Face-to-face negotiation is the clear preference of most negotiators and rightly so. Face-to-face contact is crucial in the initiation of relationships and collaborations. Face-to-face negotiations are particularly important when negotiators meet for the first time, when norms of interaction are established. Negotiators are more cooperative when interacting face-to-face than over the telephone.⁰⁵ Face-to-face communication (as opposed to using the telephone) fosters the development of interpersonal synchrony and rapport and thus leads to more trusting, cooperative behavior.⁰⁶ Face-to-face meetings are ideal for wrestling with complex negotiations. Face-to-face negotiators reach more integrative (win-win) outcomes and more balanced distributions of surplus (even pie slicing) than writing-only (e-mail) or telephone negotiations.⁰⁷ Further, writing-only (e-mail) negotiations have a higher incidence of impasse, and telephone negotiations increase the likelihood of losing buyers and highly profitable sellers.

The incidence and frequency of face-to-face communication is determined by how closely people are located to one another: Employees who work in the same office or on the same floor communicate much more frequently than those located on different floors or in different buildings. Even a few paces can have a huge impact on communication likelihood and frequency. For example, communication frequency between R&D researchers drops off logarithmically after only 5–10 meters of distance between offices.⁰⁸ Workers in adjacent offices communicate twice as often as those in offices on the same floor, including via e-mail and telephone transmissions.⁰⁹

Face-to-face communication is easier and therefore more likely to occur than are other forms of communication. Many negotiations occur from chance encounters, which almost never happen in any mode but face-to-face because of perceived effort. Negotiations of opportunity are very important for long-term business success.

People rely primarily on nonverbal signals to help them conduct social interactions. One estimate is that 93% of the meaning of messages is contained in the nonverbal part of communication, such as voice intonation.¹⁰ (See also Appendix 2 on nonverbal communication.) Leaders, as well as negotiators, use nonverbal cues to convey messages in their communications. For example, in his State of the Union address of 2012, President Obama used nonverbal cues and signals to convey optimism and assertiveness about the recession. Specifically, his phrasing emphasized the beginning and ending of sentences rather than hitting hardest in the middle—which gave his statements an emphatic resolve. Additionally, he used a lot of gesturing on one side, then the other, and finally bringing both hands together—as if to show the ideas coming together and moving forward.¹¹

Nonverbal communication can even extend to choices of clothing and artifacts. For example, President Obama caused a national media stir when he failed to wear an American flag pin lapel on his suit jacket at a presidential campaign stop. Conversely, former Secretary of State Madeline Albright strategically chose pins for various diplomatic occasions. When an Iraqi state-controlled newspaper referred to her as an “unparalleled serpent” after her criticism of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s failure to comply with weapon inspections, she wore a pin featuring a snake wrapped around a branch to her next meeting with Iraqi officials. Her point was made. “Before long and without intending it, I found that jewelry had become part of my personal diplomatic arsenal,” Albright said.

Important behavioral, cognitive, and emotional processes are set into motion when people meet face-to-face. Face-to-face negotiation allows people to develop rapport—the feeling of being “in sync” or “on the same wavelength” with another person. Nonverbal (body orientation, gesture, eye contact, head nodding) and paraverbal (speech fluency, use of “uh-huhs,” etc.) behaviors are key to building rapport. When the person we are negotiating with sits at a greater distance, has an indirect body orientation, backward lean, and crossed arms, and avoids eye contact, we feel less rapport than when the same person sits with a forward lean, an open body posture, and maintains steady eye contact. However, there also appear to be gender differences, such as when females negotiate, their agreements are of higher quality when they have visual contact. The opposite is true for males, who reach better agreements in absence of visual contact.¹² Further, a meta-analysis of visual channels, vocal channels, and synchronicity in negotiation revealed that more communication channels increase the win-win performance of negotiators with a neutral orientation, but hurt the performance of negotiators who have a noncooperative orientation.¹³

