Take a photo of a barcode or cover
unitofraine's review
2.0
I didn't finish. I found it interesting. And depressing. But at least makes me think twice about what I could or should be asking for. I know I don't ask for enough, but it's hard to change. I suppose awareness is the first step.
Also, I found the author's habit of speaking of her research in third person annoying. Yes, I'm casual.
Also, I found the author's habit of speaking of her research in third person annoying. Yes, I'm casual.
jeggert10's review
hopeful
informative
medium-paced
4.25
Content Warnings
Minor: Misogyny and Pregnancy
brendapike's review
5.0
My Negotiation and Conflict Resolution class has been really rewarding so far, but by far the best part of it has been discovering the book Women Don’t Ask by Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever. It’s been a bit of a revelation for me, making me realize that the world is far more negotiable than I think. However, statistically, women are less likely to ask for what we want, and when we do ask, we tend to get less than what men do. Some reasons for this:
* We’re more anxious about conflict.
* We tend to believe our circumstances are more fixed than they really are.
* We expect other people to treat us fairly.
* We tend to be more satisfied with what we have.
* We think of our incomes in terms of what we need instead of what our work is worth.
* We set our goals lower.
* If we are more forceful in pursuit of our goals, we tend to be viewed more negatively because of it.
The good news? Women tend to have a collaborative negotiating style, which has been shown to result in better outcomes than a competitive style. My professor calls it the enhanced best deal: instead of fighting to get the biggest piece of the pie, you make the pie bigger so everyone gets more. This takes a lot of openness and trust in order to share information and brainstorm creatively together—more like problem-solving than traditional bargaining. This is the strategy that seems to be favored by most negotiation teachers today. The fact that they’re trying to teach people to negotiate more like women is really reassuring to me, and makes me more confident in my own abilities to negotiate well. Preparation goes a long way toward reducing my anxiety about it!
I really don’t think the problem is as gender-specific as the book suggests, though. Jason exhibits most of the characteristics described in the book, as do a lot of other people I know. I think it could be renamed Mainers Don’t Ask without losing anything. We really don’t! We’re just used to making do with what we have. And we’re so focused on what’s fair that we actually fight to give money to each other!
I’m in the middle of buying a new car right now, and I’m keeping the lessons from this book and my negotiating class in mind as I do it. Wish me luck!
* We’re more anxious about conflict.
* We tend to believe our circumstances are more fixed than they really are.
* We expect other people to treat us fairly.
* We tend to be more satisfied with what we have.
* We think of our incomes in terms of what we need instead of what our work is worth.
* We set our goals lower.
* If we are more forceful in pursuit of our goals, we tend to be viewed more negatively because of it.
The good news? Women tend to have a collaborative negotiating style, which has been shown to result in better outcomes than a competitive style. My professor calls it the enhanced best deal: instead of fighting to get the biggest piece of the pie, you make the pie bigger so everyone gets more. This takes a lot of openness and trust in order to share information and brainstorm creatively together—more like problem-solving than traditional bargaining. This is the strategy that seems to be favored by most negotiation teachers today. The fact that they’re trying to teach people to negotiate more like women is really reassuring to me, and makes me more confident in my own abilities to negotiate well. Preparation goes a long way toward reducing my anxiety about it!
I really don’t think the problem is as gender-specific as the book suggests, though. Jason exhibits most of the characteristics described in the book, as do a lot of other people I know. I think it could be renamed Mainers Don’t Ask without losing anything. We really don’t! We’re just used to making do with what we have. And we’re so focused on what’s fair that we actually fight to give money to each other!
I’m in the middle of buying a new car right now, and I’m keeping the lessons from this book and my negotiating class in mind as I do it. Wish me luck!
ginabcp81's review against another edition
3.0
This book really helped me switch my perspective with respect to job negotiations. After the first few chapters though, it became a little repetitive to me, so I ended up putting it down before I finished reading it.
jmsmusings's review
4.0
This was an interesting book and frustrating in its confirmation of women’s tendencies not to ask for what we want.
michele_la's review
3.0
So, far, pretty well researched, and not as fluffy as I assumed it would be.
starrynews's review
4.0
This book nicely condenses the available research related to issues of gender and negotiation. The influence of childhood (toys, chores, etc) and society is clearly outlined. The focus is less on what to do/how to do it than on giving a literature review of the existing data. My understanding, after hearing one of the authors speak, is that the second book, Ask For It is more the hands-on guide, so I look forward to checking it out.
mcoussens's review
5.0
I found this book very helpful and took a lot of notes. Here are some of them:
• “In many industries, and in offices of every size, businesses have become less bureaucratic, levels of hierarchy have become fewer and flatter, and job responsibilities and lines of report have become less formalized. Management styles have become less ‘top-down’, less ‘command-and-control’. Traditional job ladders have given way to more diffuse organizational structures and new business models seem to emerge daily. Employees, as a result, often find themselves with few hard-and-fast rules to follow about how things are run. Many organizations are also making increasing use of ‘idiosyncratic deals’ (called I-deals). I-deals are customized employment contracts designed to meet the individual needs of employees. They can allow varying degrees of flexibility in travel requirements, hours worked, or rates of skill development for different people doing the same job. They make more elements of an employee’s work life negotiable” (p. x).
