Selection of a Communication Channel

Communication is experienced differently when it occurs through different channels. We may think of negotiation as typically occurring face-to-face – an assumption reinforced by the common metaphor of the “negotiation table”. But the reality is that people negotiate through a variety of communication media: over the telephone, in writing, and increasingly through electronic channels such as e-mail, teleconferencing, and text messaging. The use of network-mediated information technologies in negotiation is sometimes referred to as virtual negotiation (also at times “e-negotiation”). The use of a particular channel shapes both perceptions of the communication task at hand and norms regarding appropriate behavior; accordingly, channel variations have potentially important effects on negotiation processes and outcomes.

The key variation that distinguishes one communication channel from another is social bandwidth – the ability of a channel to carry and convey subtle social and relational cues from sender to receiver that go beyond the literal text of the message itself. For example, as an alternative to face-to-face interaction, the telephone preserves one’s ability to transmit social cues through inflection or tone of voice but forfeits the ability to communicate through facial expressions or physical gestures. In written communication, there are only the words and symbols on paper, although one’s choice of words and the way they are arranged can certainly convey tone, (in)formality, and emotion.

E-mail, as a ubiquitous mode of personal and organizational communication, can be viewed as simply another form of written communication that happens to involve electronic transmission. There are, however, important distinctions between e-mail and other forms of written communication. Many people, treating e-mail as a highly informal medium, are comfortable sending messages that are stylistically or grammatically unpolished in situations (such as on the job) where they would never send a carelessly written communication on paper. Some people incorporate text-based emoticons to convey emotional social cues in their messages (the notorious smiley face [:-)] is the best known emoticon). Early research on interpersonal and small-group communication through computers indicated that the lack of social cues lowers communicator inhibition and leads to more aggressive communication behavior. However, much of that early research into computer mediated communication focused on anonymous interaction. It is not clear that reduced social cues have the same effect in a communication context, such as negotiation, where the parties are known to each other, and in fact may know each other quite well.

Researchers have been examining the effects of channels in general, and e-mail in particular, on negotiation processes and outcomes for several years. Unfortunately, there are few consistent findings that point to clear effects. We do know that interacting parties can more easily develop personal rapport in face-to-face communication compared with other channels, and that face-to-face negotiators are more inclined to disclose information truthfully, increasing their ability to attain mutual gain. Research has found that negotiation through written channels is more likely to end in impasse than negotiation that occurs face to face or by phone.

Developing rapport and sharing information truthfully are aspects of face-to-face communication that promote cooperation, but face-to-face interaction may also enhance toughness in negotiation. One research team studying distributive negotiation looked at how the advantage of hard bargaining over soft concession-oriented bargaining is affected by whether or not negotiators have face-to-face access. They found that when negotiators can see each other (as opposed to when there is no visual contact), competitive approaches become even more effective, yielding additional gains for the hard bargainer who makes extreme offers and few concessions. With face-to-face access, the hard bargainer can communicate his or her “tough” message unambiguously, which in turn limits the other party’s aspirations and thereby triggers concessions.

Using e-mail communication instead of face-to-face interaction can have the effect of masking or reducing power differences between negotiators. One study found that e-mail negotiators reach agreements that are more equal (a balanced division of resources) than face-to-face negotiators. This may occur to the extent that electronic communication ‘levels the playing field’ between strong and weak negotiators. By giving the individual a chance to ponder at length the other party’s message, and to review and revise one’s own communication, e-mail may indeed help less interpersonally skilled parties improve their performance, especially when the alternative is negotiating spontaneously (face-to-face or by phone) with a more accomplished other party.

Negotiators using e-mail need to work harder at building personal rapport with the other party if they are to overcome limitations of the channel that would otherwise inhibit optimal agreements or fuel impasse. What e-mail negotiations lack is schmoozing – off-task or relationship-focused conversations that are often present in face-to-face negotiations. Schmoozing is an important avenue for building rapport and establishing trust in the negotiation relationship. In one study, negotiators who schmoozed on the phone prior. to e-mail negotiations reached more negotiated agreements, achieved better outcomes, and perceived greater trust and optimism regarding future working relationships with the other party. Another way to enhance interpersonal ties in an online negotiation: engage in “linguistic mimicry” by imitating the other party’s use of language, metaphors, jargon, and even emoticons. Negotiators in a study exploring this possibility who actively mimicked the other party’s language enhanced trust, which in turn resulted in better outcomes for the negotiator doing the mimicking.

With so much attention to e-mail, it is important to keep in mind that other online channels for virtual negotiations are available. One study compared negotiations over e-mail with those conducted via instant messaging (IM). A key difference between these two channels is speed of turn-taking: E-mail is a “slow-tempo” medium, while IM is “fast-tempo” medium that more closely approximates oral communication. In a simulated buyer-seller negotiation, some sellers were provided with intricate arguments to use in support of their position; others relied on simple arguments. Sellers did better with complex arguments in the “quick” medium (IM) but not in the “slow” medium (e-mail). This occurred, their results suggest, because sellers armed with intricate arguments were more able to dominate the conversation in the rapid turn-taking environment of IM, and in so doing extract concessions from the other party.