” Kathleen added,
He’s definitely been able to ask for a promotion and asked for clarity around promotion a
lot better than I am. And so, if in the true sense of the word negotiating, I would say he’s
been one to push and introduce that topic pretty hard with me outside of just this basic
business.
Mentorships and other support systems provided Dana, Fiona, Iris, Roxanne, Gwendolyn,
and Kathleen with the support needed to build confidence in their job-negotiating abilities. In
addition, these participants acquired advantages in negotiation that would later benefit their
negotiation practices. Confiding with a mentor, learning from others, and practicing negotiation
with mentors built their confidence. Beyond the advantages of mentorship many participants
mentioned, it is important to mention that some women of color in the study, such as Quinn,
indicated their race and ethnicity created fear and hesitation when seeking a mentor.

60
Industry Expertise and Experience Built Self-Efficacy
Women emphasized their industry expertise and experience to build and communicate
their confidence during job negotiations. Seven (38%) of the 18 participants indicated that
articulating their value to the organization and communicating how their contributions enhanced
their companies’ bottom line built their confidence during job negotiations. Factors of this
strategy included highlighting their expertise and experience in the market or industry during the
negotiation. As a chief executive officer, Quinn encouraged self-promotion during job
negotiations. Quinn said, “If you aren’t the one to really toot your own horn and speak up to try
to get to where you want to, no one else will do that for you.” Iris, a senior vice president of a
national financial firm, provided a way to build confidence by highlighting her expertise and
value by directly connecting company profit to her contributions. Iris proposed,
Make sure that you are acknowledging your own contributions and write those down.
Know what your worth is and line that up with dollars. … Make sure you’re very diligent
about the line items being the contributions that line up to how many dollars you bring to
your company.
Lilith, a finance board member overseeing treasury, technology, and leadership, focused
on the value and talent she brought to her organizations during job negotiations. When presented
with offers from another party to move to other companies, Lilith reminded the other party that
her current market pay is often irrelevant in the negotiation. The focus is on the value that Lilith
brings to the organization with her lengthy industry history, experience, and accomplishments
and what the other party will do to entice her to move:

61
Oftentimes, people looking for talent, especially outside the organization, forget that
they’re competing with the market. And, so, I remind them that what I make today is
irrelevant. The question is, what will it take [to get me to move outside the organization]?
While in agreement with Quinn, Iris, and Lilith, Ophelia expressed that highlighting
experience and expertise during job negotiations is not easy. For Ophelia, focusing on their value
and insisting on fair compensation as a strategy can feel conflictive or out of character:
I think that’s probably the harder thing … for women to really try to understand they can
negotiate these things, they do have value in the workplace, and to want to fight for that
value [and] really be compensated for that value.
A significant number of participants, 38%, indicated their industry knowledge and past
roles impacted their confidence. Cassandra discussed confidence in her abilities as a factor of
several components:
So, for my expertise areas where I do mergers and acquisitions, I have found I am very
confident because I really know what I am talking about. It’s because of my experience,
education, and the knowledge.
Similar to Cassandra and Dana, Ellen also credited her confidence in job negotiations to
her industry expertise and experience. Ellen stated,
Being a subject matter expert is pretty significant. As well as being able to manage a
pretty significant budget. It’s north of $200 million. … So, the more skills and the better
the track record is with managing those certain elements of the programs impact
confidence with negotiation.
Industry experience and expertise helped build confidence for a significant percentage of
participants, improving their self-efficacy during job negotiations. Experience, education, and

62
knowledge increased self-worth and helped improve personal strengths. Drawing on industry
knowledge and expertise gained from previous contributions is essential for building capacity for
confidence and self-efficacy.
Fear Negatively Impacted Self-Efficacy
Fear had a negative impact on self-efficacy and confidence during job negotiations. For
eight of the participants, fear of conflict or creating tension with the other party influenced the
confidence of women during negotiation. Participants said negotiating is uncomfortable for many
women, and often, women fear the conflict sometimes associated with job negotiation. The
understanding of fear was significant to the impact on confidence and self-efficacy. Some
participants recognized fear as limiting or inhibiting women’s ability to negotiate or express their
potential. Participants identified how fear manifests in various forms where women are hindered
from being fully efficacious in their negotiations and revealed additional opportunities for selfdevelopment.
Fiona, Dana, and Iris revealed fears that impacted their confidence, such as the hesitancy
to take risks and the fear of the other party’s response. Fiona, a chief financial officer for a law
enforcement municipal entity, mentioned fear as a historical notion impacting confidence. Fiona
said, “For history, we’ve [women] been silenced. Or people tried to silence us as women. You
don’t always know when to stand up.” As a senior vice president overseeing women working in
finance, Iris noticed fear affected the confidence of many women she managed and described
fear as a hesitancy in taking risks:
I also worked with a lot of women that worked underneath me. And that’s when I really
started to see that there’s a hesitancy. I think that women are less confident in their ability
to take risks.

63
Similar to Fiona and Iris, Dana spoke of the fear of retaliation, rejection, and termination that can
impact the confidence and subjugation of women during job negotiations:
I think the number one reason is fear of retaliation. The second is fear of rejection. And
then I would say just general fear of kind of the whole termination. So, I think that [fear]
is inherent in how women have learned to be subordinate when it comes to negotiation in
the workplace.
Conversely, Dana, also a former Olympian, credited her fearlessness as a key advantage to her
confidence and strength in negotiation:
I think I have an advantage in the sense that I’m a former Olympic-level athlete. So, it’s
in my DNA. I’m completely fearless in the use of failure, rejection, loss, and defeat. And
opting out early and often when the deal is not conducive and mutually advantageous to
both parties.
In summary, all participants indicated that confidence was an essential component of job
negotiations, although the feeling of confidence varied between participants when rating their
self-efficacy in job negotiations. Participants indicated that building the capacity for confidence
in negotiation was a requirement for self-efficacy in job negotiations, and developing confidence
was an ongoing process that requires self-awareness, continuous self-development, and practice.
Two participants, Dana and Roxanne, connected negotiation and building the capacity for
confidence to athleticism. In addition, mentorships comprised of colleagues, peers, and family
members contributed to the confidence and self-efficacy of participants along with the
participant’s industry knowledge and past job roles. Finally, recognizing how fear manifests in
various forms, including in mentions of gender, race, and ethnicity, during job negotiations

64
revealed where participants were hindered in confidence and self-efficacy in their job
negotiations while simultaneously showing opportunities for self-development.
Research Question 2: What Strategies Do Women in Finance Fields Utilize in Job
Negotiations?
The second research question focused on the participants’ negotiation strategies that have
directly influenced their career earnings into midlife. The participants thoroughly answered the
interview questions and explained their negotiation strategies and influences in depth. They use
several job negotiation strategies to advocate for themselves and improve their negotiation
outcomes. One overarching theme and two subthemes emerged during the analysis of the
behaviors of negotiation strategy, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6
Findings: Research Question 2
Overarching theme Subthemes
Research and preparation is a required
strategy for job negotiations.
Begin with a negotiation mindset.
Utilize non-monetary benefits to expand the
offer.

65
Research and Preparation
Before entering job negotiations, women in this study prepared by researching the other
party, salary ranges, market trends, and industry standards for roles and experience levels.
Secondarily, participants emphasized obtaining the initial offer first or “anchoring the offer”
from the other party as an important strategy. Finally, participants also encouraged the
preparation of a BATNA before beginning a job negotiation. These three strategy sequences
helped participants establish realistic expectations, support their negotiation tactics, and create
clear boundaries for walking away if an agreement reached an impasse.
Half of the participants, nine of 18, mentioned preparation as a specific strategy for
effective job negotiation that included researching and understanding the positions of each party
and the market pay scale, fostering a first offer or “anchor” from the other party, preparing and
informing counter job offers, and eliciting strategic responses. Participants mentioned the initial
job offer provided an anchoring point for negotiations to begin and that the anchor number may
also require further explanation of the other party’s position. Quinn, a chief executive officer and
an experienced negotiator, recommended researching and preparing a personal position while
allowing the other party to inform or anchor their position first. Quinn indicated,
Don’t put all your cards on the table at one time. I would also say to be very clear about
what information you’ve researched and that you’re very solid on the information. And
perhaps if asked [by the other party], be prepared to share where your information is
coming from so that it’s clear you’ve done some significant research [about the job].
Executive financial board members and directors like Phyllis, Nora, and Jette also
emphasized obtaining the initial offer first or anchor from the other party as a preparation
strategy in job negotiations. As Phyllis indicated, “[The] first step is to get the offer. And then,

66
once you have the offer, create a list of questions. Anything that needs to be clarified, … you
have to kind of really understand about the position in the company.” Nora indicated the same
strategy, “I try to get the other person to name a compensation number first. I do a lot of
consulting. So, I try to get them to put a number on the table [first].”
Like Phyllis and Nora, Jette placed importance on preparing and researching while
allowing the other party to initiate or anchor the first offer and their unique position:
Initially, I allow the employer to offer what they think is reasonable based upon a job
description. Upon review, I determine whether there is either a monetary or other
component to that contract that I feel is more appropriate for negotiations.
Beatrice, a highly experienced negotiator and director, recommended anchoring compensation
and benefits as a negotiation strategy, which included asking for the highest (pay, benefits, stock,
etc.) during job negotiations. Beatrice said,
Ask for the high. I have done this. Ever since I started negotiating job offers for myself,
… I’ve asked for way more. I have found that in all the times I’ve negotiated a job,
salary, or something related to professional compensation, I have never once anchored
too high. I have definitely anchored too low sometimes. But I have never overshot the
moon.
Cassandra responded similarly to Beatrice, emphasizing preparation and anchoring compensation
in a negotiation. Cassandra offered a personal narrative about her experience wherein she did not
research or prepare for her compensation offer:
If you don’t ask, nobody will fight for you. … I remember when I graduated from
[college] and didn’t negotiate [for compensation] at all. I just accepted whatever [the

