The Why Axis: Hidden Motives and the Undiscovered Economics of Everyday Life (10 page)

Fast-forward to the twenty-first century. Now we know that men and women react differently to competitive incentives; and this difference in reaction to incentives is strongly influenced by culture. Together, such social factors help to explain the gap between men’s and women’s job status and earnings. As the Khasi taught us, once women hold economic power and can express their true preferences without risking public scorn, they can learn how to react to competitive incentives to achieve considerable economic gain, and become true leaders in their societies.

The implications of our two key findings—(a) that women can be just as competitive, or even more competitive, than men; and (b) that when women have stronger economic influence, the society becomes more consensual and public-spirited—are profound. When we watched women haggle over tomatoes, we thought about American women who don’t apply for competitive jobs or ask for raises. We thought about the structural problems in Western societies that prevent women from achieving everything they can. And when we watched the women’s market operate with less friction, we thought about the US Congress, where bickering and grandstanding are the norm.

So if we want to encourage women and girls to be more competitive and to increase their earning power, what changes should we bring about to make that happen? What does all this mean for our daughters and yours?

Uri’s nineteen-year-old daughter, for example, believes that she can be successful in her future career. Her parents have encouraged her to believe that the sky is the limit and that she can achieve whatever she desires. At the same time, she feels that, at least in
the culture of San Diego today, she can’t go out and compete as freely as her male peers. So how can she get to the top without behaving as aggressively they do?

Meanwhile, John’s South Side Chicago girls likewise notice that boys in their gym class who do not perform to their peak get scolded by coaches who, as we said before, tell them to “stop playing like a girl.” “Should we play like girls or boys?” John’s daughters ask. “Should we be nice, or grab what we can?”

As we noted at the opening of this chapter, women tend to avoid salary negotiations; laboratory research has shown, for example, that men are nine times more likely than women to ask for more money when applying for a fictitious job. But do such tendencies manifest themselves in the real world? And, if so, why?
³

To find out, we ran a field experiment that was similar to the Craigslist experiment we described in
Chapter 2
. Between November 2011 and February 2012, we placed eighteen online “help wanted” postings for administrative assistants in nine major metropolitan areas in the United States. The jobs were either for a gender-neutral position in fundraising, or for positions in a sports environment, a situation that again prompted more male applicants. One ad said that that the job paid $17.60 and that the salary was negotiable. The other noted that the job paid a flat $17.60.
⁴

We received interest from 2,422 people. What happened?

First, we discovered that when there was no explicit statement that wages were negotiable—the ambiguous case—men were much more likely to negotiate for a higher wage than women. However, when we explicitly mentioned the possibility that wages were negotiable, this difference disappeared, and even tended to reverse—in this case, women bargained slightly more than men.

In other words, when employers say that salaries are negotiable, women step up to the negotiating plate. But when employers don’t say this, and the rules determining wage are left ambiguous, men are more likely to negotiate for higher salaries.

And who applies for these positions? We found that by merely adding the information that the wage was “negotiable,” the gender gap in job applications shrank by approximately 45 percent. This was true even for so-called masculine jobs (our sports ad), where one would expect more applicants to be men.

These results show that women avoid job postings that are not explicit about the rules of the game, whereas men embrace such postings. Clearly, if they want a healthy applicant pool of both men and women, prospective employers should be explicit in the details of the job and the wage/benefit offering. We turn to further ideas in this spirit now.

What Employers Can Do

While our “salary negotiable” experiment had to do with responses to job descriptions, it didn’t involve face time between job seekers and employers. Nevertheless, it’s important to realize that when job descriptions are vague about whether salaries are negotiable or not, women should still “go for it.”

Women shouldn’t simply accept the first offer that’s on the table; they should counteroffer, and not be afraid to simply say, “I want more money,” without explaining why. That’s what men do, after all.
⁵

Also, hiring managers should realize that many women have been acculturated to be risk-averse, which can pull them off the corporate ladder. All too often, women fail to ask for raises, or take on new projects—not because they lack talent, but because their
cultural worldview has taught them that being assertive is not “ladylike.” Companies need to think about ways to encourage women to fight for the top corporate spots. One example to follow is the consulting firm Deloitte, which tries to ensure that female employees get considered for top assignments, and where at least 23 percent of senior management personnel are female.
⁶
Firms like Deloitte will soon find themselves better off for doing so, because they will be able to uncover the true top talent in their organization, a move that will positively affect their bottom line.

