1 / 18

Negotiation over e-mail

Anne Marie Bülow CBS Negotiation Centre Dep.t of Int . Culture & Communication Studies amb.ikk@cbs.dk. Negotiation over e-mail. The interaction : Sociolinguistics , pragmatics Intercultural theory The decision process : Negotiation theory , frame theory , prospect theory

danielwiley
Download Presentation

Negotiation over e-mail

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Anne Marie Bülow CBS Negotiation Centre Dep.t of Int. Culture & Communication Studies amb.ikk@cbs.dk Negotiation over e-mail

  2. The interaction: Sociolinguistics, pragmatics Interculturaltheory The decision process: Negotiationtheory, frametheory, prospecttheory The medium: CMC vsFtF

  3. Meetings, meetings The speaker’s job: Establishing his or her ethos, i.e. Credibility, competence, good will The hoped-for effect: Trust, legitimacy Shared scenarios

  4. Interaction studies: Register, style, accommodation Face Speech acts, moves

  5. Linguafranca / L2 studies Possiblesimplification, imbalance Conflict management Faceconcerns; affect; participants Interculturalcontext Direct/ indirectstyles Information handling

  6. Negotiation studies Power issues: Best alternative Goals: relational / material Agenda setting: Initiating moves, asking questions, shepherding Framing: Interest of Self vs Other; risk

  7. Risk framing • Europe is preparing for a major virus attack which is expected to kill 600 people. Two programmes are being developped – which will you choose?

  8. Group 1: • If we choose plan A, 200 will be saved • If we choose plan B, there is a 1/3 probability that all will be saved and 2/3 probability than noone will be saved

  9. Group 2: • If we choose plan A, 400 will die • If we choose plan B, there is a 1/3 probability that noone will die and 2/3 probability that all will die

  10. E-mail studies Face to face vs • Phone: +/-presence, +simultaneous, -formal • Letter: -presence, -simultaneous, +formal • E-mail: -presence (?), -simultaneous (?), -formal : Leaner and meaner Slower; written record

  11. Hypotheses • Non-simultaneous: 1. E-mail is well suited to lingua franca negotiation • Written record: 2. E-mail will facilitate argumentation • Non-present: 3. E-mail will prioritise material goals, possibly jeopardising relational goals 4. E-mail levels the playing field

  12. The case • Dyads formed from one class of CBS MA communication students paired with unknown international CBS MSc students • The problem is the wording of a contract between a shopping centre developer and her prospective anchor tenant • Use and subletting • The retailer’s version: Tenant may sublet or assign the lease to third party • The landlord’s version: Tenant may not sublet or assign the lease to a third party without written approval

  13. Results • Too many dyads deadlock • The negotiators have time to think, but they do not have the pressure of a conversational pause. Turntaking seems to be a factor • Questions tend to be merely formal Closure seems to be a factor • Language does not seem to be an issue, except as a general obstacle (less of it, harder work)* *Graham, John L. 1985. The influence of culture on the process of business negotiations. Journal of International Business Studies: 81-96, makes the point that cross-dyads exchange less information than home-dyads

  14. Too much argumentation gets lost • Despite the written record, answers tend to concern one part of a set of arguments; re-introducing the rest is marked in writing (but not orally) • Negotiators who make full proposals with bullet points do best* *Coherence and ’bundling’ is a point in Schoop, Köhne and Ostertag

  15. Too much face and too little interest • Reliance on polite phrases instead of a proper search for common interests. Absolutely no flaming. • Argumentation for Self, little Other-based framing

  16. > > > It is correct that we are a bit concerned about the long rental periode. We are not sure whether the market will change in 20 years and would therefore be very happy if we could write some flexibililty into the contract concerning subletting or sharing the premises.> > > I do understand your concern about the financial situation but I think it would be better for the both of us if you would let us find our own tenants, should the situation change. We are of course very carefull about who we choose. > > > Maybe we could discuss whether it is ok withthe restrictions the first 10 yearsor so, and then, […]maybe we could discuss us being able to choose our own tenants without any interference?> > > > > > I am looking forward hearing from you:-).

  17. Thank you for your e-mail.> > Yes you can find your own tenant, but it has to be a subtenant in the business of kitchen and bathroom textiles and we need to approve the subtenant. So I am sorrry, that we cannot be more flexibel about the contract. What do you say, can we come to an agreement?

  18. Power is levelled through initiative; the Landlords tend to keep it by working out options Anchor offer seems to be a factor • ’Schmoozing’ may help, because it builds interest in the person*, but saliency is crucial *Leigh Thompson, The heart and mind of the negotiator (4th ed. 2009, Pearson) has the references to the Kellogg School’s work on cognition

More Related