The same time, different place mode, in which people negotiate in real time but are not physically in the same place, is often the alternative to face-to-face negotiations. The most common means is via telephone (telephone tag is different time, different place); videoconferencing is another example. Cell phones have usurped face-to-face communication as the most common means of communication: 58% of adults use text messages at least once a day to communicate with family and friends, but only 49% meet people face-to-face on such a regular basis; and 67% of millennials would rather text someone than call them.¹⁴ Interestingly, when negotiators are not face-to-face, they reach more integrative agreements when they believe that the other party is physically far away (i.e., several thousand feet away) rather than nearby.¹⁵ Apparently, feeling far away creates a more big-picture construal in the mind of the negotiator.

Cell phones are the most common personal appendage; most people would rather forget their shoes or underwear than their cell phone. A total of 91% of U.S. adults own a cell phone, of which 56% own a smartphone. Over 35% of American homes are cell phone-only homes, forgoing the traditional landline.¹⁶ Those with cell phones use them 67% of the time to check messages, alerts, or answer calls. A total of 44% of people sleep with their cell phone next to their beds so that they don’t miss a call or text message during the night, and 29% admit that they can’t imagine living without their cell phones.¹⁷ What are the implications of the dramatic increase in cell communication as opposed to face-to-face meetings, particularly with respect to the conduct of negotiations? Face-to-face communication involves the richest form of communication with several types of information available: visual, auditory, and tactile. In phone conversations, people lack facial cues, such as pauses, mutual gaze, and another person’s nonverbal response to what is being said (looking away, rolling their eyes, or shaking or nodding their head).

People act differently in the absence of important cues. In addition to our own behavior changing when we are on the phone as compared to face-to-face, we are affected by the phone conversations of others around us. In fact, it is nearly impossible to be in an environment where we are not surrounded by others conducting cell phone calls. As it turns out, people are more distracted when they overhear a one-sided cell phone conversation than an in-person chat between two people.¹⁸

Next, we identify four key challenges to same time, different place negotiations.

In the different time, same place mode, negotiators interact asynchronously but have access to the same physical document or space. An example might be shift workers who pick up the task left for them by the previous shift; another example would be two collaborators working on the same electronic document. One colleague finishes and then gives the text to a partner, who further edits and develops it.

In the different place, different time model, negotiators communicate asynchronously in different places. The most ubiquitous type of different place, different time communication is e-mail. For example, the average office worker spends 650 hours a year, or 28% of their working hours, reading and writing e-mails. The total number of words in those e-mails is 41,400, which is equivalent to a novel 166 pages long. For this reason, some people believe that they are being held captive by the Internet. Consequently, some businesspeople have gone to great lengths to unplug, ranging from self-imposed digital detox programs to threats of divorce from their spouses. Negotiating in a different time and place can be beneficial to some. For example, women consistently do better when they negotiate virtually. In one simulation, people negotiated the purchase of a car either face-to-face, online, by phone, or by video. Women were more assertive when they weren’t haggling face-to-face. Virtual negotiations with car dealers eliminated status markers and gender biases and reduced pressure on the woman to make a purchase decision or to demonstrate socially “gender appropriate” behavior when negotiating. Virtual settings have the benefit of upsetting established hierarchies, conferring more favorable outcomes on those with less power.²¹

In a similar fashion, technology made it possible for poor migrants in China without secondary school educations to stage a tech-savvy strike. Hours into the strike, workers posted detailed accounts of the walkout online across China. Armed with desktop computers, they uploaded videos of Honda Lock’s security guards roughing up employees, outwitting official censors. When the company deleted the blog posts, workers began using their own cell phones and initiated code words to discuss protest gatherings. In so doing, they tapped into a broader communication web, enabling the working class throughout China to share grievances and negotiation strategies.²²

We identify four key biases that affect the ability of people to negotiate via e-mail. (see also Friedman and Currall’s model of the four key problems with e-mail: diminished feedback, minimized social cues, excessively long e-mails, and anger).²³

Relative to face-to-face negotiations, people who negotiate online trust each other less before beginning the negotiation, and trust each other even less after the online interaction.⁴⁷ The low levels of trust negotiators have for one another before the negotiation suggest that negotiators bring different expectations to electronic bargaining than to face-to-face negotiations. Not surprisingly, online negotiators report less desire for future relationships with the other party, less confidence in their performance, and less overall satisfaction.

