In light of International Women’s Day being this week, here is an article by Deborah Kolb reviewing the role gender plays in negotiation.
After many years of indifference, the study of gender is now an important area of scholarship in negotiation. At the same time as interest has grown, so too have the perspectives on gender and negotiation evolved. Elsewhere, we have suggested that there are three major ways to look at gender.[l] The first, and by far the most common, is to treat gender as differences between men and women. A second approach, an interpretive one, treats gender as being socially constructed. And the third approach, with its roots in postmodern thinking, uses a lens of gender to look at how theory and practice render invisible key elements of the social enactment of negotiation. Our purpose in this paper is to review these different perspectives, but to focus more directly on research based on the interpretive and postmodern approaches. Because most of the gender research occurs in the laboratory, the focus has been primarily on individuals in interaction. To extend our understanding of gender and negotiations, we need to look more closely at organizations as a primary site for the construction of gender identities.[2] In this paper, we will trace the different ways gender has been studied in negotiation and show how a focus on organizations as gendered entities is critical to understanding about the ways gender matters in negotiation.
Gender Equals Difference
As Rubin and Brown noted in 1976, sex is one of the most easily measured variables, so it is not surprising that the question, “Do men and women negotiate differently?” is frequently asked.[3] Recent research suggests that women don’t ask, often let opportunities for negotiation slip by, typically set low goals, concede easily, and let their emotions show, among other factors. [4] Although individual studies on sex differences may produce significant findings, cumulative results across studies are often contradictory. Meta-analyses of these studies have shown only small statistically significant differences and on just two dimensions: women tend to be more cooperative than men and tend to receive lower outcomes when money is at issue.[5]
To ask a question about differences between men and women assumes that gender is a stable attribute of individuals. Accounting for these differences requires that there is some basis in biology, socialization, role theory, or entitlements to explain why they exist. [6] The most common argument posits that women emphasize nurturance and support in their relationships because of their social development and the mothering roles they often play (or are expected to play). In contrast, according to this argument, men are groomed for separation and individualism, behaviors presumably more suited to the demands of negotiation.[7]Thus women are more likely to treat a negotiation as an event in a long-term relationship, one linked to a larger social context and concerned with fairness and sensitivity to others, while men see it as a one-time event with no direct consequences for future interactions.[8] Without directly testing for the origins of gender differences, these explanations become tautological and are often marshaled after the fact to account for women’s deficiencies when they negotiate. For example, when men outperform women in salary negotiations, the explanations given for these differences are “the problems” that women have in negotiating.[9]
In a field that prides itself on pragmatism, the advice that results from this stream of research is problematic. First, the findings boil down to two points— either women are the same as men or they are different from them (i.e., deficient). So the advice is directed only to women; namely, how can women overcome their deficiencies and better equip themselves to negotiate or how can they strengthen their instrumental orientation to the task. [10] No similar advice exists for men. Second, the advice from this work may itself be gendered and subject to gender stereotypes that people use to judge behavior.[11] Thus, to tell a woman to act in a more self-interested, assertive, or instrumental way assumes that these behaviors are neutral in the sense that men and women can use them with the same effects and same consequences. However, these behaviors when enacted by a woman are likely to be seen differently than they are when men employ them. Assertiveness, self-orientation, and an instrumental focus may backfire against women. This type of asymmetry has created double binds for women in other research arenas. [12] In the leadership field, for example, it has been shown that beliefs about effective leaders, which tend to reflect masculine, agentic qualities, conflict with beliefs about femininity. A double bind test for a woman leader is the question can she be a leader and a woman too? If she acts decisively and pushes for what she needs—behaviors we might expect from leaders—she may be seen as too pushy. But if she conforms to feminine expectations and consults widely, she is seen as indecisive. [13]
Others value difference—articulating a woman’s point of view that brings unnoticed benefits to the negotiation process and the agreements that it produces. From this perspective, a focus on relationships, the skills of empathy, and the ability to manage conflict and competition simultaneously are thought (although not explicitly tested) to be advantageous in negotiations. [14] However, when researchers have tested to see if a “feminine concern” for others is correlated with joint gains, the findings are not encouraging.[15] It is not enough to care about the other party. For women to achieve high joint gains, in this case profit, they need to be primed to pay more attention to their own needs. Further, appreciating the feminine skills that negotiators bring to the table ignores the ways that these skills are not equally valued when compared with the more “masculine” skills basic to claiming behavior in distributive negotiations.
