negotiation discussion

Risks of E-Mail

Anita D. Bhappu

Zoe I. Barsness

Editors’ Note: It’s increasingly likely that you will find yourself conducting negotiations by e-mail, if only as one aspect of the process. The authors discuss how e-mail changes both what is discussed and how it’s discussed, and they have some salutary warnings for you. Using e-mail it turns out, can distort what you’re trying to say, and may also affect your perception of what they are trying to say.

For the first time in human history, mass cooperation across time and space is suddenly economical. “There’s a fundamental shift in power happening,” says Pierre Omidyar, founder and chairman of the online marketplace eBay Inc. “Everywhere, people are getting together and, using the Internet, disrupting whatever activities they’re involved in.”*

Negotiations are not immune from the disruptive effects of technology. After all, the communication media that negotiators use can influence not only what information they share and how that information is communicated, but also what information they attend to and how they interpret it. Certain information is easy to communicate face-to-face but difficult to describe in an e-mail. For example, emotional appeals are more challenging to make over e-mail than logical arguments. The exchange of nuanced information can also be constrained by e-mail technology because its structure limits the breadth and depth of information that can be exchanged. Finally, people pay attention to different things and are influenced by different people to varying degrees when using e-mail than face-to-face communication. The social distance imposed by electronic communication may encourage negotiators to engage in more confrontational behavior, or to focus so strongly on their own interests they reduce consideration of the other party’s needs. This self-absorption and corresponding lack of other-awareness can make it difficult for electronic negotiators to assess differential preferences and identify potential joint gains. On the other hand, the minimization of status differences that occurs when negotiators communicate electronically may enhance the negotiation process by encouraging lower status negotiators to work harder to achieve their negotiating goals, thus preventing the premature closure of negotiations. In sum, negotiators interacting electronically not only face challenges, they enjoy unique opportunities.

In this chapter, we discuss some of the ways in which e-mail alters the information sharing processes and power dynamics during negotiation that have important ramifications for information exchange and the generation of joint gains. We also discuss useful information-sharing strategies and tactics that negotiators might adopt when interacting electronically to overcome the obstacles and exploit the opportunities that electronic communication presents negotiators.

Source: “Risks of E-Mail,” by Anita D. Bhappu and Zoe I. Barsness, from The Negotiator’s Fieldbook,

with Andrea Kupfer Schneider and Christopher Honeyman (Eds.), 2006, pp. 395–400. American Bar

Association. Used by permission.

Lack of Media Richness in E-Mail

Media richness is one of two characteristics of e-mail that are particularly relevant to negotiation. Media richness is the capacity of a communication medium to transmit visual nd verbal cues, enabling it to support a variety of languages (e.g., body, paralanguage, and natural), provide more immediate feedback, and facilitate communication of personal information.1 E-mail is considered a lean medium because it transmits neither visual nor verbal cues, whereas face-to-face communication is considered a rich medium because it transmits both. The lack of media richness in electronic communication contexts reduces the social presence of others and increases the perceived social distance among negotiators who are physically separated and communicating by computer.2 Thus, negotiators’ social awareness of each other’s personal situation or emotional state, for example, may be seriously diminished. Negotiators may also engage more heavily in self-interested behavior when using e-mail rather than in face-to-face communication because they neither see nor hear one another. Furthermore, they may fail to elicit from the other party—or simply ignore—important information about his or her interests and priorities. E-mail usage may, therefore, accentuate a self-interest schema (i.e., the extent to which a negotiator emphasizes his or her own rather than collective interests) and its attendant behaviors.3 On the other hand, e-mail usage may limit the leverage of status-based power and encourage more candid information sharing because reduced social cues lower the salience of social group differences and social status. Indeed, the lack of social cues in e-mail causes people to be more direct and confrontational in their communications.4 Such confrontational behavior can be further exacerbated by the diminished social presence of others and by feelings of anonymity associated with e-mail.5