67
company] gave me, and I felt like, “Oh, that’s already so good.” … And, then found later
I was too low.
As executives involved in substantial finance and negotiation decision for their
organizations, Cassandra and Beatrice, Lilith advised women to be prepared, clear, and upfront
during job negotiations. Lilith added that women should be willing to arrive at the BATNA and
be prepared to walk away from the offer if the other party does not meet her target compensation
or condition. Lilith declared, “Decide what your target is… And be upfront. Know what your
BATNA is.”
Gwendolyn, another executive vice president, explained the repercussions of not
preparing or anchoring during job offers. Gwendolyn extrapolated the long-term effect of failing
to research, prepare, or anchor and how doing so directly contributes to expanding the earnings
gap in midlife for some women in finance:
Because if you take [compensation] lower than what you’re worth, it’s going to persist in
that gap between your expectation and your worth, and what you’re paid is just going to
persist the entire time you’re with that company. And it could even manifest itself in the
next role. If the next employer wants to know what you’re earning at your current
employer, then you’re just setting yourself up for potentially decades of work at less
value than you could otherwise negotiate. So that’s the pivotal point. You have to get that
right on the first day.
Of equal importance, Nora, with 35 years of experience in the finance industry, acknowledged
the difficulty in obtaining information from the other party but also expressed the need for the
information. Nora articulated this consequence through her past disappointments:

68
What I haven’t been as good about, but I’ve gotten better at, is doing my research about
what the position should pay. … But you know, you can’t always get the data that you
need. People aren’t always forthcoming. … When I have not gotten the best number for
myself, it has been because I didn’t do my research.
Begin with a Negotiation Mindset
As senior executive women, 13 (72%) of the participants suggested negotiating beyond
the initial job offer and engaging in a dialogue with the other party to reach mutually beneficial
job agreements, including planned exits and retirement. Negotiating beyond the initial offer
involved creating contractual employment protections, compromising, or inventing creative
solutions that satisfied both parties. Phyllis, Hermione, and Gwendolyn, who are in the age range
of 51–63, negotiated exit strategies or renegotiated their employment contracts for improved
departure benefits, which allowed them to create beneficial solutions that would carry them into
retirement. Phyllis advised negotiating an exit as part of the initial job negotiation:
Always protect yourself on the exit because it’s kind of a little bit like a prenup
agreement. There are often times in executive positions some kind of an exit, which is
either controlled by you or not controlled by you. And in the cases where they’re not
controlled by you, … it’s important to have contractual protections.
In preparation for retirement, Hermione, the president and chief executive officer of an
international transport facility, negotiated beyond her initial agreement by utilizing her position,
experience, and persistence, which secured the organization her leadership for additional years
and additional health benefits for Hermione’s retirement. By revealing to her board of directors
the bigger picture and long-term value of maintaining her position, Hermione successfully
negotiated her benefits during her contract renegotiation:

69
Make sure you really look at the full picture. … If you’re the CEO or in the C-suite, ask
for something different if you want it. A lot of times, you put it on the table, and it’s a
consideration. Even if they don’t offer it to you the first time, you may get there by the
second or third time you ask. Be prepared.
Indicative of Phyllis and Hermione, Gwendolyn recommended continuing to negotiate beyond
the initial offer as a strategy. Gwendolyn stated, “So, I usually try to nail down all of the
financial components first. And then once they’ve agreed to those, then I will try to negotiate
things that are important to me.”
The women in this study often used the strategy of continuing to negotiate beyond their
initial offer during job negotiations. Participants discussed contractual protections, compromises,
and creative solutions that satisfied both parties during job negotiation and contract
renegotiations. Taking the time to understand the other party's position, build rapport and trust,
and maneuver within the complexities of the negotiation relationship contributed to creating their
strategies and successful negotiation outcomes. Negotiating with an exit strategy or with
retirement benefits in mind was important for many participants with significant time invested in
their industry and careers.
Utilize Non-Monetary Benefits to Expand the Offer
In addition to salary, women negotiated for other forms of compensation. Sixteen (89%)
of the participants considered negotiation for flexible work arrangements or additional benefits
that align with their needs and priorities. Participants indicated securing the “hard” components,
such as salary or compensation, early in negotiation while recognizing “soft” points, such as
vacation, extended health benefits, or stock equity, later in the negotiation talks were helpful
strategies that directly influenced their overall career earnings. For Gwendolyn, Jette, and Fiona,

70
all with over 20 years of experience in their careers, considering non-monetary benefits during
the negotiation was an effective strategy. After establishing the compensation, Gwendolyn
prioritized executive health screenings and attending industry conferences as important nonfinancial components of her job negotiations:
So, if it is for a new position at a new company, I know that I have the most [negotiating]
leverage at that moment before I say yes to an offer. So, I usually try to nail down all of
the financial components first. And then, once they’ve agreed to those, then I will try to
negotiate things that are important to me. They’re not financial, like an executive health
screening service, a certain number of conferences, or paid time off.
Knowing the desired result of the negotiation and taking the time to build those outcomes
was an effective strategy for many participants. Women in this study described prioritizing soft
points as factors in strategizing effectively.
Jette prioritized the soft points in negotiations as a strategy to obtain the best overall fit for the
long term:
Recognizing where those soft points are and what’s going to be best overall for me in the
long terms. … The dollars per month were not as big for me as other benefits. … Having
opportunities to work from home or additional comp time, paid time off, those types of
things were more important to me than necessarily having a larger paycheck every
month.
Fiona implied that centralized wage settings in government entities offered the opportunity to
negotiate for soft points when experience and competition for positions were high:

71
In government, your salary is pretty much set when you start. But when someone comes
in with higher years of experience than the competition, everything is an open
competitive process.
In summary, a significant focus on research and preparation before job negotiation was
an essential overarching strategy for the participants. Research focused on salary ranges, market
trends, and industry standards for roles and experience levels. Preparations revealed how women
negotiated beyond the other party’s initial offer to include retirement or exit strategies in the job
offer negotiation. Non-monetary benefits, such as flexible work arrangements or additional
benefits and soft points aligned with the participants’ personal needs and priorities, were
mentioned as helpful strategies that directly influenced their overall job and career earnings.
Research Question 3: What Personal and Environmental Influences Do Women in Finance
Fields Perceive As Impacting Their Confidence and Strategies in Job Negotiations?
The third research question focused on the personal and environmental influences women
perceived that directly influenced their confidence and negotiation strategies. Many influences
present as barriers and challenges, while others introduce new opportunities. Several themes
emerged during the analysis. These findings are in Table 7 as themes: (a) personal (internal)
influences, (b) environmental (external) influences, and the influences of the COVID-19
pandemic.

72
Table 7
Findings: Research Question 3
Overarching theme Subthemes
Personal influences Moods and emotions
Unsuccessful negotiations
Environmental influences Gender bias and stereotypes
Access to resources
Organizational culture and
support
COVID-19 pandemic Negotiation strategies for wellbeing and the workplace
Job negotiation strategies
Influences on the Negotiation Environment
The women in this study experienced various personal and environmental influences that
impacted their confidence and strategies in job negotiations. Personal influences ranged from
emotional moods and emotions and behaviors acquired through unsuccessful negotiations.
Environmental influences included gender bias and stereotypes, access to organizational
resources, and the impact of organizational culture and support.
Moods and Emotions
Most participants mentioned individual self-regulation as an influence on negotiation
confidence and strategy. Thirteen (72%) of the participants mentioned managing personal moods
and emotions and using the right environmental timing during job negotiations. Executive vice
presidents Roxanne, Gwendolyn, and Kathleen explained how aligning themselves with the other
negotiating party’s needs emotionally and environmentally helped create a positive negotiation
outcome for both sides. Roxanne indicated, “You really have to be strategic when you’re sitting
down to negotiate, especially if you’re going into a situation where there are emotions around it.”

73
Gwendolyn placed focus on the setting, timing, and mood of the other party and the physical
environment of the job negotiation as an influence:
I am really careful about setting up the physical environment for the discussion and the
mood of the person I need to negotiate with, especially if it’s going to be a tough
negotiation. So, if it’s an early bird person, I’m trying to get them in the morning
because, in the afternoon, they’re impatient. [And] people are more amenable on Fridays
and Mondays. So, I’ll try to schedule [negotiations] at the time when I think I’m going to
have the best success.
Roxanne applied similar thought, utilizing emotional self-regulation as an important alignment
strategy in the job negotiation setting. Parallel to Gwendolyn’s concept of the physical setting,
Roxanne indicated personal emotions could trigger effects on the setting that may alter the job
negotiation outcome:
If you’re typically an emotional person, make sure you talk it out before [the job
negotiation] so that if some emotions are triggered, tears don’t come into the equation. It
could be simply that you look at your calendar and ensure it’s the right time of the month
for you to be your strongest.
Many participants recommended self-regulating and managing mood. Self-regulation to
maintain composure and open communication along with alignment with the other party's
environment created a positive experience between parties, often resulting in a win-win or
balanced outcome. Kathleen echoed the sentiments of the other women regarding self-regulation
and emotional alignment by explaining how she thoughtfully entered into job negotiations with
the proper energy and mental state:

74
[Negotiation] takes effort and energy. … So, if I’m negotiating on a deal, honestly, I
make sure I’m prepared to go into the conversation. … I need to be in the right mental
state. If I’m going into a hard conversation, … I’m going to type it into my calendar
when I know I have time to prepare, and I know that I’m going to be mentally prepared
as well. … If I’m tired, it’s not a good time. If I’m in the middle of something else and
distracted, it’s also not a good time.
Even when the outcome is unfavorable for both parties, Phyllis showed that self-regulation and
alignment created a balance between the parties:
[Alignment] is just trying to find a win-win. That’s the best outcome. … I think win-win
means when both parties obviously are happy with the outcome of the negotiation. But in
some cases, neither party is particularly happy with the negotiation. But they both have
agreed on an outcome, … and I view those also as positive outcomes. Because if both
parties are dissatisfied, then at least it’s somewhat balanced.
Women often care more about being liked by others and do not want to “rock the boat.”
Nine (50%) of the participants mentioned challenges with job negotiations related to maintaining
their likeability or a likable mood. The desire to not "rock the boat" and remain likable created an
environment where women asked and accepted less during negotiation. These challenges for
Kathleen, Beatrice, Gwendolyn, Quinn, and Nora, spanning in experience from 5 to 35 years in
the finance industry, included maintaining a congenial environment and mental state, remaining
likable when countering offers, and playing “nice” during the job negotiation process. Kathleen
described likeability as “making sure you have that effort and energy” to remain in the right
mental state for countering offers and maintaining a thoughtful, amiable presence. Beatrice said
likeability creates an environment wherein women “don’t ask at all, or they will just push a little