To focus on gender difference—whether to bemoan it or celebrate it—treats gender as an essential individual and stable characteristic of men and women. First, the approach treats men and women as internally homogenous categories, yet we know there is considerable variability within the sexes. Second, it fails to recognize that gender is hierarchically arrayed in society, and so to focus on difference is to accept a false symmetry in which the masculine emerges as the standard and the woman as the other.[16] In the negotiation field, the research and the pragmatic advice derived from the gender difference perspective reinforces masculine attributes; that is, it inadvertently places a premium on enlightened self-interest, analytic rationality, objectivity, and instrumentality.[17] In contrast, those attributes typically labeled as feminine—empathy, concern for relationships, subjectivity, and emotional expressiveness—remain less valued. As Joan Scott points out, what may start out as an explanation of the experiences that lead to differences between women and men, often translates into “women are the way they are because they are women.” [18] When we focus on the question—whether men and women negotiate differently—it is the women that emerge as in deficit and in need of “fixing.
Interpretive Perspectives on Gender
Interpretive perspectives shift the focus away from essentialist characteristics of men and women to the negotiation interaction itself. From this perspective, gender is continually socially constructed, produced and reproduced. In other words, we “do gender” rather than have a gender. [19] “Doing gender” means that in the process of enacting a social practice (such as negotiation), individuals are constantly engaged in constructing identities and social situations in gendered ways. In this way, gender is not an individual characteristic, but both a means and an outcome of the ways parties socially construct negotiation. Interpretive perspectives emphasize the fluidity, flexibility, and variability of gender-related behaviors. The challenge is to understand how parties enact negotiation in a particularly gendered way. If the research question from the first perspective is, “Do men and women negotiate differently?” the interactive perspective raises a more useful question, “When and under what conditions does gender shape the course of interactions?[20]. Three levels of analysis comprise these conditions—the individual, the interactional and the situational/organizational levels.
Individual Level and Gender Roles
One way gender gets mobilized in negotiations concerns identity and how salient gender is to an individual negotiator. At the individual level, therefore, one can consider the degree to which negotiators identify with the masculine and/or feminine sides of themselves and take up those roles or positions in the process. From this perspective, a man might choose, either consciously or unconsciously, to act in a stereotypically masculine way—shouting, bullying, acting competitively—because he believes that the context prompts him to behave in this way. By the same token, a woman might take up the role of helper or concentrate on the relationship, again because she perceives that the context calls for her to behave in that way. Work by Michele Gelfand and her associates looks at what they call relational self-construal, that is, the degree to which negotiators access a relational self.[21] Even though women are more likely to access a relational self-construal, men may also tap into this aspect of their identities. Similarly, Lisa Barron, in her studies of salary negotiation, identifies masculine and feminine orientations that are not necessarily defined by gender.[22] Bargainers, in other words, have some choice as to the degree to which they take on gender roles in a negotiation—that is, they are not doomed by their gender.
Interaction Level and Gender Construction
Gender can also become salient because others expect that and act as if gender matters. Stereotyped expectations that push a woman to assume an accommodative role or a man to be competitive can create a narrow band of gendered behaviors, which in turn reinforce gender identity. Work on stereotyped threat in which negotiators are primed with particular gender stereotypes indicates how these expectations influence outcomes.[23] Specifically, when researchers link masculine stereotypes to negotiation effectiveness, men achieve higher payoffs than do women. Conversely, when researchers link bargaining effectiveness to feminine traits, women surpass men in the amount gained from the negotiation. These studies also illustrate that participants are susceptible to enacting negotiation in a gendered way, especially when they are primed to do so. Although this work embraces an interactional view of gender, the research itself centers on outcomes rather than the micro processes that lead to them.
Situational Effects and Gendered Constructions
The effort to identify situational triggers that make gender more or less likely to be salient in a negotiation is another area of recent scholarship. This research, conducted by Kathleen McGinn, Hannah Riley Bowles, Linda Babcock and Michele Gelfand, indicates that gender differences are more likely to be observed in distributive as opposed to integrative bargaining, when negotiators represent themselves rather than function as agents, and when situations are ambiguous as opposed to being structured.[24] These effects, observed in the laboratory, are only a partial exploration of the ways that situation and context can impact gender in negotiations.