Whereas it would seem that people might be less likely to misrepresent themselves in situations in which there is a permanent record of behavior—such as on the Internet—deception in computer-mediated group negotiation and decision making is much higher than expected. For example, people are more willing to lie when communicating via e-mail rather than by pen and paper and feel more justified in doing so.⁴⁸ According to moral disengagement theory, people are more likely to misrepresent and deceive others when they are not face-to-face, regardless of whether they believe their lie might be discovered. Not surprisingly, people who are more skilled at decision making are more successful—at not being discovered.⁴⁹

Walk into any classroom, lunch discussion, or business meeting, and it will be immediately obvious that one person in a small group does most of the talking, and a handful of people do more than 75% of the talking in a larger group. For example, in a typical four-person group, two people do more than 62% of the talking; in a six-person group, three people do over 70% of the talking; and in a group of eight, three people do 70% of the talking.⁵⁰ Even when performance depends on contributions, participation is not equal.

Who dominates most face-to-face discussions and negotiations? Almost without exception, status predicts domination. Higher-status people talk more, even if they are not experts on the subject. Not surprisingly, managers speak more than subordinates, and men speak more than women. In the absence of legitimate status, gender, age, and race affect speaking. Situational factors also affect perceived status. The person who sits at the head of the table talks more than those on the sides, even if the seating arrangement is arbitrary.⁵¹ Those in business suits talk more than others. Dynamic cues can define status, such as nodding in approval, touching (high-status people touch those of lower status but not vice versa), hesitating, and frowning. Leaders such as presidents are masters at nonverbal communication cues. For example, President Obama’s thumb touches his index finger, and his hands are closed in a soft fist when he delivers a speech, a sign of showing dominance without being overly aggressive.⁵² Conversely, when Sony USA CEO Howard Stringer—normally a strong speaker—met with journalists in Tokyo, he played with a ballpoint pen as he spoke and appeared nervous and disjointed to his audience.⁵³ What happens when negotiators interact via technology, such as electronic mail? The traditional status cues are missing, and dynamic, charismatic people have less impact. Consequently, power and status differences are minimized. People in traditionally weak positions in face-to-face negotiations become more powerful when communicating via information technology because status cues are harder to read.⁵⁴ In a direct test of this idea, some managers negotiated via e-mail and some negotiated via instant messaging.⁵⁵ Instant messaging is more like face-to-face interaction because negotiators need to respond quickly and in real time. Therefore, we hypothesized that instant messaging would be an advantage when negotiators had a strong bargaining position but would backfire when negotiators had a weak bargaining position because they would be “exposed” and could not easily adapt. Indeed, sellers who had strong arguments for their product fared particularly well in instant messaging because they could verbally dominate the buyers. However, sellers who had weaker arguments were not able to counterargue when using instant messaging and did much better negotiating via traditional e-mail. The message: If you have a strong bargaining position, face-to-face interaction is ideal; if you have a weak bargaining position, impoverished media provide an important buffer.

People who would normally not approach others in person are much more likely to initiate e-mail exchange. This is because traditional status cues such as position and title are not as obvious in e-mail. It is often impossible to tell whether you are communicating with a president or a clerk on e-mail because addresses are often shortened and may be difficult to comprehend. Even when they can be deciphered, e-mail addresses identify the organization, but not necessarily job title, social importance, or level in the organization of the sender. Dynamic status cues, such as dress, mannerisms, age, and gender, are also missing in e-mail. In this sense, e-mail acts as an equalizer because it is difficult for high-status people to dominate the discussion. The absence of these cues leads people to respond more openly and less hesitatingly than in face-to-face interaction. People are less likely to conform to social norms and other people when interacting via electronic communication.

