Harvard Business Review LogoAugust 3, 2026Yaroslav Danylchenko/StocksyNegotiation is often treated as a neutral, meritocratic process: Employees ask, managers assess, and the strongest case wins. New research challenges that assumption, showing that individuals fromImagine you have two employees with comparable qualifications and performance. One asks for a higher salary, a promotion, or more meaningful work. The other remains silent. In many organizations, the first employee may be seen as proactive and rewarded, while the second may be assumed to be satisfied with the status quo.
Research: Employees from Lower-Class Backgrounds Negotiate Less—and Face More Backlash
Negotiation is often treated as a neutral, meritocratic process: Employees ask, managers assess, and the strongest case wins. New research challenges that assumption, showing that individuals from lower social-class backgrounds are less likely to initiate negotiations, a gap associated with a lower sense of power and greater concern about social backlash. That concern is well founded: In an experiment, HR professionals penalized lower-class candidates more than higher-class candidates for making the same negotiation request. Together, these findings point to a troubling social-class double bind for individuals from lower-class backgrounds: Not negotiating can reinforce economic disadvantage, but negotiating can subject them to harsher social penalties. For senior leaders, closing the social-class gap in negotiation requires more than encouraging employees to speak up; they must also redesign negotiation systems and address bias among the decision-makers who respond to negotiation requests. They can do so by reducing the need for employees to advocate for themselves, making the rules of negotiation explicit, pairing employee empowerment with explicit protection, and auditing both the negotiation process and its outcomes.
84 words~1 min read