75
bit.” Gwendolyn credited likeability to women being “the nice girl, to not rock the boat, and to
make everyone else comfortable.” As a woman of Asian descent, Quinn recalled feeling, “I
didn’t have enough power or ability even to push back, and so I didn’t at first.” Quinn explained
the hesitancy and perpetual consequences of rocking the boat for many women. “I think the
woman will just sit back and not say a word. But I think we continued to exacerbate the situation
because of that.” Ophelia indicated many women accept less during job negotiations to remain
likable:
They’re like, “Well, I’m happy to get that job. I’m getting that job, and I’m not going to
rock that boat. I’ll take that compensation.” … And they’re not going to fight [for more].
Likeability affected the confidence and negotiation strategy of the participants in this study. Nora
spoke directly about the difference between women and men in terms of likability when
negotiating, implying men are less concerned than women about being liked:
I think men care less than we do about being liked. [Men] don’t worry if this person [the
other party] won’t like them. … [Men] seem to be less hampered for that…but for me,
I’m always a little reticent.
A small finding indicated that the lessons learned from unsuccessful negotiations were
personally influential for the women in this study. Five participants changed their previous
negotiation approach when facing an unsuccessful negotiation outcome. Several participants
indicated that advancing the conversation and dialogue with the other party allowed them to
reroute the unsuccessful negotiations and find a compromise. Athena, a financial advisor for a
national firm, recalled how she pivots during negotiations that sway on becoming unsuccessful:
I come into my meetings with an idea of how I want them to go. And sometimes, they
don’t go that way. I don’t mind. I’d rather have the conversation, even though, in my

76
mind, I have an idea of how the best outcome. … I want to have the conversation and at
least come up with a compromise.
Participants agreed that there is value in unsuccessful negotiations. For some participants,
an unsuccessful negotiation outcome resulted in an opportunity to change their approaches. Iris
recalled a negotiation that had come to an impasse, wherein she kept the conversation fluid with
the other party through curiosity and thoughtful questions. While the intended outcome did not
materialize, Iris’ open dialogue strategy diverted the result to a favorable one for both parties:
With any potential stalemate of negotiations, it’s important to continue to ask questions,
so you’re keeping the dialogue open. Keep the other person talking; there’s got to be
something in there that you can grab onto that will come in your favor. Even though it
was not as intended, it could come in your favor.
Similar to Athena and Iris, Dana, who indicated they were often the only women on their
team or in the boardroom during negotiations, mentioned keeping the conversation open when
negotiations are unsuccessful. Dana added that being willing to walk away from the negotiation
and staying firm in boundaries is also valuable in unsuccessful negotiations, as it preserves selfrespect and time:
We went into this with one expectation, came out with another. … They basically
lowballed the proposal, … and I’m now advising to opt out, respectfully decline, and cut
the proverbial cord with this potential partner if they can’t come to terms in key areas.
Roxanne and Kathleen added that learning from past negotiations, specifically unsuccessful
experiences, creates the opportunity to self-reflect and advised not to dwell on negative
experiences too much. Roxanne said, “I do my best when I close the door not to dwell on it too

77
much or how it could be different.” Kathleen advised, “Give yourself more space to kind of
digest and come back to it.”
Gender Bias and Stereotypes
Societal gender stereotypes and biases impacted how participants were perceived, treated,
and valued in negotiations. For most women in this study, gender bias challenged confidence and
influenced their negotiation strategies. Twelve (67%) of the participants indicated that gender
bias influenced negotiations and related challenges. Cassandra affirmed, “Yeah, definitely.
Women are [treated differently during negotiations]. Yeah, it’s different. In general, they tend to
look down on you. So, the battle to fight is harder for sure.” Iris followed Cassandra and
suggested, “I think that gender is a thing [in negotiation]. I think again, and there are times that it
[being a woman] appears as weakness.” Lilith added that women do not advocate for
compensation in the same manner as men, and in doing so, women can perpetuate gender bias
and stereotypes:
I think that women don’t advocate for themselves and haven’t in the past, as it relates to
money as aggressively as men. … I don’t think it’s a case of strength of candidacy or
talent at all. I actually think that we [women] tend to undershoot ourselves often.
As the sole female co-founder of a financial organization, Roxanne mentioned that
women were not always willing to come to the table to speak up or negotiate when
communication became uncomfortable, which led to missed opportunities. Roxanne said, “Even
today, and in business especially, unless women are willing to speak up, willing to be aggressive,
willing to have their voice heard, that there are still opportunities that we’re missing because
we’re not willing to do that.”

78
Several women in this study experienced gender bias through negative labeling and
repercussions or punishment identified as backlash during job negotiations. Being negatively
labeled for aggressively negotiating was why some women did not negotiate for their needs or
complete compensation. Participants said women are not always willing to speak up during
negotiations because they are negatively labeled. Some participants felt a sense of rejection or
retaliation, known as “backlash,” by the other party during the negotiation. Jette, Ophelia, and
Nora, all with experience spanning 20 to 35 years in the finance industry, described their
experiences of negative labeling and backlash during their job negotiations. Jette explained the
feeling of walking a difficult line between being forceful but not assertive or threatening during
job negotiations to mitigate being negatively labeled by the other party:
Women have to walk an interesting line [when negotiating for a job]. … I need to be
direct … but not forceful. But I need to be assertive, but not too assertive. If you’re too
assertive, you become a female dog. … When women tend to assert themselves in that
manner, it is threatening, … and you get labeled. So, it’s an interesting dance that you
have to do, and that’s included in the negotiations.
Ophelia focused on the different treatment and negative perceptions of women who negotiate
aggressively for a job:
I think women are treated differently for trying to negotiate versus men. … I’ll talk with
other women, and they’ll say, “Yeah, if a man negotiates [aggressively], it’s considered
good, … and if a woman negotiates [aggressively], … I’m not sure that that’s treated the
same way.”

79
Nora spoke directly to a sense of negotiation backlash and vulnerability during aggressive
negotiations. Specifically, Nora described the fear of the other party revoking a job offer if she
aggressively negotiates and how that can affect her and her family:
We [women] are scared they’re going to pull the offer. … I’m the primary breadwinner.
… What I negotiate puts food on my table for my family. Now, that should make me
negotiate more toughly. But it doesn’t. I feel more vulnerable.
Environmental influences connected to culture and conditioning impacted confidence and
strategies in job negotiations. Fourteen (78%) of the women in the study believe women do not
negotiate or ask because of influences related to cultural conditioning. Roxanne, Gwendolyn, and
Lilith, who individually identify racially as Black, mixed-race, and white, mentioned that culture
and conditioning could influence gender bias in negotiations, affecting women’s confidence and
strategy. These cultural impacts included earlier exposure to negotiation for boys than girls,
advocating for or crediting others with negotiation success, and how women are often treated
differently during negotiations than men, even when women use similar strategies. Roxanne
mentioned that differences in early conditioning in negotiation for boys and girls created an
advantage that contributes to confidence and strategy at many levels, including assertiveness and
competitiveness:
Negotiation is easier for men. And I think it starts at a younger age. Many women don’t
get put into particularly competitive situations until maybe they’re in middle or high
school, whereas boys are typically more in those competitive places. … We still have a
society that has raised girls not to be loud, not be aggressive, not be competitive.
Gwendolyn explained high empathy as a form of culture and conditioning that impacted
confidence and strategy. When Gwendolyn compared her Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQI)

80
reports to those of her male colleagues, she considered her high empathy score connected to
gender bias or conditioning:
I know I over-index on empathy when I do EQI reports, and my male colleagues underindex on empathy. And, so, I feel like there might be some gender bias or, or a gender
gap maybe, between what you perceive in the culture and in behavior and what you
don’t. And because I have really high empathy scores, I find myself advocating or
bargaining to represent what I think others are feeling. And I find that I do that more than
my male colleagues.
Lilith, similar to Gwendolyn, explained that the impact of culture and conditioning on
negotiations was in the differences between the behavior of women and men as it related to
others. Specifically, Lilith mentioned the differences in the ways women and men working on a
team take credit for their negotiation successes.
[Women] often talk about our [job negotiation] success in terms of teams and broad
engagement versus what you did [individually]…Men often say, “I did X,” when it was a
whole host of people behind them that actually helped to make that win happen. And
women tend to say, “There’s a whole host of folks behind me that made this event
happen.”
Iris, who has worked for the same financial organization for 32 years, indicated that culture and
conditioning during job negotiation could become uncomfortable for women and men and that
some women can be or appear defensive when receiving feedback from men, which could hinder
the job negotiation. Iris said,
I’m in a very male-dominated industry. And, in defense of men, they’ve been used to not
having a lot of female presence … and direct feedback at this level. … I have to invite

81
that direct feedback because I know that my [male] boss is uncomfortable having that
direct of a conversation with a female. And then, I consider how well I am inviting
feedback and discussions? … What is my body language? What is the tone of my voice?
How do I respond? … I don’t want to come across as defensive.
In summary, most participants reported experiencing gender bias and stereotypes in job
negotiations, which included systemic influences from culture and conditioning. Participants also
revealed they wanted to avoid negative labeling and backlash during job negotiations and feel
vulnerable when the negotiation turns forceful. The desire to not “rock the boat” and remain
likable during job negotiations created an environment wherein participants felt they asked and
accepted less during negotiation. Taking the time to reflect on unsuccessful negotiations
personally significantly influenced the confidence and strategy of future negotiations.
Access to Resources
Higher education and professional courses on negotiation were external influences on
negotiation confidence and skill. Eleven (61%) of the 18 participants indicated that higher
education and professional courses influenced their information, knowledge, or training for
negotiation strategy and improved confidence. Athena shared that her education contributed to
her negotiation confidence and strategy, “It’s come from my education.” Beatrice shared a
similar narrative as Athena, “By the time I finished college, undergrad, I knew enough about it to
attempt to negotiate my very first job offer.” Graduate courses on negotiation also benefitted
Hermione, who said, “I went to school for business as my undergrad. And, certainly, in the
courses there, I learned about negotiations.” Gwendolyn said, “[I] learned about it [negotiation]
formally for the first time in a graduate course. And I’ve read a few books on it.” Nora indicated
she took a course in college on negotiation, and Phyllis said, “I had a wonderful course in my

82
master’s program. That was the foundation [of negotiation training].” For Athena, Beatrice,
Hermione, Gwendolyn, Nora, and Phyllis, higher education and professional courses provided
external influences for the foundation of their negotiation confidence and strategy.
For added consideration, Jette, Nora, and Roxanne, who possess more than 20 years of
experience in the finance industry and expressed varying degrees of confidence, mentioned
negotiation training is often designed more for men than women. These participants sensed that
women educating other women in negotiation could provide a more relevant learning experience.
Jette said, “When you look at many of the negotiation training or mentorships that are out there,
it’s men [training on negotiation]. … I think you need to have a woman telling women how to do
that. Not a man.” Nora added to this perspective, “I think men are more likely to treat
[negotiation] as a game…. and I think women don’t think of it as a game.” Roxanne described
the evolution of her successful negotiating style as due to her personal and professional
development, evolving from a masculine negotiation approach to a more feminine one, “On
negotiating, I also learned a lot about negotiation in a feminine-like style, rather than a
masculine, very direct, and dominant style through years of working in a personal, professional
development area.”
Access to informal and organizational industry networks was a significant environmental
factor in job negotiations. In some cases, this access occurs in environments where only men are
present or invited. Four participants mentioned a struggle with access to environments known as
“the boys club.” Participants noted that access to athletic and competitive settings, such as golf
courses, influence job negotiations and that often, only men are invited to those environments to
network. Dana, a former Olympian, shared that her athleticism and success as an athlete opened
doors to certain inner circles of boys’ clubs.

