This critical qualitative research study explores the discursive processes and patterns by which humor is gendered in hair salons and barbershops, in support of or resistance to hegemony, through an in-depth analysis and feminist critique of the humorous exchanges of hair stylists and barbers. This study extends prior feminist organizational research from Ashcraft and Pacanowsky (1996) regarding the participation of marginalized populations (i.e., women) in hegemonic processes, and argues that, despite changing cultural/demographic organizational trends, marginalized (as well as dominant) populations are still participating in hegemonic processes 20 years later. A focus on gendered humor via participant narratives reveals how various styles of gendered humor function to reinforce gender stereotypes, marginalize/exclude the "other" (i.e., women), and thus privilege hegemonic patterns of workplace discourse. This study contributes to existing feminist organizational scholarship by offering the unique juxtaposition of humor and gender from a diverse and understudied population, hair industry professionals.

Scholars have contemplated gender differences in negotiations for a number of years. Recently, attention has been directed to the early stages of a negotiation, particularly the propensity to initiate a negotiation. Indeed, there is evidence that men are significantly more likely than women to initiate a negotiation (Small, Gelfand, Babcock, & Gettman, 2007). In an effort to unpack these findings, the present mixed method study partially replicates the quantitative lab study by Small and her colleagues (2007) to explore gender differences and then extends this work with qualitative interviews to examine the rationales underlying the propensity to negotiate. In the quantitative phase of this study, undergraduate students were invited to complete a task in which they could earn between $3 and $10 in addition to course extra credit. All participants were offered $3 and could earn up to $10 if they initiated a negotiation for more money. The qualitative phase of this study included follow-up qualitative interviews to explore the reasons women and men chose to initiate or avoid a negotiation. Quantitative results demonstrate no significant gender differences in the propensity to negotiate. However, qualitative findings reveal trends suggesting that women maintained higher evaluations of money but lower probabilities of attaining more money during the negotiation. Findings support that clear gender differences exist with regard to perceived risks and the value in the decision to negotiate. Thus, findings suggest that gender differences in the propensity to negotiate are more complex than which can be quantitatively measured using a simple ask-no ask dichotomy.