Organizations and institutions in which negotiations take place are not gender neutral.[25] Their structures, cultures, and norms of operating are often gendered in the sense that they are likely to fit the experiences of men, more than of women. This research in the organizational field focuses on second generation gender issues.[26] While first generation gender issues are overt, “second generation” refers to the cultures and work practices that appear gender neutral on the surface but have differential effects on men and women. Second generation issues enacted in organizations define the contexts for negotiations. Consider, for example, the opportunity structure in one organization. Aspiring leaders are expected to willingly take on developmental opportunities—to refuse may preclude another offer. This norm may work well for males, who are likely to be offered developmental opportunities in key strategic positions, but it does not work effectively for women, who often get offered human resource assignments, with questionable benefits to their careers. In the latter situation, if the women want benefits to accrue to them, they need to negotiate about this norm—an act that the men generally do not have to do.
Indeed, around a wide range of issues, women often have to negotiate for things that men generally do not—e.g., work and personal life arrangements, or credit for invisible work, the relational, behind the scenes work that women often do.[27] Second generation issues also reflect power relationships and so can create double binds for women. In another organization, women were routinely offered positions with lesser titles than their male counterparts. If they pushed for a comparable title in their promotion negotiations, they were often perceived as ‘aggressive’ and deemed less suitable for the job. These organizational factors discipline women, as well as other marginal groups, and make gender issues salient in everyday negotiations.[28]
A Gender Lens on Negotiation
Another way to conceptualize gender in negotiation is not about individuals, nor the conditions under which gender becomes mobilized; but rather it focuses on gender as an organizing principle of social life.[29] With its roots in postmodern literatures, this perspective questions the apparent neutrality of what constitutes knowledge in a field, and it shows how power shapes certain truths and taken-for-granted assumptions.[30] Using this perspective, we have examined the gendered nature of negotiation itself by exploring how the theory, research, and norms of practice privilege certain ways of being (that is, masculine) and marginalize others, that is, the feminine. This point underscores the assumption that gender relations are always situated in power. Using this lens, we focus on what is silenced or ignored in the field. In our own work, the first author elaborates on the shadow negotiation rooted in the power and relational dynamics heretofore undertheorized in negotiation.[31] This perspective illuminates three particular areas: the problem of social position; the challenges of maintaining legitimacy in bargaining interactions; and the possibilities of transformative outcomes from negotiations.
Elaborating Social Positioning
Most theory and research in negotiation fails to explore how social positioning in an organization’s hierarchy influences choices and imposes constraints on bargainers regardless of gender. The importance of social positioning is illustrated in field studies of employees who are newcomers to management in organizations. In an investigation of salary negotiations, for example, one team of researchers found that prospective minority employees, who had access to organizational social networks, achieved higher salaries than those who were outside the networks, even though both groups had good BATNAs.[32] Thus, people who do not have contacts or friends in organizations are disadvantaged in entry-level salary negotiations. Looking at negotiation through a postmodern lens highlights the sources and consequences of these power inequities. Similar to second generation gender issues, power/structure dimensions in organizations influence the dynamics of negotiations. [Bernard, Powerlessness] It suggests that theory and research need to consider the challenges of social positioning, its roots in status and/or identity, and ow positioning impacts the process and outcomes of negotiation.” By making his shift, research and theory can help other negotiators in disadvantageous posiions, as well as women. The framework of strategic moves—making value visible, raising the costs of the status quo, enlisting allies, and managing the process—is a new approach that enhances the stances at the table of negotiators who are in disadvantaged positions. [Kolb, Moves & Turns]
Elaborating Legitimacy
The power and positioning of a negotiator are not finally established at the outset of the bargaining; but can be continually contested. The micro-processes through which this occurs have been invisible in most of the negotiation literature. Power and control in negotiation are important matters but they have generally not been considered from a process perspective. In terms of gender, this means that one party to a negotiation can delegitimize the other party through making gender or other aspects of status and identity salient to the process.