Comments on: Email Negotiation Advice http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2008/10/23/email-negotiation-advice/ Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:27:59 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Kristin Slattery http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2008/10/23/email-negotiation-advice/comment-page-1/#comment-947 Kristin Slattery Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:54:15 +0000 http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/?p=1466#comment-947 I can’t say I agree with Pynchon. Sure, certain circumstances exist where online negotiations are not appropriate. In many situations, however, negotiating through email can produce better outcomes for both parties than in face-to-face settings. In a mediation course I am currently taking, I tested the validity of the Fisher & Ury interest-based negotiation method in the online setting and found that approach to work just as well, if not better, than traditional negotiations. As for the Scientific America study, I agree that we hold email communications to low standards of social etiquette, as they are typically filled with acronyms appropriate only for email, lowercase letters instead of capitals, and of course, the colon and parenthesis creating the ubiquitous smiley-face emoticon. Despite this lowered standard in typical online communications, email negotiations can, and do, produce successful results. I agree with Prof. Boyden that in face-to-face negotiations parties may be more apt to lie. This, I believe, is because in traditional negotiations, each side can come to the table filled with emotion and impulsively react to the other side’s demands, without having the necessary time to cool down, absorb what has been said, and give a well thought-out response. In the email setting, parties more easily bypass that emotion, are more cognizant of their word choice, and have more time to think before responding to the other party’s inquiries, leading to a more genuine and thoughtful response (well, maybe after the Mail Goggle stops a late-night first draft). I can’t say I agree with Pynchon. Sure, certain circumstances exist where online negotiations are not appropriate. In many situations, however, negotiating through email can produce better outcomes for both parties than in face-to-face settings. In a mediation course I am currently taking, I tested the validity of the Fisher & Ury interest-based negotiation method in the online setting and found that approach to work just as well, if not better, than traditional negotiations.

As for the Scientific America study, I agree that we hold email communications to low standards of social etiquette, as they are typically filled with acronyms appropriate only for email, lowercase letters instead of capitals, and of course, the colon and parenthesis creating the ubiquitous smiley-face emoticon. Despite this lowered standard in typical online communications, email negotiations can, and do, produce successful results.

I agree with Prof. Boyden that in face-to-face negotiations parties may be more apt to lie. This, I believe, is because in traditional negotiations, each side can come to the table filled with emotion and impulsively react to the other side’s demands, without having the necessary time to cool down, absorb what has been said, and give a well thought-out response. In the email setting, parties more easily bypass that emotion, are more cognizant of their word choice, and have more time to think before responding to the other party’s inquiries, leading to a more genuine and thoughtful response (well, maybe after the Mail Goggle stops a late-night first draft).

]]> By: Bruce Boyden http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2008/10/23/email-negotiation-advice/comment-page-1/#comment-893 Bruce Boyden Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:51:05 +0000 http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/?p=1466#comment-893 I can see how ordinary people might regard email and hand-written documents differently. But is that true for lawyers, in their roles as advocates? I would think you would get the same amount of dissembling either way. In fact, my guess would be that you would get even more lying when the negotiations are face-to-face, and there's no transcript. I can see how ordinary people might regard email and hand-written documents differently. But is that true for lawyers, in their roles as advocates? I would think you would get the same amount of dissembling either way. In fact, my guess would be that you would get even more lying when the negotiations are face-to-face, and there’s no transcript.

]]> By: Andrew Golden http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2008/10/23/email-negotiation-advice/comment-page-1/#comment-875 Andrew Golden Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:23:57 +0000 http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/?p=1466#comment-875 I posted this over at Indisputably, but I'll copy and paste it here as well: So, being the tech nerd that I am, I did a little testing of Mail Goggles. I mean, it's a cute function, and it'll probably save some embarrassment, but I don't know that the problems are difficult enough that most reasonably drunk people couldn't solve them (unless, of course, the application is designed to frustrate people enough into not even trying.) But the bigger problem with the program is that it only works if you're accessing Gmail from the WEB-based client. That is to say, if you're like me and use a third-party mail client (Netscape Messenger, Outlook, Mozilla Thunderbird, etc.) to pull in e-mail from multiple accounts, it completely circumvents the Mail Goggle process. It doesn't even error out; it just sends it like nothing's changed. So, really, the protection isn't going to work for anyone who doesn't check e-mail on the web. As I've always said, the trick to prevent sending drunk e-mails is to turn off your computer before going out. That way, it takes WAY too much effort to get to the e-mail sending process when you get back home :-) I posted this over at Indisputably, but I’ll copy and paste it here as well:

So, being the tech nerd that I am, I did a little testing of Mail Goggles. I mean, it’s a cute function, and it’ll probably save some embarrassment, but I don’t know that the problems are difficult enough that most reasonably drunk people couldn’t solve them (unless, of course, the application is designed to frustrate people enough into not even trying.)

But the bigger problem with the program is that it only works if you’re accessing Gmail from the WEB-based client. That is to say, if you’re like me and use a third-party mail client (Netscape Messenger, Outlook, Mozilla Thunderbird, etc.) to pull in e-mail from multiple accounts, it completely circumvents the Mail Goggle process. It doesn’t even error out; it just sends it like nothing’s changed. So, really, the protection isn’t going to work for anyone who doesn’t check e-mail on the web.

As I’ve always said, the trick to prevent sending drunk e-mails is to turn off your computer before going out. That way, it takes WAY too much effort to get to the e-mail sending process when you get back home :-)

]]>