Eva Bee/Getty Images

Research shows that women are more reticent than men to negotiate their salary offers. For instance, one study of graduating MBA students found that half of the men had negotiated their job offers as compared to only one eighth of the women. This general pattern has been replicated in survey studies of working adults and in laboratory experiments. It begs the question: Why? Is this a “confidence” problem? Is negotiation a skill for which men are simply better socialized than women? Why leave money on the table?

Researchers have examined the why, and the answer has more to do with how women are treated when they negotiate than it has to do with their general confidence or skills at negotiation. Numerous studies have been conducted in which participants rate their impressions of employees who negotiate for pay and of employees who let the same opportunity to negotiate pass them by. The researchers then compared people’s willingness to work with that employee after evaluators saw him or her negotiate, or not. If evaluators were less inclined to work with the same employee after seeing him or negotiate, we deemed that the “social cost” of negotiation.

In repeated studies, the social cost of negotiating for higher pay has been found to be greater for women than it is for men. Men can certainly overplay their hand and alienate negotiating counterparts. However, in most published studies, the social cost of negotiating for pay is not significant for men, while it is significant for women.

The results of this research are important to understand before one criticizes a woman — or a woman criticizes herself — for being reluctant to negotiate for more pay. Their reticence is based on an accurate read of the social environment. Women get a nervous feeling about negotiating for higher pay because they are intuiting — correctly — that self-advocating for higher pay would present a socially difficult situation for them — more so than for men.

But here’s a twist: we love it when women negotiate assertively for others. It’s just when women are negotiating assertively for themselves — particularly around pay — where we find a backlash. Unsurprisingly, research also shows that women perform better (e.g., negotiate higher salaries) when their role is to advocate for others as opposed to negotiating for more for themselves. Men’s behavior and the ensuing social effects don’t shift much depending on whether they are advocating for themselves or others.

OK. So, we shouldn’t blame women for being more reticent than men to negotiate for higher pay. But, is there anything that women can do about it? Thankfully, yes.

The answer is to use a “relational account” — or what I have learned from Sheryl Sandberg to call a “think personally, act communally” strategy. Using a “relational account” or “I-We” strategy involves asking for what you want while signaling to your negotiating counterpart that you are also taking their perspective. So, how does it work?

First, you want to explain to your negotiating counterpart why — in their eyes — it’s legitimate for you to be negotiating (i.e., appropriate or justified under the circumstances). Sheryl says that in her negotiations with Facebook, she told them, “Of course you realize that you’re hiring me to run your deal team so you want me to be a good negotiator.” Sandberg wanted Facebook to see her negotiating as legitimate because, if she didn’t negotiate, they should be worried about whether they’d made the right hire.

Second, you want to signal to your negotiating counterpart that you care about organizational relationships. After pointing out that they should want her to be a good negotiator, Sheryl recounts saying, “This is the only time you and I will ever be on opposite sides of the table.” In other words, “I am clear that we’re on the same team here.”

In experimental research testing evaluators’ impressions of alternative negotiating scripts, we found that relational accounts helped women both get what they wanted and make the impression that they wanted to make. For instance, one successful relational account that we tested was very similar to Sheryl’s, but was written for a more junior employee: “I don’t know how typical it is for people at my level to negotiate, but I’m hopeful that you’ll see my skill at negotiating as something important that I can bring to the job.” Note that I’m not suggesting that women use these scripts word-for-word. Come up with an “I-We strategy” that makes sense in context and feels authentic to you.

When the explanation for why the woman was negotiating seemed legitimate, people were more inclined to grant her compensation request (as compared to when she was simply negotiating for a higher salary without that explanation). When her script communicated concern for organizational relationships, evaluators were more inclined to work with her. Indeed, there was no significant difference in the willingness to work with a female employee who negotiated using a relational account (“I-We” strategy) as compared to female employees who let the opportunity to negotiate for a raise pass. Variation in the negotiation scripts did not significantly influence the evaluations of male negotiators.

I should highlight that not every legitimate explanation for negotiating helped women. For instance, conventional wisdom in the negotiation community has been to negotiate for a raise when you have another job offer. We tested multiple negotiation scripts based on an outside offer — even ones suggesting that the offer just dropped in the employee’s lap. Unfortunately, in all of the outside-offer scripts we tested, the suggestion that the employee would leave if the offer were not matched seemed to undermine the impression that the employee cared about organizational relationships. As a result, evaluators reported being more willing to grant a woman with an outside offer a raise, but they were disinclined to work with her (as compared to if she let the opportunity to negotiate pass). The outside-offer scripts had no significant effects on the evaluation of male negotiators.

The key to a relational account (or “I-We”) strategy is to explain why your counterpart should perceive your negotiating as legitimate in terms that also communicate your concern for organizational relationships.

I should acknowledge that this idea of using “relational accounts” or “I-We” strategies drives some women crazy. It makes them feel like they are bending to unjust stereotypes or simply being inauthentic. I sympathize with that reaction. We were surprised while doing the research that it would be so hard to make the backlash effects go away. But, every movement needs its idealists and pragmatists, and I am playing the pragmatist here.

It is good advice for any negotiator – male or female — to ask for what they want in terms that their counterparts will perceive as legitimate and mutually beneficial. But for women, it is especially helpful because it unburdens them from the social costs of self-advocating. By sharing this research, I hope to shed light on this bias. Most people don’t want to discriminate. With more self-awareness as negotiators and evaluators, we can work to close this gender gap.