How to negotiate by email?

According to Adobe Email usage study 2019, the average American spends more than a third of an office worker's average day on his or her e-mail inbox.

Of course, many of these hours are devoted to negotiations, even if these are brief and take place on both sides.

And that raises an interesting question:

Are e-mail negotiations effective? And, if they are ... couldn't you save yourself a ton of travel expenses by taking advantage of the already ingrained messaging habit?

Is it possible that negotiating by e-mail is even more effective than face-to-face?

Let's talk about it.

The disadvantage of e-mail negotiations

While there's no doubt that negotiations by e-mail would save negotiators time and money, there are obstacles to overcome.

Emails tend to be more aggressive and self-serving. People have reduced sense of social obligation in e-mail interactions and humor is eroded or misinterpreted. E-mail does not require courtesy rituals (the small talk that precedes face-to-face negotiations), and this paves the way for less trust.

The phenomenon of "fire bias" makes inflammatory comments and remarks eight times more likely in e-mails than in face-to-face interactions.

Other biases Negotiations by e-mailThe most common type of e-mail negotiation, including the sinister attribution bias: the tendency of electronic communicators to attribute bad intentions to people they don't know. E-mail negotiators are you are more likely to suspect that the other party is lyingeven if there is no factual basis,

Visual anonymity and distance reduce the likelihood of negotiating loyalty (continuation rule), making it more likely that negotiators will abandon the current negotiation. This means that e-mail negotiations have a higher incidence of deadlock.

We're less able to convey our emotions by e-mail than we think. One study showed Two trained data coders, who independently studied the same transcripts of email negotiations, agreed on the emotions (empathy, shame, anger, interest and contempt) that participants expressed only about 22% of the time.

People are more likely to lie by e-mail than with pen and paper. This seems particularly odd, as digital documents can be even more available for retrieval than paper ones; however, people feel morally disconnected.

For busy negotiators, it's much easier to ignore an e-mail than to withdraw when approached personally. What's more, the time it takes to complete a task is longer in e-mails than in face-to-face interactions, probably because people talk much faster than they write.

All in all, the research tells us that negotiations by e-mail are embarrassed by Fewer comments, minimized social signals, excessively long e-mails and a tendency to anger.

However, none of this means that e-mail negotiations should never be considered. Because, in fact, e-mail negotiations do have potential advantages.

Status equalization and other advantages of e-mail negotiations

There's an "other side of the coin" view of e-mail negotiations. While previous studies seem dire, there are others that offer hope.

Here are just a few of them:

Negotiators who had never met were invited to take a brief telephone call. schmoozing before starting the negotiation by email only. The simple fact of discussing and exchanging information unrelated to the task in hand (they were forbidden to talk about negotiation) created a good relationship. Attitudes changed. Negotiators were less competitive and more cooperative. Trust developed and higher joint gains were achieved.

Firstly, and secondly, a pre-exchange phone call can enhance the taste and the relationship, resulting in in more profitable businesses.

Then consider that just a speech in small group meetings:

• In a group of four people, two of the members speak 62% or more of the time.
• In a group of six people, three speak 70% or more of the time.
• In a group of eight people, three speak 70% or more of the time.

When the groups meet face-to-face, men are five times more likely than women to make an initial decision proposal. When the same groups communicate by message, women make the first proposal as often as men.

In face-to-face meetings, the table leader talks more, even when The seating order is arbitrary. The state predicts domination. Higher-level people tend to talk more: managers talk more than their subordinates, and men talk more than women. Overall, the amount of engagement will be lower in messages than in face-to-face communication, but members' contributions will be greater. more of the same.

Traditional status cues are lacking in e-commerce, which means that dynamic, charismatic people have less impact. Differences in power and status are minimized. Status cues such as clothing, mannerisms, age and gender are absent. The absence of these cues leads people to respond more openly and with less hesitation. People are less likely to conform to social norms when interacting virtually. Can you see how e-commerce can act as an equalizer?

So, if you're in a position of power and status, you'd better negotiate face-to-face because the other party can't counter-argue as effectively as they can.

When people with different levels of power are negotiating (as in the case of a boss and a subordinate), e-mail negotiation can minimize their awareness of a power imbalance and promote more equitable outcomes. Those in traditionally weak positions become more powerful by e-mail communication.

Top 10 successful e-mail negotiations

Taking them all into consideration, here's a 10-point checklist you can use for your next e-mail negotiation:

1. Ask the negotiators to meet in person to establish a good relationship and build trust. This can be done live or by videoconference.
2. Before sending an e-mail, read it aloud in the most negative tone. Does it really convey what you want to say and how you want to say it? If in doubt, save the e-mail as a draft and reconsider it before sending.
3. Chat before negotiating Even a short, unrelated speech can lead to an agreement. Talking briefly about interests and hobbies can change the tone of the whole conversation.
4. Never send an e-mail when you're angry (or drunk ...). Saving an eraser (to be reconsidered when you've calmed down or sobered up) can save your butt.
5. Tell the other person something about yourself that isn't business-related. For example, you can provide context related to your environment: "I like the way the office calms down after five o'clock."
6. Start with humor. E-mail transactions that contain humor tend to lead to higher levels of trust and satisfaction, higher joint incomes and higher individual incomes.
7. Explain your emotions explicitly: "I'm looking forward to our progress."
8. Regularly check with your counterparts to see how they feel: "I have the feeling that my last proposal upset you. Is that right?"
9. Meet in person or pick up the phone from time to time for an emotional check-up, whenever possible. This small action can provide exponential feedback on the effectiveness of negotiations.
10. Ask questions to show your interest and concern. However, I don't think all questions have to do with the business in question. If you know the other person's spouse has recently faced cancer, for example, talking a bit about a similar incident in your own family can create a bond or bridge to deeper understanding.

Make sure e-mail negotiations are part of your strategic negotiation toolbox

Negotiations by e-mail can offer a number of advantages. They're more convenient and time-saving than face-to-face or even telephone conversations. Especially in complex deals, e-mail negotiations can be very precise, and you can't give away too much ... especially when dealing with an experienced counterparty!

Consider studies that highlight potential problems with e-mail negotiations, but take more into account before deciding to dismiss e-mail as a potential tool. Consider power and status issues, review the 10 tips listed above, then make your decision accordingly. There are times when e-mail is preferable to other forms of negotiation. Get to know these moments and take advantage of them.