83
Working at [the company], the male executive leaders would take their customers to play
golf and conduct business on the course. … Now, if you are not an athlete and not
interested in golf, that becomes a challenge for you based upon, in this case, your gender
being the only female and the fact that you’re not athletic at the core.
Roxanne, also a former athlete, player, and coach for college softball and volleyball, shared her
experience of exclusion from environments and networks:
I still see that there are places where, because of who boys or men know, they get to go
[like] the golf course to hit balls… I can count on one hand how many times I’ve been
invited to go out with the guys golfing. And it’s zero.
Organizational Culture and Support
Organizational culture and support were environmental factors that significantly
influenced negotiation confidence and strategy. Participants mentioned women often do not have
a perceived path of upward mobility or feel there is an opportunity to negotiate for more
compensation or benefits. Adequate leadership support, leveling pay disparities, and creating
opportunities for more industry experience and exposure were ways participants discussed to
improve confidence and strategies for women in negotiation. A supportive and inclusive culture
that valued women created opportunities, boosted confidence, and provided the space for
effective negotiation strategies.
The lack of support from leadership was an environmental influence that affected job
negotiations. Eleven (61%) of the participants stated that they experienced challenges with
leadership and support related to negotiation. These leadership challenges included participants
not having a responsive and supportive leader, being inadequately valued by the organization,
and the administration not acknowledging participants’ feelings of isolation, such as being the

84
only woman in the room or the only female leader on a team. Ellen, a director with 30 years of
finance industry experience, expressed her definition of a supportive leader during a negotiation:
It spans many different areas: Is my leader a mentor for me? Is my leader available to
me? Has my leader demonstrated where there are growth opportunities for me? Does my
leader care about my work-life balance, especially during COVID?
Hermione shifted into an executive role overseeing the multimillion-dollar budget of a large
transport facility six years ago and spoke about the lack of leadership support from her board of
directors that resulted in an unfavorable negotiation outcome with her compensation. Hermione
stated, “The biggest challenge I had was the lack of understanding …They didn’t give me a
chance to talk to them. … They didn’t give me an opportunity to spend enough time with them.”
Nora, a financial expert in vulture investments with over 3 decades of experience,
identified the feeling of isolation that can occur as the only woman and minority on a leadership
team. Nora recalled,
I really never had anybody to help me or to teach me or to guide me. … Everything has
been out here on my own. And women in the finance industry, especially when I entered
it [35] years ago, we were scarce… In most of the places, I was the only woman in the
room, the only, definitely the only Black person in the room.
Like Nora, Dana identified the isolation and encouraged women to lean into that singular space
of opportunity, whether supported by leadership or not:
I’ve normally been the only proverbial female at the executive roundtable. That’s always
been a challenge. When I started at [the company], I was only one of five strategists. The
other four were males. And I think leaning in as a woman and having that strength,
confidence, and conviction is key.

85
In summary, higher education and professional courses externally influenced the
confidence and negotiation strategy of over half of the participants. Jette, Nora, and Roxanne
mentioned negotiation training is often designed from a male perspective, indicating that women
specializing in negotiation and educating other women could provide a more practical learning
experience. Participants noted that male finance executives are often afforded specific
environmental flexibility and networking opportunities. These environments provide access to
individuals that can influence job confidence, strategy, and negotiation outcomes. Finally,
adequate support from leadership, followed by organizational support, was an environmental
influence on job negotiation for the women in this study. A supportive leader and representation
in leadership positions at the organization contributed to successful job negotiation outcomes for
both parties. Of notable mention is the isolation the women experienced related to their gender
and race within an organization during job negotiations and how leadership may be unaware if
the impact of this isolation on women and their self-efficacy.
Negotiation and the COVID-19 Pandemic
During the COVID-19 pandemic, women faced unique challenges in confidence and
negotiating strategy due to the significant disruptions and changes in the workplace. Half of the
participants experienced job negotiations for themselves and others during the pandemic.
Common themes associated with confidence and negotiation strategies found during the COVID19 pandemic among participants were leaving their current jobs or expanding their services and
job benefits and negotiating solutions that addressed the mental health and well-being of
themselves and others.

86
Negotiation Strategies for Well-being and the Workplace
Participants revealed confidence in negotiating strategies during the pandemic that
required acknowledging and addressing individual and workplace well-being. Five participants
indicated they leveraged collective knowledge to build their confidence to negotiate more job
benefits for their staff than themselves. Negotiating during the pandemic involved interceding to
minimize staff layoffs, advocating for necessary support or resources to maintain remote work
status for self and others, and prioritizing staff resource needs. Iris’ organization faced layoffs
during the pandemic, and she strategized to minimize the impact:
Parts of certain business units within my region had an extraordinary amount of tailwinds
because of the pandemic time. … This was an opportunity for us to reduce costs, reduce
headcount. Myself and a couple of my peers … went to bat to say this is not the time for
us to do that [reduce headcount] because there will be an unwind, and there will be a
reset.
Gwendolyn also negotiated for her staff for extended remote work while experiencing the
pressure to manage and meet her organization’s objectives and her job during the pandemic:
I had to negotiate on behalf of people who wanted to work remotely full-time longer than
after our return to the office. … I needed to stitch together a stable enough team to
complete the objectives that we had set for the year, … [and] I want to be able to tell
them that they can work remotely.
Ophelia found herself negotiating in support of her entire staff for their return to office under the
pressure of the standards of her employer, a city:

87
Frankly, my entire staff, including myself, if we had our way, we’d come to the office
now 3 days a week. … The city has standards, and I had to negotiate with all my staff
about when they were coming in.
Quinn was under the pressure of needing resources for her team to weather the pandemic and
confidently returned to her board for additional funding to preserve the team:
[In] the midst of the pandemic, we had to significantly pivot in this particular
organization. I went back to the board and was very firm about the fact that we need more
funding … that was not necessarily for me specifically but for the resources on the team.
Job Negotiation Strategies During the COVID-19 Pandemic
The pandemic brought about unprecedented circumstances, including economic
uncertainty and organizational changes. Nine (50%) of the participants experienced no new job
negotiations for themselves during the pandemic. Instead, many participants negotiated for
others. One-third of the participants used the pandemic timing as an advantage to expand
services and solutions for themselves and others. Five women in the study revised their
compensation packages and negotiated alternative work arrangements to accommodate the
evolving pandemic circumstances. Beatrice, Dana, Lilith, Nora, and Cassandra felt confident
using the pandemic timing as a negotiation advantage. Beatrice took advantage of her company’s
remote work policy during the pandemic to work from another state, “I had the unfair advantage
of knowing a lot about this company already. I already knew what their hybrid remote policy
looked like and matched what I needed.” Dana also pivoted during the pandemic and used the
pandemic timing to expand her services by becoming a free agent:
I realized the pandemic and what it would do if you became much more creative in your
solution offerings and the services you render. So, I am now what we call a free agent,

88
independent consultant, fractional seat, CCO, CBO. And being put in that position of
power, I can directly negotiate with any startup.
Lilith and Nora were confident enough to use the timing of the pandemic to reposition their
expertise within organizations. Lilith, who fought breast cancer during the pandemic, said,
I was actually promoted during the pandemic. And I was in the middle of fighting breast
cancer, and the leaders at [the company] said, “Oh, my God, [Lilith] actually is perfect
for this expanded mandate.” They waited until I returned to the office, and I was
promoted.
Nora experienced growth in confidence and business during the pandemic due to her expertise in
distressed companies:
So, I was one of the people who did well during the pandemic; my specialty is analyzing
and investing in companies in financial distress. And, so, the pandemic ushered in a lot of
[job] opportunities for me.
Cassandra, who had worked for a company headquartered in China, was propositioned to
relocate to China during the pandemic for her employment. Cassandra used the pandemic timing
to negotiate and strategize additional benefits for her family confidently:
[The company] actually wanted me to go back to China. … So, I negotiated really hard. I
was able to nearly triple my compensation, … and I asked them to pay for my kids’
education.
In summary, most participants did not negotiate job opportunities for themselves or
others during the pandemic. A particular finding in this study was that some participants used the
pandemic timing as an advantage to expand their services and solutions or strategically
reposition themselves within organizations. Participants also demonstrated their strategy and

89
confidence in minimizing the effects of the pandemic on their organizations by prioritizing
organizational well-being and actively negotiating to reduce layoffs, securing remote workers,
and gathering additional resources in an unprecedented time of need.
Summary of Findings
This study introduced 18 participants in the context of their executive and leadership
positions and overviewed confidence and self-efficacy in job negotiations in response to the
three research questions. The first research question focused on women’s self-efficacy in job
negotiations. The second research question concentrated on strategies women in finance fields
utilize in job negotiations. The third question determined the personal and environmental
influences women perceive as impacting their confidence and strategy in job negotiations.
The personal narratives collected during the participants’ interviews answered each
question. The overarching themes of the findings included internal and external influences on
building confidence, the importance of mentorships and organizational support structures, and
the impact of gender and stereotypes on job negotiation and strategy. These themes aligned with
the topics identified in the conceptual framework: reviewing negotiation as a practice connected
to self-efficacy, understanding how women internally and externally experienced negotiation,
and how negotiation behaviors are a means to impact the gender earnings gap in midlife. The
conceptual framework was founded on social cognitive theory and supported through a literature
review.
The additional information gained as part of the personal and historical information
gathered from women participants included their differences in negotiation experience and skills
and an understanding of the individual and social costs of job negotiation. In particular, some
participants had the confidence and self-efficacy to expand services and solutions and reposition

90
their expertise during the COVID-19 pandemic. In conclusion, the participants indicated that
factors such as the differences in confidence levels, gender bias, experience and expertise,
research and preparation, negotiation strategy, and effectively navigating the personal and
environmental influences of negotiating had a cumulative earnings effect at midlife.