Finally, negotiators are more likely to focus on the content rather than the context of their messages when using e-mail.6 Given that a significant proportion of a message’s meaning comes from its associated visual and verbal cues such as facial expressions, body language, and tone of voice, the inability to transmit these cues when using e-mail may cause negotiators to rely more heavily on logical argumentation and the presentation of facts rather than on emotional or personal appeals. Research suggests, for instance, that communication styles in e-mail are more task-oriented and depersonalized than in face-to-face interactions.7 Reduced contextual information may, however, impede the negotiator’s ability to interpret message meaning. Information exchanged in e-mail tends to be less nuanced than information exchanged face to face in the same situation because back channel and clarifying information, such as speech acknowledgements (e.g., “mmm” or “huh?”) and reactive body language (e.g., head nods) are reduced.8 Indeed, much of such clarifying information is simply lost when using e-mail because the information processing costs associated with translating this type of information into purely textual form are significant and sufficiently prohibitive. In short, e-mail constrains information exchange, diminishing negotiators’ ability to accurately assess differential preferences and identify potential joint gains. Indeed, one examination comparing face-to-face and computer-mediated negotiations revealed that negotiators interacting electronically were less accurate in judging the other party’s interests.9 E-mail interaction may also promote the use of distributive tactics because it encourages direct and confrontational communications, leading to conflict spirals that result in lower joint gains or even impasse. Some researchers, for example, have demonstrated a higher incidence of impasse and less integrative outcomes in e-mail than face-to-face negotiations.10 These findings may reflect the difficulty of establishing rapport when using e-mail because it limits visual access to the nonverbal behavior that enables relational development. The development of rapport has been shown to foster more mutually beneficial settlements, especially in lean media contexts, perhaps because rapport engenders greater social awareness and connection among negotiators.11

The effects of electronically mediated communication on negotiation process and outcomes are not entirely detrimental, however. E-mail may facilitate better processing of social conflict because lean media do not transmit visual and verbal cues. The visible presence of others can induce arousal that leads to more aggressive behavioral responses. The absence of visual and verbal cues in e-mail, however, may defuse such triggers.12 It may also reduce the salience of social group differences, which prevents coalition formation. In addition, because negotiators are physically isolated and the social presence of others is diminished, they can take time to “step out” of the discussion and thoughtfully respond rather than merely react to the other party’s behavior, limiting escalation of social conflict even further.13 Lastly, e-mail may promote more equal participation among negotiators. The salience of social group differences and social status is reduced in lean media because there are fewer social context cues,14 encouraging lower status individuals to participate more and reducing social influence bias among negotiators.15 Rather than discounting or ignoring information provided by lower status individuals, as they might in face-to-face communication, negotiators may be influenced more by this information when using e-mail. Thus, even though less nuanced information is communicated between negotiators, more diverse information may actually be received. Attention to this “new” information may subsequently enable negotiators to identify optimal trades and create more integrative agreements.

Interactivity in E-Mail

Interactivity is the other characteristic of e-mail that is particularly relevant to negotiation.

Interactivity is the potential of a communication medium to sustain a seamless flow of information between two or more negotiators.16 Interactivity has two dimensions. The first, a temporal dimension, captures the synchronicity of interactions. Face-to-face communication is synchronous because all negotiators are co-temporal and each party receives an utterance just as it is produced; as a result, speaking turns tend to occur sequentially.

E-mail is typically asynchronous because negotiators can read and respond to others’ messages whenever they desire and not necessarily sequentially. Parallel processing, the second dimension of interactivity, describes the ability of the medium to enable two or more negotiators to simultaneously submit messages. Parallel processing is common in threaded e-mail discussions, such as during a multi-party, online negotiation.