Overall, the amount of participation will be less in electronic versus face-to-face communication, but the contributions of members will be more equal.⁵⁶ For example, when groups of executives meet face-to-face, men are five times more likely than women to make the first decision proposal. When those same groups meet via computer, women make the first proposal as often as men do.⁵⁷ Furthermore, the time to complete a task is longer on e-mail than in face-to-face interaction, probably because people talk much faster than they write.

In traditional face-to-face organizations, social networks are determined by who talks to whom; in new, e-centered organizations, social networks are determined by who communicates with whom via technology. People on the periphery who communicate electronically become better integrated into their organization.⁵⁸ Computerized interaction increases the resources of low-network people.

The nature of social networks that shape negotiation behaviors changes dramatically when information technology enters the picture as a form of communication. E-mail networks, or connections between people who communicate via e-mail, increase the information resources of low-network people. When people need assistance (e.g., information or resources), they often turn to their immediate social network. When such help is not available, they use weak ties—such as relationships with acquaintances or strangers—to seek help that is unavailable from friends or colleagues. However, in the absence of personal relationships or the expectation of direct reciprocity, help from weak ties might not be forthcoming or could be of low quality.

Some companies, particularly global companies and those in the fields of information technology and communications, rely on e-mail and employees within the company to form connections with each other on the basis of no physical contact. The incentives for taking the time to assist someone who is dealing with a problem and is located in a different part of the world are quite miniscule.

Another possibility is to catalog or store information in some easily accessible database. In a technical company, this database would include published reports and scientific manuals. However, engineers and managers do not like to consult technical reports to obtain needed information; most of the information they use to solve their problems is obtained through face-to-face discussions. People in organizations usually prefer to exchange help through strong collegial ties, which develop through physical proximity, similarity, and familiarity. For example, employee recommendations account for 45% of nonentry-level placements at Ernst & Young, Deloitte, and Enterprise Rent-A-Car—an increase of nearly 20% from three years prior.⁵⁹ Is it sending or receiving messages that expand one’s social network and ultimate organizational commitment? The amount of e-mail a person sends (but not receives) predicts commitment.⁶⁰ Thus, e-mail can provide an alternate route to letting people have a voice if they are low contributors in face-to-face meetings.

Consider the following choices:

• Option 1: $20,000 return over two years

• Option 2: 50% chance of $40,000 return; 50% chance of nothing

Obviously, option 1 is the “safe” (riskless) choice; option 2 is the risky choice. However, these two options are mathematically identical, meaning people should not favor one option over the other (see also Appendix 1). When posed with these choices, most people are risk averse, meaning they select the option that has the sure payoff as opposed to holding out for the chance to win big (or, equally as likely, not win at all). Consider what happens when the following choice is proposed:

• Option 1: Sure loss of $20,000 over two years

• Option 2: 50% chance of losing $40,000; 50% of losing nothing

Most managers are risk seeking and choose option 2. Why? According to the framing effect (see Chapter 2), people are risk averse for gains and risk seeking for losses.⁶¹ This tendency can lead to preference reversals. By manipulating a reference point, a person will exhibit inconsistent choice.

Groups tend to make riskier decisions than do individuals, given the same choice. Thus, risk seeking is greatly exaggerated in groups who meet face-to-face. Paradoxically, groups who make decisions via electronic communication are risk seeking for both gains and losses.⁶² Furthermore, executives are just as confident of their decisions whether they are made through electronic communication or face-to-face communication. For example, in comparison to people negotiating face-to-face, by e-mail, or through a combination of both, people who use only e-mail reach more impasses.⁶³