91
Chapter Five: Recommendations
This study aimed to examine the self-efficacy, behaviors, and personal and environmental
influences impacting the negotiation strategies of senior executive women in finance to impact
the gender earnings gap. The most significant gap in earnings between men and women often
occurs in midlife. The challenges women face obtaining equal pay throughout their careers
necessitate addressing this gender earnings gap at midlife and the relationship between
negotiation confidence and strategy. A better understanding of participants’ perspectives about
how the gender earnings gap exists and persists throughout a woman’s career may help change
systems that oppress the employment earnings and benefits of women. This study used cognitive
social theory to examine confidence, self-efficacy, behavior, and influences in job negotiations
throughout the participants’ careers (Bandura, 2000). The framework focused on self-efficacy in
job negotiations, behavior in researching and preparing negotiation strategies, and the personal
and environmental influences impacting confidence and strategy (Bandura, 2000). Qualitative
methods served to obtain the narratives of the research questions. This chapter discusses the
findings concerning current literature and the conceptual framework and includes
recommendations for practice, the study’s limitations and delimitations, and suggestions for
future research. The conclusion of this study closes the chapter.
Discussion of Findings
This study’s results confirmed self-efficacy, strategy, and personal and environmental
influences in job negotiation had a cumulative effect on the participants’ earnings and benefit
structure throughout their careers. Initially, findings correlated with Babcock and Laschever
(2007) by confirming women “do not ask” for equal earnings and benefits during job
negotiations based on confidence levels, experience, fear, and gender bias. Additional findings

92
supported current research in gender, negotiations, and systemic justification, indicating “women
do ask” for equal earnings and benefits during job negotiations but are often challenged with
ingrained environmental stereotypes and challenges (Bowels et al., 2022; Kray et al., 2022). The
key themes for this study, which emerged from the literature review and data analysis, revealed
that navigating the personal, environmental, and behavioral costs of negotiating affected the
confidence and self-efficacy of participants during job negotiations. These costs or influences led
to modifications in negotiation strategies and influenced confidence and career earnings in
midlife. This study helped understand the negotiation strategies, self-efficacy, and the personal,
behavioral, and environmental influences senior executive women in finance encounter in job
negotiations. The findings addressed the study’s problem of practice by considering the how,
when, where, and why women negotiate for a job as factors impacting the gender earnings gap
into midlife. The conceptual framework in Figure 2 supports this study and reveals the triadic
reciprocity of personal, environmental, and behavioral influences adopted from Bandura’s (1989,
2000) social cognitive theory.
Figure 2
Conceptual Framework With Findings Integrated

93
Personal Factor
Themes of individual mood and emotions, personal experience and expertise, and
unsuccessful negotiations influenced self-efficacy and strategy during job negotiations.
Participants indicated that having expertise and experience from past job negotiations,
specifically unsuccessful ones, assisted in building the capacity for confidence and overcoming
fear during the job negotiation process. Participants identified how fear manifests when women
are hindered from being fully efficacious in their negotiations and revealed additional
opportunities for self-development. Many participants indicated that articulating their expertise,
experience, and contributions built confidence during job negotiations.
Behavior Factor
Concerning job negotiation strategies, participants discussed entering a discussion with a
negotiation mindset through proper preparation and research while also negotiating more value
into the job offer by asking for additional non-monetary benefits. Most women in this study
experienced gender bias that challenged their confidence and influenced their negotiation
strategies. Participants described experiences of gender bias, such as being negatively labeled for
aggressively negotiating, being denied resources, or having limited access to organizational
resources and settings often occupied by men.
Environment Factor
Nearly all the women in this study indicated their job negotiation experience would have
improved with supportive and inclusive organizational leadership that valued women,
professional mentorships, and the space to practice effective job negotiation strategies. In
addition to these themes, the participants’ narratives articulated the need for mentorships in job
negotiation practices. Specifically, several participants expressed the need for negotiation

94
mentorship by other women to build confidence and develop negotiation strategies. Supportive
organizational environments can influence job confidence, strategy, and negotiation outcomes.
The Effect of Negotiation Mentors for Senior Executive Women
Mentorships were essential factors in developing confidence and self-efficacy. Acquiring
a mentor or developing a supportive network of advisors exposed participants to negotiation
experiences and strategies from individuals in similar roles and industries, providing valuable
insights and practices that increased their confidence. Cultivating job negotiation confidence for
women through mentoring created more negotiation experiences, and optimistic reinforcement
helped women act as influential self-advocates (Babcock & Laschever, 2007; Program on
Negotiation at Harvard Law School, 2012; Wade, 2001). Feeling more powerful before
negotiating for a job and having a mentor or support structure providing effort and
encouragement influences factors in the salary negotiation process (Marks & Harold, 2011).
The presence of mentors impacted most participants’ job negotiation confidence and
strategy. Individual and professional mentorships were a significant part of building confidence
and self-efficacy for most women in this study. Most participants revealed their mentors were
experienced executives or leaders who were sought out or intentionally took the participants
aside. The importance of mentors, specifically female-to-female mentors, was an essential
finding related to the impact of women’s self-efficacy in job negotiations. This supported
literature regarding negotiators demonstrating their normal behaviors and experiencing greater
situational matches for outcomes (Dimotakis et al., 2012). This finding was significant because
participants mentioned most negotiation training they experienced was derived from the male
perspective, which can result in a negative outcome for women when practiced due to gender
stereotypes and assumptions about negotiation behavior.

95
The Effect of Gender Bias and Stereotypes
Being negatively labeled for aggressively negotiating was why some women did not
negotiate or ask for additional earnings and benefits. Participants said women are not always
willing to speak up during negotiations because when they do, they fear the job offer may be
retracted or they are negatively labeled as “overly aggressive” or a “female dog.” Substantial
literature addressed the potential for backlash and labeling such as this for women during
negotiations (Amanatullah & Tinsley, 2013; Tinsley et al., 2009). These experiences affected the
self-efficacy and performance of several participants’ ability to negotiate for their needs or
additional compensation.
The participants shared how gender bias and discrimination affected their behavior
during job negotiations. For some, there was a distinct effort to modify their negotiation behavior
to a more feminine style. Others used unsuccessful negotiations as an opportunity to create the
BATNA or self-reflect on their body language, tone of voice, or mood during the job negotiation
to improve for the next opportunity. A few participants accepted gender bias as an unchangeable
norm in their organization or industry, indicating that society tolerates and perpetuates such
biases in gender in job negotiations.
Many women in this study chose to confront gender biases directly by leaning into job
negotiations and into roles where a female presence was scarce or the need to negotiate
aggressively on behalf of themselves and others was necessary. This finding was highlighted
when discussing participant job negotiations during the COVID-19 pandemic. The literature
showed that negotiation often involves strategic responses requiring men and women to manifest
natural and unnatural (or learned) behaviors for the negotiator to fulfill situational requirements
(Dobrijevic, 2014). This finding was significant because participants continued acknowledging

96
the areas where they were treated differently or tended to “undershoot themselves,” which led to
unsuccessful negotiation outcomes. Yet, participants still discovered ways to persevere, learn,
and adjust their negotiation strategies through the experience and gain position, earnings, and
resources in a self-determined manner.
The Effect of Organizational Support Structures
The women in this study described the support from organizational leadership as an
environmental influence that affected job negotiations. Many participants stated that they
experienced organizational challenges with leadership and support. A few participants mentioned
not negotiating and accepting less compensation than their equally educated and experienced
counterparts early in their careers, placing their pay structure behind at the outset. The literature
highlighted that managers and leaders invested in the advancement of women may unknowingly
discriminate with earnings, work assignments, and opportunities because men have the
propensity to negotiate more than women (Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School,
2012). Research indicates positive reinforcement from organizational support structures can help
women to negotiate more often (Babcock & Laschever, 2007; Program on Negotiation at
Harvard Law School, 2012; Wade, 2001) and indicates women do ask during job negotiations
but are still offered less than their male counterparts (Bowels et al., 2022; Kray et al., 2022).
Organizational support structures allowed the participants to build confidence and selfefficacy in their job negotiations. Participants discussed leadership support, leveling pay
disparities, and creating opportunities for more industry experience and exposure to improve
women’s confidence and job negotiation strategies. The majority of participants experienced
organizational support challenges associated with non-responsive leadership, being undervalued
by the organization, or the isolation of being the only female leader at the table or on a team.

97
Literature indicates that disadvantages regarding opportunities, promotions, and career
advancement in conjunction with the organization neglecting issues of discrimination,
harassment, pay disparities, or exclusion perpetuate inequalities and exacerbate power
imbalances, leading to additional disparities, earnings gaps, and a lack of female leaders
(Meeussen et al., 2021; Peters, 2021). Employee retention increases when employers or
organizations provide supportive environments (Yusliza et al., 2021). The participant’s
experiences highlighted the need for organizations without centralized wage settings and
diversity, equity, and inclusion programs to actively create support structures addressing gender
inequalities in the workplace to directly influence female leadership retention, income, and
associated inequalities. This finding was significant, as past literature placed the responsibility on
women to negotiate, whereas more current literature and the study findings indicated that
organizational support plays an essential role in encouraging women to negotiate.
Recommendations for Practice
Based on the data analysis, the key findings support the following recommendations
related to building the capacity for confidence in women during job negotiations. The
recommendations are designed and based on social cognitive theory and consider self-efficacy
and individual, behavioral, and environmental influences. The first recommendation involves
creating an individual program from a self-development level to impact confidence and personal
negotiation strategies. The second and third recommendations focus on how organizations can
support women and affect the gender earning gap. The following sections present the
recommendations related to this study.