[34] For example, when attention is drawn to physical characteristics of body or appearance, or where a person’s style is characterized as too emotional or ‘excited,’ it can put her in a defensive position where she may find it more difficult to advocate for herself and her ideas. Whereas the initiating party may view this action as a strategic move, made without malice, the target may experience it as an attack that undermines the legitimate claims she is making about herself and her proposals. Delegitimizing one of the parties during a negotiation reduces the likelihood of a mutually beneficial outcome for both bargainers, unless the target is able to resist. Research on the micro-processes of negotiation interaction reveals a number of options for how people can resist these strategic moves through the use of “turns”. “Turns” are ways that negotiators can respond to the other party’s efforts to discredit or undermine actions by shifting the meaning of those behaviors.” [Kolb, Moves & Turns] Turning the interaction takes place in the “shadow” of a negotiation. These turns are also ways of resisting gender stereotypes as well as responding to moves that can put any negotiator in a disadvantageous position.[36]
Elaborating Interdependence and Transformation
A third way that a gender lens illuminates negotiation dynamics centers on bargaining as a relational system. Rather than valuing a woman’s concern for relationships as the perspective of gender difference research does, a gender lens focuses on how a relational orientation might influence theory and practice. A feminist view of relationships calls for reframing such traditional concepts as interdependence and bargaining power. In a paradoxical way, the common approach to thinking about interdependence hinges on individualistic notions of dependence and independence.[37] As parties negotiate issues at the table, thev also work out the nature of their dependence on each other. In the traditional literature, bargaining power derives from these perceptions of dependence and independence as a function of each person’s Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement[38] [Korobkin, Power] As negotiators endeavor to improve their BATNAs, they highlight their independence and minimize their interdependence. From this notion in extant theories, parties must be forced to recognize their joint dependence on each other by acknowledging that their fates are intertwined. In effect, interdependence becomes equated with jointly controlling each other’s fate.
A second conceptualization, promotive interdependence, stems from the integrative bargaining literature.[39] Specifically, through problem-solving, parties bargain on issues to meet each other’s individual needs and to discover how their interdependence benefits each of them. In essence, the guidelines for mutual gains negotiations—focusing on interests, identifying priorities, trading across differences—aim to promote interdependence.
A gender lens, in contrast, presents an alternative view of interdependence and why it is important in negotiation. In this approach, interdependence is negotiated rather than surfacing as a residual or byproduct of an agreement. Interdependence is created through the way negotiators connect with each other to appreciate and
understand how their lives are intertwined. Thus, connecting rather than strategic activity forms the nature of interdependence. Second, interdependence involves change and learning through a stance of curiosity that recognizes that dialogue and mutual inquiry are necessary, even in negotiation, to understand and appreciate the other person. Our own research reveals that asking questions about the context of the situation, listening for silences, and raising hidden agendas not only enable parties to appreciate how they are interdependent, but they also help them to see the dispute in a new light.[40] This new way of understanding the conflict comes, in part, from gaining new insights about the context of the situation.
By working on interdependence, new understandings can transform the very nature of a negotiation. Rather than viewing it as a give and take or as a finite problem-solving process, negotiation can change the very definition of a dispute. Transformation occurs as parties come to see the issues in a different way.[41] This new dimension moves outside of both parties’ frames of reference and situates the in a new realm. A dispute over resources and turf, for example, might be recast as a structural issue that negatively affects the performance of both parties. Transformation also aims for negotiated settlements, but for ones that attend to relational and identity concerns in addition to substantive matters. Parties to a turf dispute join together to negotiate with others to alter the conditions that created the problem in the first place.
Conclusion
The study of gender and negotiation has evolved from the early days in which scholars wondered if women were more cooperative than men. Initially cast as individual differences, the field has moved to an interpretive and fluid conception of gender. This more recent research, however, is also limited by its failure to include the organizational contexts within which negotiations occur. Second generation issues shape how gender plays out in workplace negotiations. Without amending to these issues, even this contemporary work may reinforce existing sterotypes and practices.
The gender lens perspective, in contrast, asks fundamental questions about the itself, particularly the positioning of negotiators as advocates and the way that gendered assumptions permeate the bargaining process. Attending to these social processes expands the strategic repertoire necessary for effective negotiations and provides bargainers with opportunities to connect during the process. Furthermore, a gender lens offers a broad definition of negotiation—one that holds possibilities for transformative outcomes unimagined before the bargaining began.