Building trust and rapport is critical for negotiation success. The greater the face-to-face contact between negotiators and the greater the rapport, the more integrative the outcomes are likely to be. Rapport is more difficult to establish with impoverished mediums of communication. In one investigation, some negotiators were instructed to stand face-to-face or side-by-side (unable to see each other) in a simulated strike negotiation. Face-to-face negotiators were more likely to coordinate on a settlement early in the strike, resulting in higher joint gains.⁶⁴ Further, rapport was higher between face-to-face negotiators than between side-by-side negotiators. In a different investigation, comparisons were made between face-to-face, videoconference, and audio-only negotiation interactions.⁶⁵ Face-to-face negotiators felt a greater amount of rapport than did negotiators in the videoconference and audio-only conditions. Further, independent observers judged face-to-face negotiators to be more “in sync” with each other. Face-to-face negotiators trusted each other more and were more successful at coordinating their decisions.

On the TV show Saturday Night Live, Pat (Julia Sweeney) was a character whose sex was unknown. Pat had an androgynous name, wore baggy clothes, and did not display any stereotypical male or female characteristics or preferences. Most people found it maddening to interact with Pat without knowing his or her gender. Gender ambiguity also happens when interacting via technology. It is generally impolite to ask someone whether he or she is a man or woman. Therefore, we are left feeling uncertain. Consequently, uncertainty, increases paranoia. Paranoid people are more likely to assume the worst about another person or situation.⁶⁶

When technological change creates new social situations, people invent new ways of behaving. When we use information technology, we “talk” to other people, but we do so alone.⁶⁷ As a result, our messages are likely to display less social awareness. The advantage is that social posturing and sycophancy decline. The disadvantage is that politeness and concern for others also decline. Two characteristics of computer-based communication—the plain text and perceived ephemerality of messages—make it relatively easy for a person to forget or ignore his or her audience and consequently send messages that ignore social boundaries, disclose the self, and are too blunt.⁶⁸

Did the following exchange occur in a meeting room or via the Internet?

Most people correctly note that this exchange occurred on the Internet. The phenomenon of flaming suggests that through electronic mail, actions and decisions (not just messages) might become more extreme and impulsive.⁶⁹

During an interview at Avery Dennison’s research and development unit, a Millennial job candidate took a call on his smartphone about 15 minutes into the meeting. The call, which lasted for about a minute and didn’t appear to be an emergency, ruined his chances for negotiating a job offer. The boomer-generation interviewer said of the interviewee, “If he thought taking a call during a formal interview is appropriate, what other behavior does he think is OK?”⁷⁰

One of the most common negotiations occurs between people of different generations. Add in information technology (or the lack thereof) and negotiations between a 50- and 20-year-old can often go sour. Why? People of different generations ascribe to different norms of behavior, often unknowingly violating norms held by members of differing generations. Norms of behavior dictate proper dress, punctuality, greeting behavior, and even preferred modes of communication. Not surprisingly, companies are treating intergenerational communication like a foreign language, complete with training courses and preparation. For example, Scott Katz, Director of Talent Development at Turner Broadcasting, sits down with new hires and explains the expected team norms of behavior and dress, as well as specifying his likes, dislikes, and preferences for people joining his team. By being explicit about expectations, there is no guessing game or after-the-fact corrections.⁷¹ However, managers who take the time to show a millennial employee the ropes should be prepared for what might seem to be awkward questions. In a Forbes survey done in 2012, managers provided examples of unexpected questions they received from millennial-aged employees, such as “Do you drug test often?,” “Do I have to come to work everyday?,” and “Can my parent call you about this benefits package?”⁷²

