their peers, for a difference of $1,828. The male givers earned an average of 18.31 percent less
money than their peers, for a difference of $9,772.
As we saw earlier in the chapter on powerless communication, givers tend to be humble and
uncomfortable asserting themselves directly. Studies in more controlled settings have shown that in
zero-sum situations, givers frequently shy away from advocating for their own interests: when
negotiating their salaries, they make more modest requests than matchers and takers, and end up
accepting less favorable outcomes. This reluctance to be assertive is especially likely to afflict
agreeable givers, who pay a price in their pocketbooks.*
At a professional services firm, a man who I’ll call Sameer Jain was a giver who consistently fell
victim to the doormat effect. Sameer was ranked at the top of his class and the top 10 percent of all
employees in the northeast United States at his firm, and dedicated much of his time to helping
colleagues and mentoring junior employees. Despite being a star performer, he watched his friends at
other firms get promoted faster and earn more income, and he never negotiated his salary or asked for
a raise. On several occasions, he watched assertive peers who were no better performers negotiate
raises and promotions, sailing past him in the corporate hierarchy. “I did not push hard enough to
make that happen for myself. I didn’t want to make others uncomfortable or overstep my bounds.”
Growing up in India, Sameer was a pushover, which made him the butt of jokes in his family. His
father came from a background in poverty, and learned to be a hard-nosed negotiator who bargained
for everything, clawing his family up to the middle class. Sameer grew up shielded, protected from
having to assert himself. His submissiveness bothered his wife, who was a tough negotiator. When
they first started dating, Sameer was about to sign a lease on an apartment. His wife intervened,
negotiated on his behalf, and reduced the rent by $600 a year. He was impressed, but also
embarrassed. Since then, whenever they make a purchase, he has turned to his wife to negotiate,
knowing that he would be a doormat. “To be honest, I’ve been ashamed of this for a long time,” he
admits.
After he left the professional services firm, Sameer completed an MBA and received a job offer
from a Fortune 500 medical technology company, his ideal employer. He wasn’t entirely satisfied
with the terms of the offer, but as usual, he was reluctant to negotiate. “I felt awkward. I like my boss,
and I didn’t want to make him uncomfortable.” Weakening Sameer’s position further, the economy had
just crashed, and his peers were all signing without negotiating.
But something was different this time. By a couple months later, Sameer had negotiated increases
in his total compensation to the tune of more than $70,000. He had undergone a chump change,
transforming from his traditional doormat status into a more assertive, more successful negotiator.
“My wife was stunned, and she complimented my persistence and effectiveness as a negotiator,” he
says. “For her to see me as a good negotiator is the ultimate validation.” What was it that drove
Sameer to step up to the plate?
The answer can be found in an ingenious experiment conducted by Linda Babcock and her
colleagues. The participants were 176 senior executives from private and public organizations, with
titles ranging from CEO and COO to president, general manager, and chairman. The executives all
started with the same information: an employee in a software company was being promoted, and they
were negotiating compensation for the new position. The male executives playing the role of the
employee landed an average of $146,000, 3 percent higher than the women’s average of $141,000.
But with a single sentence, Babcock and colleagues helped the female executives boost their averages
michael s
(Michael S)
#1