To type or not to type...the pitfalls of negotiating by email

Published: Sep 17 , 2015
Author: Simon Letchford

In 1978, President Jimmy Carter brokered the first peace agreement between Egypt and a free Jewish nation in over 2,000 years. If email had been widely available, do you think he could have used it to save everyone 13 days at Camp David?

Many clients ask me whether they should negotiate by email, expecting me to say no. My answer is always the same – “Absolutely. Sometimes.” Here are some trade-offs to consider before you press SEND.

We all know that an in-person meeting provides the best opportunity for nuanced conversation. Body language and tone are important when exploring power balance, signals (areas of flexibility) and packaging issues. “Being there” gives you the maximum opportunity to explore the other side’s answers with follow-up questions, to watch their response to your proposals, and to gauge the “vibe” or temperature of the meeting.

For important deals, I like to assess the potential cost of a single missed signal (“We need a discount of about 8%”) versus the expense and time of travel. In a large commercial contract, the ability to save 1%, add a new variable, or repackage a deal based on a subtle signal might make the cost of flights rather insignificant.

But it would be impractical in today’s busy market to recommend that every negotiation be held in person. Phone (and increasingly, video-conferencing) is perfectly suitable for many meetings. If you’re negotiating in teams, one advantage of phone (apart from avoiding cancelled flights and bad airline food) is the ability to swap instant messages with your colleagues as the meeting unfolds. This can be extremely useful to share signals of flexibility, or advice on strategy – just try to be an adviser rather than a critic.

The major downside of phone and video-conferencing is a loss of rapport. Trust and personal connection can be critical to difficult negotiations, and you’d be wise to consider the value of opening the meeting with a firm handshake and a personal exchange, rather than your hilarious “Crazy Frog” or “Sir Mix-a-Lot” ringtone.

Most people are more guarded, and hence closed with information, when communicating remotely than sitting down over a coffee. In my experience, the poorer the relationship you have with the other side, the more of an issue this becomes; lean towards meeting in person when establishing (or fixing) important relationships.

It’s a very big step down to email, with a dramatic loss of nuance. I’m not going to tell you not to use it – it’s quick, reliable and the method we now adopt for 90% of our business communication. It can also be a perfectly good method to send a written proposal. But it should never be used to build initial rapport, to explore needs and priorities, or to seek the other side’s response to your proposal – where a live conversation with follow-up questions is critical. Just make sure to give them a reason to take your call – (a topic for another day).

Remember - when choosing your communication method, it’s all about trade-offs. If in doubt, ask yourself what Jimmy Carter would do.

Simon Letchford


SHARE

Simon_remake2.jpg

About the author:

Simon Letchford
Simon manages Scotwork’s North American business and is a Partner in Scotwork's Australian business. He brings over 20 years of international negotiating and executive leadership experience within the IT, health, retail, defense and professional services markets.

Read more about Simon Letchford

More posts by Simon Letchford

Latest Blog:

On the Ropes

The car-crash interview of Diane Abbott on LBC Radio (if you haven’t heard it yet, listen here) was the first of many I expect we will hear during the election process. For as long as politicians are poorly briefed, manifesto promises incorrectly costed with policies not properly thought through they will struggle in the face of good interviewers whose goal is to catch them out on data issues and produce cringe-making sound bites for the entertainment of the public. Laura Kuenssberg’s seven-time question to Jeremy Corbyn about his commitment to take the UK out of the EU whatever the deal achieved at the end of the two year negotiation in her interview with him on Tuesday (the data-answer to which was a simple Yes or No) left Corbyn looking unsure of his own policy, and was the segment of the interview that led the news at the expense of focusing on Labor Party policy announcements...

Latest Tweet:





United States
973.428.1991
usa@scotwork.com
Follow us
cpd.png
voty2016_sign_gold.png