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:

Muck Shift

Just when is a deal not a deal…? I heard this story from a friend of mine the other week; there are some lessons to be learned! So, my pal is a developer and is building some houses on what is essentially a square site. Two sides of the square can be accessed from the road in a neighboring housing estate and the other two are beside a field owned by another developer. There is a huge pile of muck to shift before the actual building project; this phase is known in the trade – and not unreasonably - as a "muck-shift"! As there will be 80 -100 lorries coming in and out each day for 6 weeks, it was considered more convenient to access the site over the field, so an approach was made to the developer to discuss the terms under which he would allow access. This is a standard arrangement and the deal typically is that the field would be returned to the owner in its original condition. Developer makes a bit of money, where otherwise he wouldn’t; homeowners in the adjoining estate are less inconvenienced; builder does not need to spend money cleaning the streets and getting them back to a usable state at the end of the project. Win-win.

Latest Tweet:





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