98
Recommendation 1: Initiate Female-driven Negotiation Training Programs to Build
Confidence
I recommend a professional negotiation program designed by women and for women to
improve job negotiation confidence and behavior through constructive training and coaching.
Most participants indicated they learned about job negotiation strategies during higher education
courses or were self-taught on the job. Several women participants suggested that job negotiation
strategies or techniques would be more helpful if taught from a female perspective. Additional
literature indicated that the gap between gender earnings outcomes narrowed as women gained
negotiating experience (Shonk, 2023).
Literature specific to training women supports the concept that a female-focused
coaching approach is required to support women throughout their corporate careers and that this
training includes particular tools and techniques designed for women (Bowles & Babcock, 2013;
Bowles et al, 2019; Leimon et al., 2011). Several recommendations from training programs by
Leimon et al. (2011) and literature on negotiation style (Schneider, 2002) support this study’s
findings. Specific subjects and skills should be embedded into the training:
(a) Prepare thoroughly by researching industry salary and compensation packages for similar
regional roles. Take the time to understand the specific requirements and expectations of
the position. Consider personal qualifications, experience, expertise, and achievements to
determine market value.
(b) Set clear goals before the negotiation by defining the desired salary, benefits package,
and bottom line. In addition, consider non-monetary benefits, such as flexible work or
remote work options, and additional professional development opportunities.

99
(c) Build confidence as a critical negotiating skill. Suggestions for showing confidence
included maintaining eye contact, expressing enthusiasm, using a strong and steady
voice, and highlighting achievements and accomplishments.
(d) Monitor mood and emotion by listening actively and maintaining a polite and
professional demeanor, even if the negotiation becomes challenging. Avoid putting undue
pressure on the other party.
(e) Seek guidance from mentors and support systems. In uncertainty during job negotiations,
a supportive network or mentor may offer insight into the industry’s compensation and
strategies.
(f) Know when to walk away. Exercising a BATNA if the offer does not meet the minimum
requirement or align with career goals provides the opportunity to legitimize the request
or exit the negotiation and explore other options.
Recommendation 2: Create Mentorship Opportunities Early and Often Throughout
Women’s Careers
Women in this study discussed mentorship as essential in developing confidence and selfefficacy in job negotiation. Over half of the participants indicated that their negotiation mentors
were key to their negotiation experience and expertise, providing valuable insights and practices.
Various research supports cultivating advancement for women through the mentoring of a trusted
mentor or ally (Babcock & Laschever, 2007; Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School,
2012; Wade, 2001). Research showed that having an organizational agent or ally providing effort
and encouragement influences factors in the salary negotiation process (Marks & Harold, 2011).
Poumpouras (2020) and Urbaniak (2020) suggested cultivating male and female allies who

100
support a woman’s complex negotiating identities and redefine the gender behavior norms during
the negotiating experience.
This study recommends providing or encouraging early and ongoing access to mentors,
including specialized groups and communities, to promote women to higher executive and
leadership levels. Literature indicates that through intentional and vigorous networking, women
can employ the social capital of others to help build confidence and change gender stereotypes in
the practice of negotiation (Tinsley, 2009). Mentoring communities or constellations, as Ward
(2000) termed, encourage the formation of connections and networks that are not hierarchal,
lateral, or industry-specific. Current data suggests that the evolving demands of specific maledominated industries similar to finance require women to develop new knowledge, skills, and
connections not obtained from a single individual or small group of individuals (Read et al.,
2020).
Encouraging women to broaden connections internally and externally and join various
networking organizations creates opportunities for additional mentorship. An organization
specific to the finance industry is Women in Securities Finance, an independent women’s group
formed in early 2018 to foster professional connections in the securities finance industry (Garritt
et al., 2019). Women seeking to network comprised members with expertise in trading, sales,
relationship management, legal, technology, product development, operations, portfolio
management, and other disciplines formed the organization. The Athena Alliance is also an
example of a multi-industry, specialized group of executive women leaders providing learning,
coaching, mentoring, networking, and career opportunities for the world’s top constellation of
women leaders. This program is a model for accessible online mentorship and offers specialized
on-demand training with memberships and scholarships for acceptance.

101
Recommendation 3: Design a Supportive Environment That Addresses Diversity, Equity,
and Inclusion in Position and Earnings
Making the most of a female workforce involves paying attention to the culture of
negotiation in the workplace. Participants discussed that a supportive and inclusive
organizational environment creates opportunities, boosts confidence, and provides the space for
effective job negotiation strategies for women. For change to occur in the environment and
organizations, senior leaders must recognize how the gender earnings gaps persist because of the
perceptions and noncommittal approaches that continue in corporate cultures.
This study recommends that organizational managers and leaders take responsibility for
balancing gender bias and disparities for women negotiating positions, earnings, and
assignments. The Risk of Management Association recently published research indicating the
biases that hold women and many unrepresented groups back are unconscious and often result
from a tendency among senior managers in finance to hire or promote people like themselves or
who have similar strengths (Garritt et al., 2019). To create a supportive environment that
addresses diversity, equity, and inclusion in negotiation women in finance, organizations can
take the following actions:
(a) Consider whether a woman who has not negotiated for additional earnings or a higher
rank might be more suited for the job and actively invite them to consider the position or
promotion in earnings (Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, 2012).
Companies may consider requiring a minimum number of female candidates for each job
opening and not start the interview process until a diverse field exists (Garritt et al.,
2019). This shift also requires men to explore how their attitudes and actions influence
workplace negotiation practices and teams and where they can help.

102
(b) Create a safe place for a community of women to collaborate and connect with each other
with access to essential resources. The resources include providing access to negotiation
training, mentorships, and environments where decision-makers and other stakeholders
are present to share information and build relationships and rapport. Shonk (2023)
suggested that women negotiate more favorable economic outcomes with more time,
training, and experience due to a stronger sense of appropriate behavior specific to the
situation or shedding traditional gender expectations from gaining exposure to the
environment.
(c) Sponsor women to attend or participate in female-led, designed, and delivered
negotiation training initiatives early and often. Identify future female leaders at the
organization, sponsor their growth, advocate for their success, and give them equal
opportunity to grow. Leaders and managers who identify employees from diverse
backgrounds create future leaders and start that development consistently and earlier
(Leimon et al., 2011).
(d) Require diversity training that includes the topics of women, equity in earnings, and
negotiation. Requiring training can actively educate and impact the gender earning gap
by helping to challenge gender biases in job negotiations while protecting the
organization against violations. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans
with Disabilities Act prohibit discrimination on many topics, including gender and pay,
and forbid harassment or any other discrimination based on a person’s gender. The recent
passing of the Paycheck Fairness Act in 2021 requires employers to show that pay
disparities between men and women are job-related and consistent with business

103
necessity. The Paycheck Fairness Act further prohibits employers from asking job
applicants about their salary history or relying on salary history to set compensation.
Because of these laws, organizations must provide diversity training that addresses
gender bias and pay disparities; however, not all employers make the attendance of
employees mandatory.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study’s methods and conceptual framework identified several limitations associated
with what a researcher cannot control (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The sample was a small,
specific group of women in the finance industry. Qualitative data analysis involves subjective
interpretation, which can lead to different interpretations of the same data. Information collected
during the interviews provides indirect information about negotiation and outcomes filtered
through the views of the interviewees. Participants may not accurately recall or articulate their
job negotiation experience, which can impact the data quality. Ethical considerations and
practices, such as ensuring the participants’ confidentiality and privacy, can limit data collection,
sharing, and interpretation of sensitive topics like gender and negotiation. A longitudinal
limitation includes that this qualitative study did not capture changes in negotiation and
confidence over time and instead provided a snapshot of participant experiences. A primary
limitation of this study was the use of the Zoom video conference platform instead of in-person
interviews, which limited the ability to observe participants’ body language. I was the primary
instrument of the data collection and analysis and performed as an outsider and an insider while
controlling the level of interaction and engagement with empathetic neutrality.
A delimitation in the research includes the elements outside the boundaries of the
researcher and study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This study focused on highly educated senior

104
executive women aged 37 to 63 working in the finance industry in the United States who had
negotiated over the last 3 years, which included the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this
study, geographic, cultural, age group, occupational, educational, and time frame delimitations
exist. This study also focused on job and salary negotiations, which excluded other forms, such
as interpersonal or international negotiations. Contextual specificity indicates that findings may
be context-specific to job negotiations in the finance industry and not apply universally to all
negotiation situations. This study also focused exclusively on women, excluding the experiences
of men, trans women, or non-binary individuals in negotiation and confidence studies. Factors
such as customs or disability, which could influence confidence and negotiation experiences,
were not considered.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research may consider a larger participant population and industries to gather
additional perspectives and identities not included in this study. This study indicates the need for
more work and research on gender in organizational negotiations for earnings and the inclination
for women to negotiate for earnings at different stages during their careers. These
recommendations offer a way to examine this study’s findings from a broader point of view.
Future research should consider how race, ethnicity, and intersectional identities of women
impact their self-efficacy in job negotiations. Other research should consider how early exposure
to competitive sports or other activities might contribute to women’s confidence, strategies, and
access to organizational resources for job negotiations. Consideration for research on the early
practice of job negotiation skills for women prior to entering male dominated industries may also
contribute to better understanding the cumulative effect of the gender earnings gap in midlife.

105
This additional research may help determine how to support women in job negotiations and
impact the gender earnings gap in productive and innovative ways.
Conclusion
This study examined the experiences of senior executive women in finance and their
confidence and strategy in job negotiations. The inability or aversion of women to negotiate for
earnings potentially impacts the gender earnings gap over time. The narratives associated with
the research questions revealed practices and behaviors related to supporting women in job
negotiations and developing future research to impact the gender earnings gap. The study’s
findings fill a gap beyond pay inequality and decentralized wage-setting. Participants indicated
confidence and job negotiation strategies were key components affecting earnings early in a
woman’s career and into midlife. These findings moved beyond the more extensive
conversations of economic contributors and social constraints and into the detail of specific
interactions of senior executive women during job negotiations, which directly impacted their
earnings and pay disparities.
Unfortunately, barriers persist for women in organizations and society, challenging their
success and development in job negotiations. The obstacles women face are gender biases rooted
in society’s culture that influence the organizational environments and impact the confidence and
self-efficacy of women during those negotiations. However, organizations can change policy and
take action to support women in job negotiations to help minimize the gender earnings gap
throughout a woman’s career. The cost of the expanding gender earnings gap is evident in
denying women in midlife equal earnings and opportunities. Change that impacts the values of
an organization is challenging to achieve. Still, organizations should invest in the change process
as it contributes to women gaining access to the resources, skills, and relationships directly

106
impacting their earnings and livelihood. The widening gender earnings gap further denies
organizations the talent, education, and expert leadership senior women offer as they leave the
organization for other opportunities. The ability of women to negotiate successfully for earnings
can uplift the individual woman, their families, and the organizations and communities in which
they live and work.

