Gulliver | The Economist

Gulliver | The Economist: "Must fly?"

• For communicators with a neutral stance or no past personal relationship, communication channels increase the likelihood of achieving high-quality outcomes. The researchers found that when unacquainted individuals enter into a negotiation, the use of richer communication media that allows negotiators to see and hear each other helps to establish rapport. Nonverbal cues, such as tone of voice, facial expression and gesture, allow these communicators to learn more about the other side and to develop enough trust to share and integrate information.

• When partners have a history of cooperation or are willing to cooperate, communication channels do not affect the likelihood of high-quality outcomes.In this instance, negotiating partners assume the best of their partners because of a shared history or identity. Partners interpret communication between one another with the best of intentions since there is an inherent level of trust. The researchers found no change in the quality of negotiation outcomes if the negotiators could see or hear each other.

• However, communication channels decrease the likelihood of high-quality outcomes when negotiators have a history of vitriol and rancor or when they are seeking personal gain. Aggressive behavior during negotiations can lead people to use competitive tactics to defend and protect their own interests. As a result, these channels hinder the exchange of ideas and ultimately prevent a successful resolution. Communication channels “not only transmit factual information but can also intensify feelings, and their presence has the potential to escalate (already existing) non-cooperative predispositions,” the authors wrote. When entering tense talks, the researchers suggest that resolutions are more likely to be achieved by restricting communication (face-to-face or electronically) and introducing a mediator.

So first-time negotiations should be done face-to-face and business with old acquaintances is fine by e-mail. This is pretty uncontroversial; although there must surely be an argument for keeping friendly clients close with regular face-to-face contact. But the last point intrigued me. Is the best way to deal with a difficult relationship really to avoid contact? Instinctively it feels as if the best way to resolve problems would be to jump on a plane and thrash out your difficulties mano a mano. Surely it is much easier to maintain a belligerent stance when you are not looking your opponent in the eye?