As a general principle, younger generations have grown up communicating with everyone—parents, siblings, teachers, authority figures—using information technology. For this reason, they prefer using information technology over face-to-face interaction. For example, to attract time-conscious Millennial customers to Hyatt’s boutique Andaz hotels, the physical layout was completely redesigned: There is no “front desk”, rather, guests are greeted carside by iPad-equipped hotel staff who complete the check-in process, bypassing the typical time “wasted” with the face-to-face interaction at the traditional front desk.⁷³ In a similar fashion, Mindtree’s Bangalore office saw the need to revamp their architecture in an effort to ease communication tensions between different generations of employees. Mindtree’s chief people officer, Ravi Shankar detailed the features of the new office space to include more face-to-face desk and office arrangements, thereby forcing employee visibility, less dependence on virtual communications for Millennials, and promoting opportunities to personally interact for all generations of employees.⁷⁴

Consider five generations: Matures (also known as traditionals), Boomers, Gen X, GenY, and Gen Z (see Exhibit 12-4). Most generations are known for key events—or flashbulb moments—that shaped their understanding of the world, how they deal with people, and their value systems. For example, “matures” (born sometime before 1946) experienced World War I and World War II as defining moments. From an early age in life, matures needed to make personal sacrifices and set self-interest aside. Consequently, their business and negotiation values reflect the importance of personal sacrifice, compromise, and persistence. In negotiation, they trust a person’s spoken word.

Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964 (also known as the “me generation”), have traditionally focused on personal achievements and mastery of their professions and lives. Their flashbulb moments were of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walking on the moon. Boomers deeply believe in win-win and consider a handshake to be the encapsulated demonstration of their intention and commitment. In their worldview, every goal is possible with enough work and commitment, and everything is negotiable.

Generation X, born approximately after 1965 observed their boomer parents self-actualize by pursuing demanding educational and career goals. Meanwhile, Gen X’ers got used to third parties providing them with their daily needs as children—day care, babysitters, and fast food. Raised during the early days of MTV, this generation saw the fall of the Berlin Wall and the onslaught of mass media. Their negotiation values are highly transactional and often involve looking at what is immediate—as opposed to the long term.

Generation Y (born between 1980 and 1997), also known as the “first digitals” or the “echo boom,” experienced the Persian Gulf War and the mass expansion of the Internet. They watched the first Dot-Com Boom and bust, and saw young entrepreneurs bypass big corporate backers to become self-made millionaires overnight with their virally-spread products and ideas. Yet, they did not grow up with iPhones in hand and their days spent on the Internet. The hard work of the boomers and their grandparents of the World War generation was a great influence on this generation, but they quickly learned that diligent, long hours of labor or various college degrees didn’t seem to get them as far as networking or using the worldwide reach of the Internet to broadcast an idea. Generation Y negotiators value speed, use the Internet and apps to arrive to the negotiating table well informed, and are very adaptable to constant change.

Generation Z, those born after 1997, also known as the millenials, grew up watching the fall of the World Trade Center, the crash of the world financial markets, and the power of the flashmob to create joy, fear, and change. They are not just comfortable using information technology; they often prefer it over face-to-face interaction; and because their personal time and work time often blur, they are a generation that prides itself on multitasking. Very conscious of myopic focus of the boomers, and armed with tools for working anywhere at anytime, this generation puts more value on leading a balanced life and having flexibility with their work and life demands. In negotiation contexts, they express their views with the compounded power of public posts, rather than directly addressing a single person. Many of them cannot address an envelope, but can easily jailbreak a smartphone. Their relationships with others are vast, but not deep; they spend more time communicating virtually than face-to-face. Their personal and work networks are key to their on-the-fly learning and problem solving skills. Often, you can learn more about a Gen Z’ers by viewing their online profiles and posted images than through a face-to-face interview.