107
References
Amanatullah, E. T., & Morris, M. W. (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. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2),
256–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017094
Amanatullah, E. T., & Tinsley, C. H. (2013). Ask and ye shall receive? How gender and status
moderate negotiation success. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6(4),
253–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12014
Andersen, S., Marx, J., Nielsen, K. M., & Vesterlund, L. (2021). Gender differences in
negotiation: Evidence from real estate transactions. Economic Journal, 131(638), 2304–
2332. https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueab010
Angelov, N., Johansson, P., & Lindahl, E. (2016). Parenthood and the gender gap in pay. Journal
of Labor Economics, 34(3), 545–579. https://doi.org/10.1086/684851
Arons, J. (2008). Lifetime losses: The career wage gap. http://cdn.americanprogress.org/wpcontent/uploads/issues/2008/pdf/equal_pay.pdf
Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2003). Fear of asking. Princeton University Press.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv13qfvrp.10
Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2007). Women don’t ask: The high cost of avoiding negotiation -
and positive strategies for change. Bantam Dell.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. The American Psychologist,
44(9), 1175–1184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00064

108
Barnett, R. C., & Baruch, G. K. (1985). Women’s involvement in multiple roles and
psychological distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 135–145.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.135
Barth, E., Goldin, C., & Kerr, S. P., & Olivetti, C. (2017, June 12). The average mid-forties male
college graduate earns 55% more than his female counterparts. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2017/06/the-average-mid-forties-male-college-graduate-earns-55-morethan-his-female-counterparts
Baskerville-Watkins, M., & Smith, A. N. (2014). Importance of women’s political skill in maledominated organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 29(2), 206–222.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-06-2012-0106
Beyer, R., Hensersky, T., & Thomas, A. (2019). The pay gap: Pay inequality but pay equity
found in the construction industry. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 19(1), 10–24.
Bordone, R., & Moffitt, M. (2006). Create value out of conflict. Harvard Business School
Publishing.
Bowles, H. R., & Babcock, L. (2013). How can women escape the compensation negotiation
dilemma? Relational accounts are one answer. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37(1),
80–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312455524
Bowles, H. R., Thomason, B., & Bear, J. B. (2019). Reconceptualizing what and how women
negotiate for career advancement. Academy of Management Journal, 62(6), 1645–1671.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.1497
Bowles, H. R., Thomason, B., & Macias-Alonso, I. (2022). When gender matters in
organizational negotiations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

109
Organizational Behavior, 9, 199–223. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-
055523
Breen, E. (2018). Book review: Thinking, fast and slow. The British Journal of Psychiatry,
213(3). https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2018.51
Catalyst. (2021, December 8). Buying power. https://www.catalyst.org/research/buying-power/
Collins, C., Landivar, L. C., Ruppanner, L., & Scarborough, W. J. (2021). COVID-19 and the
gender gap in work hours. Gender, Work and Organization, 28(S1), 101–112.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12506
Couch, D. L., O’Sullivan, B., & Malatzky, C. (2021). What COVID-19 could mean for the future
of “work from home”: The provocations of three women in the academy. Gender, Work
and Organization, 28(S1), 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12548
Couch, K. A., Fairlie, R. W., & Xu, H. (2022). The evolving impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic on gender inequality in the U.S. labor market: The COVID motherhood
penalty. Economic Inquiry, 60(2), 485–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.13054
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Dimotakis, N., Conlon, D. E., & Ilies, R. (2012). The mind and heart (literally) of the negotiator:
Personality and contextual determinants of experiential reactions and economic outcomes
in negotiation. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 183–193.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025706
Dittrich, M., Knabe, A., & Leipold, K. (2014). Gender differences in experimental wage
negotiations. Economic Inquiry, 52(2), 862–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12060

110
Dobrijevic, G. (2014). The effect of gender on negotiation behaviour. Singidunum Journal of
Applied Sciences, 11(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.5937/sjas11-5298
Eriksson, K. H., & Sandberg, A. (2012). Gender differences in initiation of negotiation: Does the
gender of the negotiation counterpart matter? Negotiation Journal, 28(4), 407–428.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2012.00349.x
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: The strategy of successful negotiation. Houghton
Mifflin.
Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to yes (3rd ed.). Penguin Books.
Florea, N. B., Boyer, M. A., Brown, S. W., Butler, M. J., Hernandez, M., Weir, K., Meng, L.,
Johnson, P. R., Lima, C., & Mayall, H. J. (2003). Negotiating from Mars to Venus:
Gender in simulated international negotiations. Simulation & Gaming, 34(2), 226–248.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878103034002005
Garritt, F., Benfield, E., Rathgeber, J., & Collette, A. (2019). Women in securities finance. The
RMA Journal, 102(3).
Gilmore, D. D. (1990). Manhood in the making: Cultural concepts of masculinity. Yale
University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vm2vj.6
Gittell, R. (2009). Constrained choices and persistent gender inequity. The American Behavioral
Scientist, 53(2), 170–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764209346697
Goldin, C., Kerr, S. P., Olivetti, C., & Barth, E. (2017). The expanding gender earnings gap:
Evidence from the LEHD-2000 census. The American Economic Review, 107(5), 110–
114. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20171065

111
Goldin, C., & Mitchell, J. (2017). The new life cycle of women’s employment: Disappearing
humps, sagging middles, expanding tops. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 31(1),
161–182. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.1.161
Haselhuhn, M. P., Wong, E. M., Ormiston, M. E., Inesi, M. E., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014).
Negotiating face-to-face: Men’s facial structure predicts negotiation performance. The
Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 835–845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.12.003
Hong, A. P. C. I., & van der Wijst, P. J. (2013). Women in negotiation: Effects of gender and
power on negotiation behavior. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6(4),
273–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12022
Hüffmeier, J., Freund, P. A., Zerres, A., Backhaus, K., & Hertel, G. (2014). Being tough or being
nice? A meta-analysis on the impact of hard- and softline strategies in distributive
negotiations. Journal of Management, 40(3), 866–892.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311423788
Hultin, M., & Szulkin, R. (1999). Wages and unequal access to organizational power: An
empirical test of gender discrimination. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(3), 453–
472. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666958
Kahn, L. M. (2012a). Understanding international differences in the gender pay gap. In F. D.
Blau, A. C. Gielen, & K. F. Zimmermann (Eds.), Gender, inequality, and wages (pp.
177–212). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665853.003.0007
Kahn, L. M. (2012b). Wage structure and gender earnings differentials: An international
comparison. In F. D. Blau, A. C. Gielen, & K. F. Zimmermann (Eds.), Gender,
inequality, and wages (pp. 136–176). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665853.003.0006

112
Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kennedy, J. A., & Kray, L. J. (2015). A pawn in someone else’s game? The cognitive,
motivational, and paradigmatic barriers to women’s excelling in negotiation. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 35, 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2015.09.002
Kolb, D. M. (2009). Too bad for the women or does it have to be? gender and negotiation
research over the past twenty-five years. Negotiation Journal, 25(4), 515–531.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00242.x
Kolb, D. M. (2013). Negotiating in the shadows of organizations: Gender, negotiation, and
change. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 28(2), 241–262.
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lgs&AN=87954864&site=ehostlive
Kray, L. J. (2007). Leading through negotiation: Harness the power of gender stereotypes.
California Management Review, 50(1), 158–173.
Kray, L. J., & Haselhuhn, M. P. (2012). Male pragmatism in negotiators’ ethical reasoning.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1124–1131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.04.006
Kray, L. J., Kennedy, J. A., & Lee, M. (2022). Now, women do ask: A call to update beliefs
about the gender pay gap. Academy of Management Discoveries.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2022.0021
Kray, L. J., & Locke, C. C. (2008). To flirt or not to flirt? Sexual power at the bargaining table.
Negotiation Journal, 24(4), 483–493. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2008.00199.x

113
Kray, L. J., Thompson, L., & Galinsky, A. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype
confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80(6), 942–958. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.942
Kulik, C. T., & Olekalns, M. (2012). Negotiating the Gender Divide: Lessons From the
Negotiation and Organizational Behavior Literatures. Journal of Management, 38(4),
1387–1415. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311431307
Leimon, A., Moscovici, F., & Goodier, H. (2011). Coaching women to lead. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203841013
Lips, H. M. (2013). The gender pay gap: Challenging the rationalizations. Perceived equity,
discrimination, and the limits of human capital models. Sex Roles, 68(3–4), 169–185.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0165-z
Maitra, P., Neelim, A., & Tran, C. (2021). The role of risk and negotiation in explaining the
gender wage gap. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 191, 1–27.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2021.08.021
Marks, M., & Harold, C. (2011). Who asks and who receives in salary negotiation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.671
Marrone, P. (2013). Chambers, RT. Etica e Politica, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof
Mazei, J., Bear, J. B., & Hüffmeier, J. (2022). Avoiding backlash or proving one’s manhood?
Beliefs about gender differences in negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 31(1),
81–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-021-09757-8
Meeussen, L., Begeny, C. T., Peters, K., & Ryan, M. K. (2021). In traditionally male-dominated
fields, women are less willing to make sacrifices for their career because discrimination

114
and lower fit with people up the ladder make sacrifices less worthwhile. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 52(8), 588–601. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12750
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Moffitt, M., & Peppet, S. R. (2004). Action science and negotiation. Marquette Law Review, 87,
649–654.
Monti, H., Stinson, M., & Zehr, L. (2020). How long do early career decisions follow women?
The impact of employer history on the gender wage gap. Journal of Labor Research,
41(3), 189–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-020-09300-9
Nelson, I. A. (2010). From quantitative to qualitative: Adapting the life history calendar method.
Field Methods, 22(4), 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X10379793
Nelson, N., Bronstein, I., Shacham, R., & Ben-Ari, R. (2015). The power to oblige: Power,
gender, negotiation behaviors, and their consequences. Negotiation and Conflict
Management Research, 8(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12045
Nilsson, E. S. (2022, May). “When a woman thrives, a community thrives”: Melinda French
Gates on how gender inequality is at the root of societal issues. Vogue Scandinavia, 1–9.
https://www.voguescandinavia.com/articles/melinda-gates-on-how-gender-inequality-isa-the-root-of-societal-issues
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: theory and practice (8th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Oleschuk, M. (2020). Gender equity considerations for tenure and promotion during COVID-19.
Canadian Review of Sociology, 57(3), 502–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12295
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and
practice. SAGE.