Asynchronous media like e-mail impose high “understanding costs” on negotiators because they provide little “grounding” to participants in the communication exchange. 17 Grounding is the process by which two parties in an interaction develop a shared sense of understanding about a communication and a shared sense of participation in the conversation. Without the clues provided by shared surroundings, nonverbal behavior, tone of voice, or the timing and sequence of the information exchange typically found in face-to-face communication, negotiators may find it challenging to accurately decode the messages that they receive electronically. Information and context are, therefore, parsed differently in asynchronous and synchronous media, which will certainly influence the way that negotiators construct messages as well as their ability to interpret the messages that are sent via e-mail. Research suggests, for instance, that negotiators using asynchronous e-mail exchange very long comments that include multiple points all in one “bundle.”18 Since the receiver’s opportunity to respond to or clarify points that the sender is attempting to make is reduced when using e-mail, the sender is inclined to outline his or her arguments in one e-mail message that is also likely to be more task-oriented and depersonalized.19 Argument bundling may facilitate the identification of integrative agreements by encouraging negotiators to link issues together and consider them simultaneously rather than sequentially, but such an approach can also place higher demands on the receiver’s information processing capabilities.20 Negotiators may, therefore, have more difficulty establishing meaning and managing feedback in asynchronous e-mail exchanges, further hindering their efforts to successfully elicit and integrate the information that is required to construct a mutually beneficial agreement.

Although asynchronous e-mail exchange is the most common, e-mail can be nearly synchronous if negotiators are all online simultaneously. In this latter case, parallel processing may actually encourage individuals to share more information than in face to-face communication because it allows negotiators to voice their different perspectives simultaneously.21 Parallel processing can also undermine existing power dynamics and encourage direct confrontation because it prevents any one individual from suppressing the views of others by seizing control of the discussion.22 Face-to-face communication, on the other hand, does not support parallel processing and instead constrains negotiators to sequential turn taking. Therefore, the parallel processing dimension of e-mail, which is absent in face-to-face communication, may further support the simultaneous consideration of multiple issues during negotiation. Coupled with the greater diversity of information exchange among parties encouraged by the reduction of power differentials, parallel processing in e-mail is likely to promote the search for joint gains and thus potentially enhance integrative outcomes.

E-Mail and Information Exchange

Previous research suggests that at least two distinct information-processing modes are manifest during negotiations: an analytical-rational mode and an intuitive-experiential mode.23 Individuals who adopt an analytical-rational mode rely more heavily on logic and deductive thinking and their associated tactics (e.g., development of positions and limits, use of logical argumentation, and the presentation of facts), while individuals who adopt an intuitive-experiential mode rely more heavily on intuition and experience and their associated tactics (e.g., appeals to emotion, the presentation of concrete personal stories, and the use of metaphors).24 These two different information-processing styles, however, are not equally suited to the electronic context. Reduced visual and verbal cues in e-mail may lead negotiators to use more rational analytical communication tactics (e.g., logical argumentation and the presentation of facts). Such an effect is likely to favor negotiators who value logic and deductive thinking and are more adept at the use of these tactics. Heuristic and error search, where negotiators find their way to agreement through the exchange of alternative proposals, is likely to adapt well to the e-mail context since it supports issue packaging and argument bundling. However, the intermittent and often overlapping nature of most e-mail exchanges is likely to severely inhibit direct information-sharing approaches that rely on sequential turn-taking and reciprocal question and answer exchange. Negotiators who generally adopt a direct information-sharing strategy may, therefore, find e-mail ill-suited to their preferred information-sharing strategy. Indeed, the simultaneous consideration of multiple issues is likely to favor negotiators who rely more heavily on intuitive-experiential thinking styles and tactics.25 Negotiators with a preference for indirect information-sharing strategies, because they must regularly infer meaning both from what is said (e.g., explicit offers) and what is implied (e.g., proposals entertained), may be more skilled at interpreting the meaning of multi-issue proposals and subsequently more adept at using what they have learned to develop better integrative agreements in e-mail.

Conclusion

People are increasingly relying on e-mail to negotiate deals and transactions, which may save them time, reduce their costs, and increase their convenience. However, the effectiveness of using e-mail to negotiate and the ultimate value that individuals are able to derive from such negotiations depend on communication norms of the negotiators in question. In particular, individuals need to be sensitive to the effects of communication media on social influence and information-sharing processes, which influence information exchange during negotiations. As our discussion suggests, the use of e-mail can both hinder and ameliorate the negotiation process depending on the specific schemas and behaviors enacted by the involved parties. A first step to minimizing the obstacles and enhancing the benefits associated with electronically mediated negotiations is to heighten individuals’ awareness of these potential pitfalls and benefits. In doing so, we hope that this discussion will enable negotiators to better manage the negotiation process and reap greater joint gains.