Negotiating for higher pay, promotions or expanded responsibilities is often presented as a key driver of career advancement. However, new research from the MIT Sloan School of Management suggests that the ability to negotiate successfully is influenced not only by confidence and skills but also by social class. The study finds that employees from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to negotiate and face greater social penalties when they do, raising new questions about fairness in workplace advancement.
A new study from the MIT Sloan School of Management has found that workplace negotiation—a practice widely encouraged as a pathway to career growth—may reinforce rather than reduce workplace inequality for employees from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), the research, titled The Social-Class Gap in Negotiation: Lower-Class Individuals Negotiate Less and Face More Backlash, examined how social class shapes negotiation behaviour and organisational responses. The study was co-authored by Jackson G. Lu, professor at MIT Sloan, Ying Lin of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and Michele J. Gelfand of the Stanford Graduate School of Business.
Drawing on five studies involving more than 11,000 participants, the researchers found a consistent pattern: individuals from lower social-class backgrounds were significantly less likely than their higher-class counterparts to negotiate for career-related opportunities, including starting salaries, promotions, pay increases, benefits and job responsibilities.
The findings suggest that the gap extends beyond personal confidence. According to the researchers, lower-class employees often perceive greater interpersonal risks when negotiating, including concerns that asking for more could damage workplace relationships or make them appear less cooperative. These perceptions were linked to lower feelings of personal power and greater anxiety about how negotiation requests would be received.
More significantly, the study found that those concerns may be well-founded.
In one experiment involving more than 1,100 U.S. human resources professionals, participants evaluated identical negotiation requests from fictional job candidates whose résumés signalled either higher- or lower-class backgrounds. While both candidates made the same request, HR professionals viewed the lower-class candidate as less cooperative and gave lower hiring evaluations. The researchers concluded that negotiation behaviour attracted stronger social backlash when associated with lower socioeconomic status.
Professor Jackson G. Lu said the findings challenge conventional career advice that simply encourages employees to negotiate more aggressively.
“Negotiation is often framed as a simple matter of confidence — if you want more, just ask,” Lu said. “Our research shows that this advice may be misleading: Lower-class individuals are less likely to negotiate, and when they do negotiate, they can be penalised more harshly for the same behaviour.”
The research highlights what the authors describe as a “double bind.” Employees from lower-income backgrounds negotiate less because they anticipate negative consequences, yet when they do negotiate, they are more likely to experience precisely those consequences.
One of the studies examined MBA graduates entering the job market and found that students from lower-class backgrounds negotiated their starting salaries less frequently than peers from more affluent backgrounds. Those who chose not to negotiate earned, on average, $6,450 less annually than those who did. Based on a projected 5% annual salary increase, the researchers estimate that this initial difference could grow to approximately $779,000 over a 40-year career, illustrating how relatively small disparities early in employment can compound over time.
The findings arrive as organisations place increasing emphasis on pay transparency, equitable hiring practices and inclusive talent management. HR leaders have invested heavily in initiatives designed to reduce bias in recruitment and performance management, yet negotiation remains an area where informal practices can continue to shape career progression.
The study suggests that relying on negotiation as a primary mechanism for determining compensation and advancement may unintentionally widen existing inequalities. Career outcomes such as starting salaries, promotion opportunities and expanded responsibilities are often influenced by employees’ willingness to negotiate, meaning differences in negotiation behaviour can accumulate throughout an individual’s career.
Rather than encouraging employees simply to negotiate more, the researchers argue that organisations should address structural factors that influence negotiation outcomes. Recommended measures include increasing transparency around salary ranges, establishing clearer promotion criteria, standardising evaluation processes and providing negotiation training that helps reduce confidence and information gaps.
The research also underscores the growing importance of data-driven HR practices. As organisations increasingly adopt AI-powered talent management platforms and workforce analytics, structured decision-making and transparent compensation frameworks are becoming central to broader diversity, equity and inclusion strategies. Standardised processes can help reduce reliance on subjective managerial judgement, potentially limiting unconscious bias during compensation and promotion discussions.
Industry analysts have similarly highlighted fairness and transparency as strategic HR priorities. Gartner continues to identify equitable talent practices and skills-based workforce strategies as key areas of investment, while McKinsey & Company has reported that organisations with more inclusive people practices are better positioned to attract, retain and develop talent in competitive labour markets.
For HR executives, the MIT Sloan research offers a broader lesson about workplace equity. Creating fair opportunities requires more than encouraging employees to advocate for themselves. It also demands organisational systems that ensure negotiation outcomes are evaluated consistently, regardless of an employee’s socioeconomic background. As companies continue modernising talent management practices, reducing ambiguity around compensation and career progression may prove just as important as developing employees’ negotiation skills.
Market Landscape
Workplace equity is becoming a strategic priority as organisations modernise talent management and compensation practices. HR leaders are increasingly adopting transparent pay frameworks, structured promotion criteria and AI-assisted workforce analytics to minimise bias in hiring and career development.
At the same time, organisations are recognising that behavioural factors—such as confidence, access to information and perceived fairness—can significantly influence employee outcomes. This is driving greater investment in equitable talent management policies that combine technology with standardised HR processes.
Top Insights
- MIT Sloan researchers found that employees from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to negotiate and are more likely to experience negative reactions when they do.
- A study involving more than 11,000 participants suggests workplace negotiation may contribute to long-term career inequality through differences in salary, promotion and job opportunities.
- HR professionals evaluated identical negotiation requests less favourably when they came from candidates signalling lower-class backgrounds, indicating potential bias in workplace decision-making.
- Researchers recommend greater pay transparency, standardised promotion criteria and negotiation training to reduce structural barriers affecting career advancement.
- The findings reinforce broader HR trends focused on equitable talent management, transparent compensation and data-driven workforce decision-making.
Join thousands of HR leaders who rely on HRTechEdge for the latest in workforce technology, AI-driven HR solutions, and strategic insights
Business Wire, a Berkshire Hathaway company, is the global leader in press release distribution and regulatory disclosure. Public relations, investor relations, public policy and marketing professionals rely on Business Wire for secure and accurate distribution of market-moving news and multimedia. Founded in 1961, Business Wire is a trusted source for news organizations, journalists, investment professionals and regulatory authorities, delivering news directly into editorial systems and leading online news sources via its multi-patented NX network. Business Wire’s global newsrooms are available to meet the needs of communications professionals and news media worldwide.
