Women in Procurement Negotiation

What Do We Mean By ‘Different’?

When we talk about differences in negotiation styles, we’re really talking about approach, motivation and behaviour. And often, these are shaped by how people are socialised from a young age.

In many Western cultures, girls are brought up to be considerate, relationship-focused and accommodating. Boys, meanwhile, are often encouraged to be competitive, assertive and independent. These early messages don’t disappear when we enter the workplace. They tend to show up most clearly in high-pressure moments like negotiations.

In practice, research suggests that women are more likely to prioritise maintaining a positive relationship, show empathy and seek common ground. They’re often more willing to cooperate and tend to place a high value on fairness and ethics. Men, by contrast, are more likely to approach negotiation as a zero-sum game, with a stronger focus on the end result. 

These are, of course, broad generalisations. Individual styles vary widely, and the most effective negotiators often draw from both approaches. But understanding these tendencies can help teams better recognise the value of different perspectives.

Does Different Mean Worse?

The short answer is no—but context matters.

Some research has found that men tend to achieve slightly better economic outcomes in negotiations than women. However, the differences are relatively small and heavily shaped by the negotiation setting. In other words, women are not less capable negotiators—but the circumstances around a negotiation can influence how they perform and whether they choose to negotiate at all.

One key differentiator is initiative. Women are generally less likely than men to initiate negotiations—but that gap narrows when it’s clear that negotiating is expected or appropriate, and especially when situational cues align with traditional female gender roles.

But perhaps most compelling is this: women are demonstrably more successful when negotiating on behalf of others. Research shows they achieve significantly better outcomes in these scenarios—more so than men in comparable roles. In these moments, what may appear to be a “kitten” becomes a lioness. The care-oriented approach that women are often socialised to adopt becomes a powerful strength when representing their team or organisation. 

These are, of course, broad patterns—not fixed rules—and individual styles vary. But they highlight how different approaches can offer real strategic value when matched to the right context. In procurement—where relationships, trust, and long-term value are critical—this strength is particularly valuable.

How Can Procurement Teams Use ‘Different’ Successfully in Negotiations?

The outlook for women in procurement in Germany is still sobering: women make up 37% of all procurement professionals, and only 14% of Chief Procurement Officers. And yet the very qualities that many women bring to negotiations can be powerful assets.

Rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all model, procurement teams can benefit from recognising when and how different negotiation styles work best. For example:

• Long-term supplier negotiations: Women’s strength in building trust and maintaining relationships can lead to more sustainable agreements
• ESG and compliance discussions: Empathy and ethical framing often help in aligning values with supplier commitments
• Cross-functional internal negotiations: When managing conflicting priorities across departments, a collaborative and fairness-focused approach is often more effective
• Crisis or conflict situations: Women are often skilled at de-escalating tension and finding common ground under pressure
• Team representation: Women negotiating on behalf of their teams or organisations often achieve stronger results, leveraging care and responsibility as a strength

Teams should consider distributing roles based not just on seniority or assertiveness, but on contextual strengths. In some cases, it may make sense for women to lead the negotiation; in others, to play a bridging or stakeholder management role. The goal isn’t to stereotype – but to build diverse teams that consciously match people to the situation.

A more diverse procurement team translates to real cost savings, too. Companies with procurement teams made up of 40–50% women see average annual savings of 5.7%, compared to just 3% in teams where women made up less than 20%, according to a SME/Oliver Wyman survey of European procurement heads.

Rethinking What “Good” Looks Like

Traditional ideas of negotiation often favour assertiveness and dominance. But the challenges ahead require a different is becoming more complex—dealing with unstable supply chains, increasing ESG requirements, global risk, digital transformation, and heightened cost pressures. Navigators of this new landscape need to be agile, collaborative, and ethically grounded. Success increasingly depends on the ability to build resilient supplier relationships, integrate stakeholder needs, and communicate transparently under pressure. 

These are exactly the areas where many women excel. Empathy, careful preparation, long-term thinking, and relationship-building are no longer “soft” skills – they’re strategic capabilities.

When we widen the lens on what “good” negotiation really looks like, procurement becomes stronger, more adaptive, and more sustainable. It’s time to move beyond outdated models and start building teams that reflect the complexity – and opportunity – of modern procurement.

Want to learn more about what inclusive negotiation could mean for your procurement team?