The effectiveness of virtual and face-to-face teams was compared as they worked on a brainstorming exercise and a negotiation exercise.⁷⁵ Virtual teams worked better on the brainstorming exercise, but face-to-face teams did better on the negotiation exercise. Moreover, even though the face-to-face teams communicated better initially (during the early stages of a project), as virtual teams gained experience, they communicated as openly and shared information as effectively as face-to-face teams.⁷⁶ According to Lillich,

Oftentimes, people develop rapport on the basis of a short face-to-face meeting, which can reduce uncertainty and build trust. Face-to-face contact humanizes people and creates expectations for negotiators to use in their subsequent long-distance work together. For example, when the National Space Agency wanted to connect with potential contractors, they held a forum to speak face-to-face with companies such as Boeing, ATK Aerospace, and Northrop Grumman. Having an initial face-to-face meeting set the stage for future negotiations. “A lot of partnerships and deals are made at these sessions,” said the director of development.⁷⁸

If an initial, face-to-face meeting is out of the question, an alternative may be to get everyone online so that at least people can attach a name to a face. Depending upon the size of the team and locations of different members, this alternative may be more feasible than a face-to-face meeting. For example in one investigation, negotiators who had never met one another were instructed to have a short phone call prior to commencing e-mail-only negotiations.⁷⁹ The sole purpose of the phone call was to get to know the other person. Negotiators were expressly forbidden to discuss any aspect of the negotiation. The simple act of chatting and exchanging personal information built rapport and overcame some of the communication difficulties associated with the impoverished medium of e-mail. Another group did not have an initial phone call with the counterparty. Negotiators who engaged in the initial phone conversation found that their attitudes toward their opponents changed; negotiators who had chatted with their opponent felt less competitive and more cooperative before the negotiation began, compared with negotiators who had not chatted with their opponent. In the end, negotiators who had made personal contact with their opponent felt more confident that future interactions with the same person would go smoothly. Trust was thus developed through the rapport-building phone call prior to the negotiation. Not surprisingly, negotiators who had an initial phone call were less likely to impasse and achieved higher joint gains compared to those who did not have the initial phone call. The simple act of making an effort to establish a personal relationship through telephone contact before engaging in e-mail negotiations can have dramatic positive consequences.

Schmoozing (as described in Chapter 6) is our name for nontask-related contact between people, which has a psychological effect of having established a relationship with someone.⁸⁰ The effectiveness of electronic schmoozing has been put to the test, and the results are dramatic: Schmoozing increases liking and rapport and results in more profitable business deals than when people simply “get down to business.”⁸¹ Negotiators who schmoozed (on the phone) developed more realistic goals, resulting in a larger range of possible outcomes, and were less likely to impasse compared to nonschmoozers. The key mediating factor was rapport. Moreover, the negotiators who schmoozed on the phone prior to getting down to the business of e-negotiation expressed greater optimism about a future working relationship with the other party, compared to negotiators who did not schmooze.⁸²

Another route to building trust and rapport is to build a shared social identity. For example, e-negotiations between managers at the same university (company) versus negotiations between competitor universities (other companies) reveal that membership in the same university (company) reduces the likelihood of impasse in e-negotiations.⁸³ In contrast, negotiators who do not share social ties with their counterpart consistently underperform on the key measures of negotiator performance.

Perhaps the most attractive aspects of schmoozing are its relatively low cost and its efficiency. Merely exchanging a few short e-mails describing yourself can lead to better business relations. However, people do not naturally schmooze on e-mail. Instead, team members working remotely have a tendency to get down to business. As a start toward schmoozing, tell the other person something about yourself that does not necessarily relate to the business at hand (e.g., “I really enjoy sea kayaking”); also, provide a context for your own work space (e.g., “It is very late in the day, and there are 20 people at my door, so I do not have time to write a long message”). Furthermore, ask questions that show you are interested in the other party as a person; this approach is an excellent way to search for points of similarity. Finally, provide the impetus for the next e-mail or exchange (e.g., “I will look forward to hearing your reactions on the preliminary report, and I will also send you the files you requested”).

The use of humor is particularly important in e-negotiations. The earlier negotiators use humor, the better. Beginning an e-mail negotiation with humor results in increased trust and satisfaction, as well as higher joint and individual gains for the party who initiates the humorous exchange.⁸⁴ Moreover, when the negotiations are purely distributive, negotiators who use humor in their first offers are more likely to have first offers in the bargaining zone and final settlements more equally distributed.