• “The phenomenon that Faye Crosby has called ‘the denial of personal disadvantage’ also contributes to the social costs we all pay for underestimating the value of women’s work and time. Since, as Crosby has shown, ‘people typically imagine themselves to be exempt from the injustices that they can recognize as affecting their membership or reference groups,’ a woman may see that other women earn lower salaries than comparable men and yet believe herself to be exempt from this problem. This is unfortunate for several reasons, First, at a personal level, because this woman doesn’t recognize the reality of her situation, she may take no action to fight it. Second, at a broader societal level, people are more likely to push for changes in which they have a personal stake—changes form which they themselves will benefit. The longer women labor under the misapprehension that they personally are doing okay, the longer it will take for the system as a whole to adjust this fundamental and counterproductive inequity” (p. 56).
• “The power of what John Jost calls ‘gender socialization practices’ to convince women of ‘the legitimacy of their own inferiority’ also manifests itself in what has been termed ‘the imposter syndrome.’” (p. 77).
• “it has been demonstrated that expectations and stereotypes can subconsciously influence a person’s behavior even when those stereotypes are not embraced or internalized. An area of research termed ‘stereotype threat’ pioneered by the psychologist Claude Steele and his colleagues has shown that merely ‘activating’ a stereotype by asking about it—that is eliciting the information that someone belongs to a particular group—can have a significant impact on that person’s behavior” (p. 79).
• “even if a woman believes that society’s gender-role requirements are inappropriate and even offensive, the mere knowledge that these beliefs are held by others may be enough to influence her behavior” (p. 81).
• “behavior characterized as simply assertive and self-confident, such as speaking without the use of disclaimers, tag questions (‘don’t you agree’), and hedges (‘I’m not sure this will work, but it might be worth trying’). It can be true of simply disagreeing with another person as well—we accept this behavior from a man much ore readily than we do from a woman… when women stray—or stride—across those boundaries they face penalties (what so-called scientists call ‘social sanctions’) for violating society’s expectations for their behavior. These penalties can range from resentment for ‘acting like men’ to a devaluing of their skills and job effectiveness to outright hostility and censure” (p. 86).
• “the higher a woman rises in an organization, the more likely she is to encounter stereotyped responses to her behavior—because there don’t tend to be many women at the higher levels of most organizations” (p. 92).
• “To be ‘nice’, a woman must seem friendly, act concerned about the needs and feelings of others, and avoid being confrontational” (p. 105).
• “Research has shown that a ‘lifting of sanctions’ begins to occur when the percentage of women in a particular environment reaches about 15 percent; when 35 to 40 percent of the people in a given environment are women, the range of behaviors allowed to women widens considerable and the environment can actually become quite hospitable to women… [when entertaining a job at a different company] ask how you will be evaluated” (p. 109).
• “Psychologists define a self-schema as your internal sense of who you are and what you’re like—an interior self-portrait made up of how you perceive the world around you—it provides a ‘filter’ through which you process information, understand events, and organize your memories. It is also a prime motivator of your behavior… People with independent self-schemas… define themselves in terms of their distinction from others and pay less attention to the impact of their actions on the people around them. They focus on promoting their personal preferences and goals and seek out relationships that tend to be more instrumental than intimate, more numerous, and less personally binding. People with interdependent self-schemas, in contrast, define themselves in terms of their connections to others—‘relationships are viewed as integral parts of the person’s very being’. They see their actions in terms of how they will influence people around them, and one of their primary goals is to develop strong relationships and protect them” (p. 118).
• “Social scientists have identified two principal types of networks: ‘instrumental’ networks and ‘friendship’ networks. ‘Instrumental’ networks are based on exchanges of advice and information and on a readiness to help each other out, whereas ‘friendship’ networks have a more social function” (p. 152).
• “Integrative tactics (asking questions, listening, sharing information, and trying to find solutions that satisfy the needs of both sides) differ dramatically from the competitive tactics (staking out extreme positions, bluffing, resisting concessions) that can be effective in classic distributive (one-issue) negotiations” (p. 167).