Excerpted from: Kolb, Deborah M. “The People on All Sides: Gender Is More than Who We Are.” The Negotiator’s Fieldbook. By Andrea Kupfer. Schneider and Christopher Honeyman. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, Section of Dispute Resolution, 2006. 315-22.
Endnotes
[1] Deborah M. Kolb & Linda L. Putnam, Through the Looking Glass: Negotiation Theory Refracted Through the Lens of Gender, in Frontiers in Dispute Resolution in Industrial Relations and Human Resources (Sandra Gleason ed., 1997); Linda L. Putnam & Deborah M. Kolb, Rethinking Negotiation: Feminist Views of Communication and Exchange, in RethinkingOrganizational and Mangerial Communication from Feminist Perspectives (Patrice M.Buzzanell ed., 2000).
[2] Robin Ely & Irene Padavic, A Feminist Analysis ofMicro Research on Gender in Organizations: Suggestions for Advancing the Field (Harvard Business School, Working Paper No. 05-040, January 2005).
[3]Jeffrey Rubin & Bert R. Brown, The Social Psychology of Bargaining and Negotiation
(1975).
[4] Linda Babcock & Sara Laschever, Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide (2003).
[5] Amy E. Walters, et al.. Gender and Negotiator Competitiveness: A Meta-analysis, 76 Organiza tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1 (1998);lAlice F. Stuhbmachcr & Amy E.Walters, Gender Differences in Negotiation Outcomes:A Meta-analysis, 52 Personnel Psychology 653(1999).
[6]Ely & Padavic, supra note 2.
[7] Deborah M. Kolb & Gloria Coolidgc, Her Place at the Table, in Negotiation Theory and Practice (J. William Breslin &Jeffrey Z. Rubin eds., 1991).
[8] Leonard Greenhalgh & Deborah I. Chapman, Joint Decision-making: The Inseparability of Relationship and Negotiation, in Negotiation as a Social Process (Roderick M. Kramer & David M. Messick eds., 1995); Leonard Greenhalgh & Roderick W. Gilkey, Our Game, Your Rules: Developing Effective Negotiating Approaches, in Not as Far as You Think: The Realities of Working Women (L. Moore ed., 1986); Jennifer J. Halpcrn & Judi McLean Parks, Vive la Difference: Differences Between Males and Females in Process and Outcomes in a Low-Conflict Negotiation, 1 International Journal of Conflict-Management 45 (1996).
[8] Stuhlmacher & Walters, supra note 5.
[9] Debra E. Meyerson & Deborah M. Kolb, Moving Out of the “Armchair”: Developing a Framework to Bridge the Gap Between Feminist Theory and Practice, 7 ORGANIZATION 589 (2000).
[10] BABCOCK & LASCHEVER, supra note 4.
[11] VIRGINIA VALIAN, WHY So SLOW? THE ADVANCEMENT OF WOMEN ( 1998).
[12] JOYCE K. FLETCHER, DISAPPEARING ACTS (1999); Julia T. Wood & Charles Conrad, Paradox in the Experiences of professional Women, 47 THE WESTERN JOURNAL OF SPEECH COMMUNICATION 305 (1983).
[13] Alice H. Eagly & Linda Carli, The Female Leadership Advantage: An Evaluation of the Evidence. ;THE LEADERSHIP QUARTERLY 807 (2003); DEBORAH M. KOLB, ET AL., HER PLACE AT THE TABLE: A WOMAN’S GUIDE TO NEGOTIATING FIVE CHALLENGES TO LEADERSHIP SUCCESS (2004).
[14] Kolb & Coolidge, supra note 7.
[15] Patrick S. Calhoun & William P. Smith, Integrative Bargaining: Does Gender Make a Difference?, 10 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT 203 ( 1999).
[16] IRENE PADAVIC 8 BARBARA F. RESKIN, WOMEN AND MEN AT WORK (2002); Ely & Padavic, supra note 2.
[17] Kolb & Putnam, supra note l.
[18] JOAN WALLACH Scott, GENDER AND THE POLITICS OF HISTORY ( 1988).
