GENDER AND PERSISTENCE IN NEGOTIATION: A DYADIC PERSPECTIVE HANNAH RILEY BOWLES Harvard University FRANCIS FLYNN Stanford University We studied interactive effects of gender in negotiation dyads, theorizing that the degree and manner of a negotiator’s persistence are functions of the gender composition of the dyad. Our findings challenge sex-stereotypic perspectives, showing that women persist more with male naysayers than with female naysayers but do so in a stereotypically low-status (more indirect than direct) manner. Women’s adaptation of their persis- tence to naysayer gender appeared functional because increased persistence with male naysayers helped close a gender gap in performance, and female negotiators with high performance adjusted their manner of persistence more than those with low performance. Negotiation is a fundamental form of coordina- tion in organizations that affects the process of work, the resolution of conflict, and the advance- ment of careers (Barley, 1991; De Dreu & Gelfand, 2007; Pfeffer, 1981). The study of gender in ne- gotiation is important to the understanding of organizational processes because gender is an es- sential and pervasive source of diversity at work (Bielby & Baron, 1986; Ely & Meyerson, 2000; Goldin, 1990; Heilman, 1983) and because nego- tiation is one of the micromechanisms through which gender inequalities in organizations are both constructed and broken down (Bowles & McGinn, 2008). The focus of the current article is how gender affects persistence in negotiation—the willing- ness to continue seeking compromise from a nay- saying counterpart. We examined the degree of persistence, in terms of the propensity for nego- tiators to stand their ground rather than yield. We also examined the manner of persistence, in terms of the extent to which negotiators rely on direct verbal communication or more indirect nonverbal cues to express dissatisfaction with current offers. We focused on these particular elements of the manner of persistence because they are linked theoretically to gender and other forms of social status (Carli, 1990; Falbo & Pep- lau, 1980; Howard, Blumstein, & Schwartz, 1986; Johnson, 1976). Persistence—in this sense of task perseverance— has long been associated with both individual ne- gotiation performance (Siegel & Fouraker, 1960) and the achievement of joint gains (Ben-Yoav & Pruitt, 1984). Yet it has received scant attention in the quest to understand gender effects on negotia- tion. Perhaps this is because sex stereotypes offer such an intuitive answer to the question of how gender will affect negotiators’ willingness to accept “no” for a response. Sex stereotypes clearly suggest that persisting in the face of another’s intransigence is the “masculine” as opposed to the “feminine” response. Prominent measures of gender identity associate masculinity with attributes such as “will- ing to take a stand” and “defend my own beliefs” and femininity with traits such as “understanding” and “sympathetic” (Bem, 1981; Spence & Helm- reich, 1978). Therefore, if men and women fol- lowed the sex stereotypes, men would be more likely to stand their ground, whereas women would be more inclined to accommodate or compromise. We argue, however, that actual persistence be- havior in negotiation is not a simple reflection of sex stereotypes. Analyzing the meaning of gender in negotiation contexts, we propose that gender effects on negotiation persistence are better pre- dicted by the gender pairing in a dyad than by the gender of an individual negotiator. We theorize that the effects of sex stereotypes in negotiation are a product of expectations for the self and other in interaction. Drawing on this interactive interpretation of the effects of sex stereotypes, we propose that women may adjust both the degree and manner of their persistence, depending on a naysayer’s gender (i.e., the gender of a negotiat- ing counterpart who is refusing to make asked-for concessions). We argue that women persist to a greater degree with male than female naysayers  Academy of Management Journal 2010, Vol. 53, No. 4, 769–787. 769 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download or email articles for individual use only.