Use e-mail as a means of negotiating offers big advantages. By its immediacy, we can move forward more quickly in the negotiating process, especially in the initial phases, where the exchange of information is essential, and in the end, when we are close to agreement and will need to go closing microacuerdos. It is essential when there are geographic remoteness between the parties and does not compensate for the face and very advisable to contact when the negotiators are comfortable with this means of communication. But e-mail can also poison the bargaining. In a question-answer forum Eliot Horowitz was the first to reply. You can, in fact, poison any conversation, very good to be the intention.
A few years ago, Marshall McLuhan made famous the judgment the medium is the message and makes some less, with the stellar appearance in our interconnected lives of the spam or junk mail, an adaptation of the phrase which read if the medium is the message, I read somewhere someone should kill the Messenger. Seemed like a very wise phrase in that context and also applicable to the field of negotiation. If we are going to negotiate, to treat a situation of conflict, through email should be thinking about the impact of the medium in which is negotiated and the relationship with whom it negotiates and act conveniently, using large doses of common sense. Always a goal as any interaction, should establish a specific objective for each of the messages coming out of our output tray. What do we get? What is the aim? Do email to help us achieve our goal? Why is the most appropriate means to the objective in question? Would it be better to use other means? Much of the encounters of a negotiation are failing because they do not have a correct preparation, where defining the objective for this encounter is key. And the meetings that use email are not less. Not everything is negotiable by email does not seem appropriate to use email as a tool in phases or the most sensitive aspects of the negotiation.