• “In many industries, and in offices of every size, businesses have become less bureaucratic, levels of hierarchy have become fewer and flatter, and job responsibilities and lines of report have become less formalized. Management styles have become less ‘top-down’, less ‘command-and-control’. Traditional job ladders have given way to more diffuse organizational structures and new business models seem to emerge daily. Employees, as a result, often find themselves with few hard-and-fast rules to follow about how things are run. Many organizations are also making increasing use of ‘idiosyncratic deals’ (called I-deals). I-deals are customized employment contracts designed to meet the individual needs of employees. They can allow varying degrees of flexibility in travel requirements, hours worked, or rates of skill development for different people doing the same job. They make more elements of an employee’s work life negotiable” (p. x).
• “The phenomenon that Faye Crosby has called ‘the denial of personal disadvantage’ also contributes to the social costs we all pay for underestimating the value of women’s work and time. Since, as Crosby has shown, ‘people typically imagine themselves to be exempt from the injustices that they can recognize as affecting their membership or reference groups,’ a woman may see that other women earn lower salaries than comparable men and yet believe herself to be exempt from this problem. This is unfortunate for several reasons, First, at a personal level, because this woman doesn’t recognize the reality of her situation, she may take no action to fight it. Second, at a broader societal level, people are more likely to push for changes in which they have a personal stake—changes form which they themselves will benefit. The longer women labor under the misapprehension that they personally are doing okay, the longer it will take for the system as a whole to adjust this fundamental and counterproductive inequity” (p. 56).
• “The power of what John Jost calls ‘gender socialization practices’ to convince women of ‘the legitimacy of their own inferiority’ also manifests itself in what has been termed ‘the imposter syndrome.’” (p. 77).
• “it has been demonstrated that expectations and stereotypes can subconsciously influence a person’s behavior even when those stereotypes are not embraced or internalized. An area of research termed ‘stereotype threat’ pioneered by the psychologist Claude Steele and his colleagues has shown that merely ‘activating’ a stereotype by asking about it—that is eliciting the information that someone belongs to a particular group—can have a significant impact on that person’s behavior” (p. 79).
• “even if a woman believes that society’s gender-role requirements are inappropriate and even offensive, the mere knowledge that these beliefs are held by others may be enough to influence her behavior” (p. 81).
• “behavior characterized as simply assertive and self-confident, such as speaking without the use of disclaimers, tag questions (‘don’t you agree’), and hedges (‘I’m not sure this will work, but it might be worth trying’). It can be true of simply disagreeing with another person as well—we accept this behavior from a man much ore readily than we do from a woman… when women stray—or stride—across those boundaries they face penalties (what so-called scientists call ‘social sanctions’) for violating society’s expectations for their behavior. These penalties can range from resentment for ‘acting like men’ to a devaluing of their skills and job effectiveness to outright hostility and censure” (p. 86).
• “the higher a woman rises in an organization, the more likely she is to encounter stereotyped responses to her behavior—because there don’t tend to be many women at the higher levels of most organizations” (p. 92).
• “To be ‘nice’, a woman must seem friendly, act concerned about the needs and feelings of others, and avoid being confrontational” (p. 105).
• “Research has shown that a ‘lifting of sanctions’ begins to occur when the percentage of women in a particular environment reaches about 15 percent; when 35 to 40 percent of the people in a given environment are women, the range of behaviors allowed to women widens considerable and the environment can actually become quite hospitable to women… [when entertaining a job at a different company] ask how you will be evaluated” (p. 109).
• “Psychologists define a self-schema as your internal sense of who you are and what you’re like—an interior self-portrait made up of how you perceive the world around you—it provides a ‘filter’ through which you process information, understand events, and organize your memories. It is also a prime motivator of your behavior… People with independent self-schemas… define themselves in terms of their distinction from others and pay less attention to the impact of their actions on the people around them. They focus on promoting their personal preferences and goals and seek out relationships that tend to be more instrumental than intimate, more numerous, and less personally binding. People with interdependent self-schemas, in contrast, define themselves in terms of their connections to others—‘relationships are viewed as integral parts of the person’s very being’. They see their actions in terms of how they will influence people around them, and one of their primary goals is to develop strong relationships and protect them” (p. 118).
• “Social scientists have identified two principal types of networks: ‘instrumental’ networks and ‘friendship’ networks. ‘Instrumental’ networks are based on exchanges of advice and information and on a readiness to help each other out, whereas ‘friendship’ networks have a more social function” (p. 152).
• “Integrative tactics (asking questions, listening, sharing information, and trying to find solutions that satisfy the needs of both sides) differ dramatically from the competitive tactics (staking out extreme positions, bluffing, resisting concessions) that can be effective in classic distributive (one-issue) negotiations” (p. 167).
astearias's review
3.0
This book has good points but nothing groundbreaking. Lots of research though outdated by todays standards. Lessons learned: just ask.