[19]JUDITH A. HOWARD & JOCELYN HOLLANDER, GENDERED SITUATIONS, GENDERED SELVES 10 1997); Candace West & D.H. Zimmerman, Doing Gender, I GENDER AND SOCIETY 125 ( 1987).
[20]Kay Deaux & Brenda Major, A Social Psychological Model of Gender, in THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON SEXUAL DIFFERENCE (Deborah Rhode ed., 1990).
[21]Michele Gelfand, et al., A Dynamic Theory of Gender in Negotiation (2003) (unpublished paper, on file with University of Maryland).
[22] Lisa Barron, Ask and You Shall Receive? Gender Differences in Negotiators’ Beliefs About Requests (ora Higher Salary, 56 HUMAN RELATIONS 635 (2003).
[23] Laura J. Kray & Leigh Thompson, Gender Stereotypes and Negotiation Performance, in RESEARCH IN ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR (Barry M. Staw & Rod Kramer eds.) (forthcomin
26th vol.); Carol Rose, Bargaining and Gender: Feminism, Sexual Distinctions, and the Law, I HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY 547 ( 1995).
[24] Hannah R. Bowles, et al., Constraints and Triggers: Situational Mechanics of Gender in Negotiation (Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Working Paper No.
RWP05-051, 2005); Gelfand, et al., supra note 21.
[25] Ely & Padavic, supra note 2; Karen Lee Ashcraft, Gender, Discourse, and Organization: Framing a Shifting Relationship, in THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL DISCOURSE (David
Grant, et al. eds., 2004).
[26] Susan Sturm, Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach, 101 COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW 458 (2001 ); Deborah E. Meyerson & Deborah M. Kolb, Moving Out of
the Armchair: Developing a Framework to Bridge the Gap Between Feminist Theory and Practice, 7 ORGANIZATION 589 (2000).
[27] JOYCE K. FLETCHER, DISAPPEARING ACTS ( 1999).
[28] DEBORAH M. KOLB & JUDITH WILLIAMS, EVERYDAY NEGOTIATIONS: NAVIGATING THE HIDDEN AGENDAS OF BARGAINING (2003); KOLB, ET AL., supra note 13.
[29] Joan Acker, Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Genderized Organizations, 4 GENDER AND SOCIETY 139 ( 1990); Robin J. Ely, Feminist Critiques of Research on Gender in Negotiations (Cen-
ter for Gender in Organizations, Working Paper No. 6, 1999); FLETCHER, supra note 12.
[30] Marta Calas & Linda Smircich, From a Woman’s Point of View: Feminist Approaches to Organization Studies, in HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATION STUDIES (Stuart R. Clegg, et al. eds., 1996).
[31] KOLB & WILLIAMS, supra note 28.
[32] Mark-David Seidel, et al., Friends in High Places: The Effects of Social Networks on Salary Negotiations, 45 ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE QUARTERLY I (2000).
[33] Deborah M. Kolb & Judith Williams, Breakthrough Bargaining, 6080 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW 87 (2001)
[34] KOLB & WILLIAMS, supra note 28.
[35] Deborah M. Kolb, Staying in the Game or Changing It: An Analysis of Moves and Turns in Negotiation, 20 NEGOTIATION JOURNAL 253 (2004).
[36] SYLVIA GHERARDI, GENDER, SYMBOLISM, AND ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ( 1996).
[37] SAMUEL BACHARACH & EDWARD LAWLER, BARGAINING: POWER, TACTICS AND OUTCOMES 181981).
[38] DAVID A. LAX & JAMES K. SEBENIUS, THE MANAGER AS NEGOTIATOR: BARGAINING FOR COOPERATION AND COMPERA TIVE GAIN ( 1986).
[39] RICHARD E. WALTON & ROBERT B. MCKERSIE, A BEHAVIORAL THEORY OF LABOR NEGOTIATIONS: AN ANALYSIS OF A SOCIAL INTERACTION SYSTEM 1965).
[40] Deborah M. Kolb & Linda L. Putnam, Relationa(l Interdependence, Paper Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Academy of Management (Aug. 7-11, 2002); Putnam & Kolb,
supra note l.
[41] Linda L. Putnam, Transformations and Critical Moments in Negotiations, 20 NEGOTIATION JOURNAL 269 (2004).