Additionally, talent recruiters need to get on board. Instead of truly understanding what a candidate does and doesn’t bring to the table, recruiters typically rely on their intuition. Sometimes companies hire people because they feel the applicant would “fit” in a job without realizing that they may be biased in favor of men.

Companies that are aware of such biases can include processes that work against this tendency. For example, at Campbell Soup Company (where a woman, Denise Morrison, is CEO), gender diversity is part and parcel of the company’s selling proposition because most of the people who buy its products are women. For that reason, the firm made a conscious decision to make sure that its leadership reflected people who looked like their customers.

Companies that understand why women react less to competitive incentives can use this information to their benefit, too. For example, the no-haggling Khasi market reminded us of a different market—auto dealerships in the United States. Many women hate the back-and-forth of “let me check with my manager” hassles that accompany a visit to buy a car. To address this, companies like Honda have tried to follow an idea first put forward by General Motors’ Saturn division, making no-haggle pricing part of its sales pitch. Though the Saturn division is gone, during its time its cars became very popular with women, who amounted to 63 percent of Saturn owners.

Policy Makers, Educators, and Parents

Policy makers, too, can do something to close the gender gap. If you are a policy maker, don’t apply bandages to old injuries when what we need is early, corrective surgery. For example, we are not sure Title IX, designed to level the playing field for female athletes, is the way to correct imbalances. Rather, ask yourself, “If we are going to create a more equitable society, what is the right point for intervention?” Given that differences in competitiveness spring partly from cultural influences, our investment in gender equality would probably be better spent on early childhood education and socialization than on making sure women’s basketball teams receive the same funding as men’s.

And if you are a parent, our studies have implications for the way you raise your kids. We are now convinced that investing in the self-confidence of our own girls is a lot like investing in retirement. Exposing our daughters to more competitive environments as they grow up, and especially early on, is vital. Such exposure is particularly important around the age of puberty.

When children are in school, gender biases can manifest themselves even with the most diligent parenting. Our work has shown that gender biases run deep and begin at an early age.
⁷
Educators and parents should raise their level of awareness of sex-typing with very young children, and take measures to combat it. Don’t be shy in encouraging kids, and in particular girls, to be competitive. Parents, teachers, and anyone who works with kids should really come to understand that socialization, and not only biology, determines competitive outcomes. There is nothing preordained about being good at math, playing with pink dolls or black trucks, competing in school or in sports, or anything else. Change the way children are socialized to react to incentives, and you change their future.

One silver bullet that has been proposed to completely change the face of socializing boys and girls is a return to single-sex schools. It might seem odd to return to our puritanical roots in an effort to encourage female competitiveness, but on an intuitive level, the idea does make sense. The research shows that boys, after all, still receive more attention from their teachers than girls do.

Finally, it’s important to note that although the ability to compete effectively is important, it’s hardly the key to happiness. Peace isn’t found in what we own or in our titles, but in the life we live as citizens, parents, and neighbors. It is our personal hope, above all, that our girls (and everyone) learn this lesson.

In the next two chapters, we will expand the discussion of inequity to something much broader—education in general—and discover that when incentives are properly applied, they can help to close the gap between rich and poor students.

          
CHAPTER FOUR

       
How Can Sad Silver Medalists and Happy Bronze Medalists Help Us Close the Achievement Gap?

          
Public Education: The $627 Billion Problem

So far, we’ve learned the importance of understanding why people behave as they do. We’ve learned that incentives are tricky and that they can backfire if we do not understand people’s motivations. We have also learned that women will respond every bit as strongly to competitive incentives as men do, provided their surroundings do not dictate that they should do otherwise.

In this chapter and the one that follows, we show how field experiments can further our understanding of one of society’s most difficult problems—educating kids. The United States alone spends over $600 billion annually on public elementary and secondary education. With 54.7 million students, that’s an average spending of $11,467 per student, with less than spectacular results.

By turning our schools into laboratories of innovation, we can reverse the decades-long decline of our education system. In this way, we learn alongside our children: we learn what works and why, and kids master the tools they need to succeed in life. We show through the lens of field experiments how schools can be used to educate our kids effectively and at the same time serve as a useful learning venue for adults who care about education.

On one early fall afternoon, our research assistant Joe Seidel visited Wentworth Elementary School on Chicago’s South Side. Joe was checking in with the school’s administrators on a project we were running. As he walked down a stairwell, Joe heard a bang. He thought it sounded like someone had dropped a stack of books, but then the sound repeated several times. He stopped and looked at the face of a teacher in the stairwell. Her eyes had grown wide and her face was blank. Joe had never heard gunshots before, but she clearly had.