IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/1639.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Schmooze or Lose: Social Friction and Lubrication in E-Mail Negotiations

Author

Listed:
  • Morris, Michael

    (Stanford U)

  • Nadler, Janice

    (Northwestern U)

  • Kurtzberg, Terri
  • Thompson, Leigh

Abstract

We explored how the process of e-mail negotiation differs from face-to-face negotiation and then tested hypotheses about how its liabilities can be minimized. In the first experiment, participants negotiated one-on-one, either face-to-face or via e-mail. Consistent with expectations, negotiators took advantage of e-mail by exchanging more complex, multiple-issue offers than they exchanged face-to-face. Yet, e-mail reduced rapport-building conversation about non-negotiable, contextual issues, and clarifying questions which prevent misunderstandings and facilitate rapport. E-mail negotiators compensated with more explicit statements about the relationship, but these were less effective in preventing mistrust and misunderstanding. In a second experiment, we tested the power of a minimal intervention designed to reduce the liabilities of e-mail. Half the negotiation dyads had a personalized telephone conversation ("schmoozed") before engaging in e-mail negotiations, and the other half did not schmooze. Even though the telephone conversation was strictly non-business, schmoozing negotiators anticipated and planned a cooperative, positive negotiation experience from the outset, and they attained better economic and social outcomes. This was primarily true among mixed-gender dyads.

Suggested Citation

  • Morris, Michael & Nadler, Janice & Kurtzberg, Terri & Thompson, Leigh, 2000. "Schmooze or Lose: Social Friction and Lubrication in E-Mail Negotiations," Research Papers 1639, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:1639
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/library/rp1639.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arvind Rangaswamy & G. Richard Shell, 1997. "Using Computers to Realize Joint Gains in Negotiations: Toward an "Electronic Bargaining Table"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(8), pages 1147-1163, August.
    2. Bonomo, Vittorio A & Johnson, Dana J & Thompson, G Rodney, 1995. "The Impact of the," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 30(1), pages 23-40, February.
    3. Moore, Don A. & Kurtzberg, Terri R. & Thompson, Leigh L. & Morris, Michael W., 1999. "Long and Short Routes to Success in Electronically Mediated Negotiations: Group Affiliations and Good Vibrations, , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 22-43, January.
    4. Arunachalam, Vairam & Dilla, William N., 1995. "Judgment Accuracy and Outcomes in Negotiation: A Causal Modeling Analysis of Decision-Aiding Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 289-304, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ingmar Geiger, 2020. "From Letter to Twitter: A Systematic Review of Communication Media in Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 207-250, April.
    2. Ashleigh Shelby Rosette & Shirli Kopelman & JeAnna Lanza Abbott, 2014. "Good Grief! Anxiety Sours the Economic Benefits of First Offers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 629-647, May.
    3. Schilling, Martin S. & Mulford, Matthew, 2007. "In search of value-for-money in collective bargaining: an analytic-interactive mediation process," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 22694, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Rudolf Vetschera, 2006. "Preference Structures of Negotiators and Negotiation Outcomes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 111-125, March.
    5. Eva-Maria Pesendorfer & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2007. "Social Embeddedness in Electronic Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 399-415, July.
    6. Michael J. Hine & Steven A. Murphy & Michael Weber & Gregory Kersten, 2009. "The Role of Emotion and Language in Dyadic E-negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 193-211, May.
    7. Gregory E. Kersten & Hsiangchu Lai, 2007. "Negotiation Support and E-negotiation Systems: An Overview," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 553-586, November.
    8. Boris Rumanko & Zuzana Lušňáková & Monika Moravanská & Mária Šajbidorová, 2021. "Succession as a Risk Process in the Survival of a Family Business—Case of Slovakia," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-20, September.
    9. Jennifer D. Parlamis & Ingmar Geiger, 2015. "Mind the Medium: A Qualitative Analysis of Email Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 359-381, March.
    10. Michele Griessmair & Johannes Gettinger, 2020. "Take the Right Turn: The Role of Social Signals and Action–Reaction Sequences in Enacting Turning Points in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 425-459, June.
    11. Pittinsky, Todd L. & Shih, Margaret & Trahan, Amy, 2005. "Identity Cues: Evidence from and for Intra-Individual Perspectives on Stereotyping," Working Paper Series rwp05-010, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    12. Claudio Agostini & Mariel C. Siravegna, 2009. "Efectos de la Exención Tributaria a las Ganancias de Capital en el Precio de las Acciones en Chile," ILADES-UAH Working Papers inv233, Universidad Alberto Hurtado/School of Economics and Business.
    13. Olivier Brossard & Stéphanie Lavigne & Mustafa Erdem Sakinç, 2013. "Ownership structures and R&D in Europe: the good institutional investors, the bad and ugly impatient shareholders," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 22(4), pages 1031-1068, August.
    14. Shirli Kopelman & Ashleigh Shelby Rosette, 2008. "Cultural variation in response to strategic emotions in negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 65-77, January.
    15. Juin-Jen Chang & Ching-Chong Lai & Ping Wang, 2010. "Casino regulations and economic welfare," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 43(3), pages 1058-1085, August.
    16. Johannes Gettinger & Michael Filzmoser & Sabine T. Koeszegi, 2016. "Why can’t we settle again? Analysis of factors that influence agreement prospects in the post-settlement phase," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 86(4), pages 413-440, May.
    17. Sandy Jap & Diana C. Robertson & Ryan Hamilton, 2011. "The Dark Side of Rapport: Agent Misbehavior Face-to-Face and Online," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(9), pages 1610-1622, January.
    18. Van Zant, Alex B. & Kray, Laura J., 2013. ""I Can't Lie to Your Face": Minimal Face-to-Face Interaction Promotes Honestry," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt88f3409v, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    19. Xiaoran Huang & Zheng Qiao & Lei Zhang, 2021. "The real effects of institutional spatial concentration," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 50(4), pages 1113-1167, December.
    20. Kaushal Chari & Manish Agrawal, 2007. "Multi-Issue Automated Negotiations Using Agents," INFORMS Journal on Computing, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 588-595, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:1639. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.