115
Pérez-Yus, M. C., Ayllón-Negrillo, E., Delsignore, G., Magallón-Botaya, R., Aguilar-Latorre,
A., & Oliván Blázquez, B. (2020). Variables associated with negotiation effectiveness:
The role of mindfulness. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1–13.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01214
Peters, E. (2021). What you want is not always what you get: Gender differences in employeremployee exchange relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic. Social Sciences,
10(8), Article 281. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10080281
Poumpouras, E. (2020). Becoming bulletproof. Atria Books.
Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. (2012). Training women to be leaders:
Negotiating skills for success (Vol. 8).
Read, D. C., Fisher, P. J., & Juran, L. (2020). How do women maximize the value of
mentorship? Insights from mentees, mentors, and industry professionals. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 41(2), 165–175. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-02-
2019-0094
Schneider, A. K. (2002). Shattering negotiation myths: Empirical evidence on the effectiveness
of negotiation style. Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 7, 143.
Shahnazarian, D., Hagemann, J., Aburto, M., & Rose, S. (2013). Informed consent in human
subject research. University of Southern California.
https://issuu.com/usc_oprs/docs/informed_consent_booklet_4.4.13
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. Negotiation and Conflict
Management Research, 9(1), 22–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12065

116
Shleifer, A. (2012). Psychologists at the gate: A review of Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking, Fast
and Slow. Journal of Economic Literature, 50(4), 1080–1091.
https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.50.4.1080
Shonk, K. (2023). Women and negotiation: Narrowing the gender gap in negotiation. Program
on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/businessnegotiations/women-and-negotiation-narrowing-the-gender-gap/
Simon, R. W. (1995). Gender, multiple roles, role meaning, and mental health. Journal of Health
and Social Behavior, 36(2), 182–194. https://doi.org/10.2307/2137224
Sinaceur, M., Van Kleef, G. A., Neale, M. A., Adam, H., & Haag, C. (2011). Hot or cold: Is
communicating anger or threats more effective in negotiation? The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96(5), 1018–1032. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023896
Soares, J. J. F., Grossi, G., & Sundin, Ö. (2007). Burnout among women: Associations with
demographic/socioeconomic, work, lifestyle and health factors. Archives of Women’s
Mental Health, 10(2), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-007-0170-3
Taleb, N. N. (2010). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable. Random House.
Thompson, L., Peterson, E., & Kray, L. (1995). Social context in negotiation: An informationprocessing perspective. In R. M. Kramer & D. M. Messick (Eds.), Negotiation as a social
process: New trends in theory and research (pp. 5–36). Sage Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483345369.n1
Tinsley, C. H., Cheldelin, S. I., Schneider, A. K., & Amanatullah, E. T. (2009). Women at the
bargaining table: Pitfalls and prospects. Negotiation Journal, 25(2), 233–248.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00222.x

117
Turiano, A. A. A., & Atallah, N. D. (2017, November 21). A woman’s guide to negotiation:
Using your innate strengths to get the best deal [Blog post]. American Bar Association.
Urbaniak, K. (2020). Unbound: A woman’s guide to power. Penguin Books.
Ury, W. (1993). Getting past no. Bantam Books.
Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of
theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14(2),
101–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029826
Vanke-Smith, S., & Garcia, C. (2019, April 29). Where the gender pay gap is widest. NPR.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/04/29/718389455/where-the-gender-pay-gapis-widest
Voss, C. (2016). Never split the difference: Negotiating as if your life depended on it (1st ed.).
HarperCollins.
Wade, M. E. (2001). Women and salary negotiation: The costs of self-advocacy. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 25(1), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.00008
Ward, A. (2000). Getting strategic value from constellations of communities. Strategy and
Leadership, 28(2), 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1108/10878570010341537
Woodbridge, L. M., Um, B., & Duys, D. K. (2021). Women’s experiences navigating paid work
and caregiving during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Career Development Quarterly,
69(4), 284–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/cdq.12274
Yusliza, M. Y., Noor Faezah, J., Ali, N., Mohamad Noor, N. M., Ramayah, T., Tanveer, M. I., &
Fawehinmi, O. (2021). Effects of supportive work environment on employee retention:
The mediating role of person–organisation fit. Industrial and Commercial Training,
53(3), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-12-2019-0111

118
Appendix: Interview Protocol
Researcher’s reminder:
1. Change the participant screen name for the recording to a pseudonym.
2. Check with participant for completed screening questions.
3. Hit Record on Zoom.
Introduction to the Interview
Good morning. My name is Monique Rogers. I am a doctoral student at USC currently
enrolled in the organizational change and leadership program and working on my dissertation.
This work involves the study of women and negotiation. You have been selected as a participant
in the study for an interview. The study involves interviewing individuals identifying as women
who are active in the industries involving finance, hold executive or leadership positions, have
obtained higher education, and were employed before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. In
addition, these are women who have also experienced pay, position, or professional negotiations
over the last 3 years.
• Do you fit these criteria for the study?
• Have you received and reviewed the information sheet provided?
• Do you consent to the interview and being recorded for the purposes of this research?
• Do you have any other questions before we begin?
Recordings and transcriptions will be retained for study record-keeping purposes per
USC institutional policy. Recordings and transcriptions will be retained by the investigator for
future research use. Direct identifiers and/or the key to the codes will be destroyed upon
completion of the research.

119
Screening Interview Questions
1. Please state and spell your name.
2. Please state your age, position, current work industry, and the # of years in industry.
3. Please state your highest education level completed.
4. Please state your gender and race.
5. Please state your current partnership or marital status and the number and ages of any
children or dependents you are responsible for.
Thank you for agreeing to the interview and being recorded. First question:

120
Table A1
Interview Protocol
RQ
addressed
Interview question
RQ1 How did you learn about the process of negotiation?
RQ1 How confident are you in your negotiating skills?
RQ3 What has influenced your level of confidence in your negotiation skills?
RQ3 Has anyone mentored you on the negotiation process and how to negotiate?
What did that mentorship look like?
RQ2 Can you tell me about how you engage in job negotiations? Are there specific
strategies you find particularly effective or helpful in this field?
RQ2 What recommendations would you give other women who are in job
negotiations in your field?
RQ3 What are some of the challenges you have experienced related to negotiation?
a. How did you approach these challenges?
b. Do you think these challenges are related to gender? If so, how?
RQ2 Why do you think some women do not negotiate or ask?
a. Tell me about a time you negotiated for someone else.
b. Tell me about a time you negotiated for yourself.
RQ2 Can you recall a time when you received an outcome that was different from
your stated request? Looking back, would you have changed how you
approached that negotiation?
RQ2 Did you experience any job negotiations for yourself during the pandemic? If
so, did you approach negotiations any differently than before the pandemic?
Is there anything else you’d like to share with me about engaging in
negotiation?
Is there anyone else who you know in your field who could contribute to this
research?
Conclusion to the Interview
I want to thank you for taking this time.
May I contact you if I have any additional questions after reviewing our conversation?
What way would you like me to contact you?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Minding the gender gap: self-efficacy and women senior leadership roles in banking

PDF

High school single-gender science classrooms, minority females, and perceptions of self-efficacy

PDF

Women in executive leadership: a study of the gender diversity gap

PDF

An intersectional examination of inequity in Black Bahamian men’s employment experience: a critical theory and social cognitive perspective

PDF

Racial and gender gaps in executive management: a retrospective examination of the problem cause and strategies to address disparities

PDF

Shattering the glass ceiling: examining invisible barriers to women’s career progression in South Korean international schools

PDF

Motherhood wage penalty, family leave policies, gender wage gap, and its influences on career advancement: an evaluation study

PDF

COVID-19 pandemic: the impact on the Napa Valley wine industry workers

PDF

Prescription for change: gender barriers impact on healthcare leadership equity

PDF

The role of executives’ knowledge and motivation in enabling organizational supports for diversity, equity, and inclusion

PDF

A case Study of gender gaps in the legal profession

PDF

The leadership labyrinth: women's journey to chief future officer

PDF

Navigating race, gender, and responsibility: a gap analysis of the underrepresentation of Black women in foreign service leadership positions

PDF

Gender disparity in law enforcement

PDF

Increasing the effectiveness of African-American male mentorship

PDF

Gender equity in career technical education: women in aviation

PDF

Examining the pandemic’s impact on remote worker wellness in community colleges: organizational lessons and strategies

PDF

Learning environment impact on women undergraduate engineering students

PDF

Sticks and stones: achieving educational equity for Black students through board advocacy: an innovation study

PDF

The underrepresentation of Latinx in entrepreneurship and the identification of social, societal, and institutional barriers to close the gap

Asset Metadata

Creator Rogers, Monique Marie (author)

Core Title Negotiation strategies for women impacting the expanding gender earnings gap at midlife

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-12

Publication Date 11/30/2023

Defense Date 10/27/2023

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag BATNA,behavior,benefits,career,confidence,confidence gap,COVID,decentralized wage setting,difference,disparity,diversity,early career,earnings,emotion,equity,gender,gender bias,Harvard,inclusion,Inequality,influences,job negotiation,mentor,mentorship,midlife,mood,negotiation,OAI-PMH Harvest,organization support,pandemic,pay gap,salary,self-efficacy,social barriers,stereotypes,strategy,wage,well-being,women

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee chair), Kim, Esther (committee member), Ott, Maria (committee member)

Creator Email mmrogers@usc.edu,monique@moniquerogers.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113781071

Unique identifier UC113781071

Identifier etd-RogersMoni-12508.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-RogersMoni-12508

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Rogers, Monique Marie

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20231201-usctheses-batch-1110 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu