(95%) major essay - final

Jesse Kahler s2799588

Major Essay – GTechnica Negotiation 3001EHR – Negotiation

Word Count: 1,648 (non-inclusive of front or rear content)

Question: Are email negotiations more complicated than face-to-face

negotiations? Do email negotiations lead to better outcomes? Why or why not?

Tutor: Ben French

Kahler s2799588 2 | P a g e

Introduction

Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) has become an increasingly influential and

utilised method of communicating and negotiating in modern society (Derks, Fischer & Bos

2008; Geiger & Parlamis 2014). Understanding the strengths and limitations of CMC,

particularly Email-based negotiations, is pivotal for ensuring the most effective method of

negotiation is utilised when seeking the best outcomes to a negoiation. This essay argues

that though Email-based negotiations may be more complicated and have a greater range of

issues (seen within the literature) than face-to-face (FtF) negotiations, they can result in

equally desirable outcomes. Firstly, this essay analyses literature pertaining to the use

strengths and weaknesses of CMC methods for negotiations. Secondly, an analysis of my own

personal experiences in Email-based and FfF negotations is undertaken, comparing my

experiences to the literature analysed in the first section of this essay. Lastly, this essay will

conclude that although FtF interactions are often viewed within the literature as the preferred

method of negotiating, CMC based negotiations result in equally desirable outcomes.

Negotiations via Email – Theoretical

Negotiation is defined as “a process where two parties with differences which they need to

resolve are trying to reach agreement through exploring for options and exchanging offers –

and an agreement.” (Fells 2009, p. 3). An emerging method of undertaking negotiations is

within Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). Walther (1992, p. 52) defined CMC as

synchronous or asynchronous electronic, text-based communication where messages are

sent from computers to recievers. Furthermore, CMC mediums which allow for this exchange

of information can include Email (asynchronous) and instant messaging (synchronous) (Derks,


Fischer & Bos 2008; Johnson, Cooper & Chin 2009). From Kiesler and Sproull (1992, p. 97) and

Adrianson (2001, p. 71) it has been identified that Email is the most common form of

electronic based communication within todays society. In particular, Email has become an

increasingly popularised medium in which negotiations take place (Baltes et al. 2002, p. 174;

Johnson & Cooper 2009, p. 147; Volkema, Fleck & Hofmeister 2011, p. 299; Parlamis & Geiger

2015, p. 360).

Strengths of CMC/Email: Emergence in technological communication (CMC) has allowed for

the alleviation of physical, social and psychological boundaries, as well as allow for more equal

involvement of group members within a negotiation context (Kiesler & Sproull 1992, p. 96).

On this, Lea and Spears (1991, p. 284) and Walther (1996, p. 7) also identified that the lack of

personalisation from CMC methods (e.g. Email-based negotiations) allows for equal

participation of members as the importance of status and power is not relevant, allowing for

better outcomes. Additionally, Baltes et al. (2002, p. 156) recognised that decrease of costs,

increased access to information, and ease of exchange of information (e.g. documents,

databases) are positives which are likely to result by utilising CMC. Yang (2012, p. 28) also

acknowledged that negotiations which take place over email allow for the better structure of

responses. Additionally, though it is seen prominently within the literature (below) that FtF

interactions offer a range of positives for negotiations, they do not always yeild the best

outcomes, as in some instances low-tech forms of CMC (e.g. Email) can result in valuable

outcomes (Wainfan & Davis 2004, p. xv). Thus, Email has been identified as one of the best

methods of CMC for undertaking simple tasks (Parlamis & Geiger 2015, p. 360).

Weaknesses of CMC/Email: An analysis of literature pertaining to CMC and Email-based

negotiations identified undesirable outcomes and behaviours often result (Parlamis & Geiger


2015, p. 360). The problems of CMC and Email-based negotiations within the literature can

be attributed to issues of time, efficiency, social influences, trust, and deception.

Consequently, face-to-face (FtF) communication is often identified as the preferred method

for negotiating.

Time/Efficiency Issues: Kiesler and Sproull (1992, p. 96) identified that the use of CMC

methods, compared to FtF communications, can result in delays in decision making,

aggressive behaviour and interactions (known as ‘flaming’), and risky propositions.

Similarly, Baltes et al. 2002 (p. 156) also acknowledged that CMC methods can

increase time needed to make decisions, resulting in decreased effectiveness,

efficiency, and satisfaction from members involved as opposed to those utilising FtF

interactions. Adrianson (2001, p.72) also noted FtF as being far more productive due

to the issues of efficiency which arise from using CMC techniques.

Social Based Issues: Yang (2012, p. 27) determined that interactions and negotiations

which occur over Email can be seen as highly impersonal. Similarly, Thurlow, Lengel

and Tomic (2004, p. 50) identified Email as a poor (also known as ‘lean’) type of media,

as it cannot convey the emotional depth that a FtF interaction can allow for. Thus, FtF

interactions are further viewed as the superior medium for interactions between

parties (Thurlow, Lengel & Tomic 2004, p. 50). Johnson, Cooper and Chin (2009, p.

660) made note that involvement of CMC in negotiations can make obtaining an

agreement and desireable outcomes more difficult; ergo, opposing the defined aim of

negotiating altogether.

Trust/Deception Issues: Geiger and Parlamis (2014, p. 67) discerned that in

comparison to FtF, CMC negotiations can have less trust, reduced chance of


undertaking future negotiations with the other party, lessened ability to achieve good

outcomes for both parties (integrative solutions), and enhanced difficulty in

establishing relationships. More specifically, Email-based negotations may likely face

issues of deception, trust and rapport building, more aggressive interactions and

behaviour between parties involved (Parlamis & Geiger 2015, p. 360). Pak and Zhou

(2014) further recognised deception a key issue downfall to CMC negotiations,

acknowledging that it can significantly impact group decision making and the overall

effectiveness of CMC for personal and business uses.

Derks, Fischer and Bos (2008) concluded that negotiations using CMC methods were more

difficult than FtF. Additionally, Yang (2012, p. 25) further concluded that FtF interactions are

the best method for achieving desired outcomes in negotiations. Thus, within the literature,

it is seen prominently that FtF is the more effective and efficient method of negotiation.

However, my personal experiences undertaking CMC and FtF negotiations prompted me to

challenge these findings.

Negotiations via Email – Practical

Within a small portion of the literature it is seen that FtF and CMC methods may achieve

similar outcomes, regardless of their strengths and weaknesses. Moore et al. (1999, p. 40)

identified that there are no significant differences in resultant outcomes of negotiations,

whether face-to-face or Email-based. More specifically, each negotiation method is likely to

obtain the same outcomes for pivotal elements of the negotiation, such as the final price of

an agreement (Galin, Gross & Gosalker 2007, p. 794). After reflecting on my experiences

undertaking FtF and CMC negotiations (below), I have found that my experiences resonate

with these findings, as in both cases a desireable outcome was achieved.


GTechnica Exercise (Email based negotiation):

Result: $30/unit for 15,000 units (see Appendix 2).

Experience: After completing the Email-based negotiation, I found myself relating to

the findings of Musa et al. (2015, p. 151), as compared to my FtF experiences, CMC

negotiations resulted in the saving of time and energy to obtain an agreement.

Moreover, the results determined by Volkema, Fleck and Hofmeister (2011) and Yang

(2012 p. 25) were further replicated in my experience, as implementing an integrative

approach via CMC resulted in a more successful outcome than I have experienced

using FtF interactions. Acknowledgements similar to Lea and Spears (1991, p. 287)

were evident within my experience also, as the inherent characteristics of CMC

allowed for the negotiation to be focused on the content of the messages, rather than

the social context (e.g. social status etc.). However, social-based factors did play a

pivotal role, as the high level of cooperativeness between my male partner and I was

likely due to a shared incentive of achieving the best outcome, as found within Katz et

al. (2008, p. 516). Unlike the findings made within Kiesler and Sproull (1992, p. 96),

however, I did not experience aggressive behaviour (flaming). Morris et al. (2002, p.

99) recognised that a relationship-building phone call to the opposing party before an

Email negotiation can significantly help the overall outcome. On a similar notion, it

may be hypothesised that having existing relationships and a shared sense of

comradeship with members of my class helped in achieving a good outcome for this

exercise. Moreover, additional issues of CMC negotiations identified within the

literature of time, efficiency, social influences, trust, and deception were not

encountered within my experiences, likely due to the simple nature of the negotiation


exercise. Nonetheless, the exercise resulted in a positive outcome which was

acceptable as per the requirements of the task.

Journey to Antipodes Exercise (group based face-to-face negotiation):

Result: 100,000 units at 15% commission

Experience: It was also seen within this negotiation that cooperation levels were high

as the group was comprised of males and there was an incentive to achieve the best

outcome possible, as seen within Katz et al. (2008, p. 516). Additionally, like that found

within Katz et al. (2008, p. 517), behaviour within the negotiation was influenced by

pyschological aspects, as competitveness and cooperativeness were shared traits

amongst the group. However, one member had a more agressive approach to obtain

the outcome, As such, there was not an equal involvement of group members within

this FtF based negotiation, unlike that identified within the literature and from my

personal experiences of CMC negotiations (Lea & Spears 1991; Kiesler & Sproull 1992;

Walther 1996). However, a good outcome still resulted, predominantly due to the

ease of building relationships within the the face-to-face negotiation.

Conclusion:

This paper has argued that FtF and CMC negotiations can both result in good outcomes. This

is because, despite a myriad of literature identifying issues of time, efficiency, social

influences, trust, and deception in CMC negotiations, none were encountered within my

personal experiences. Furthermore, from a small portion of literature and the two

experiences reflected upon within this essay, it was demonstrated that though it is more


difficult to do so by way of CMC interactions, FtF and CMC negotiations can both lead to

successful outcomes.


References

Adrianson, L. 2001, ‘Gender and computer-mediated communication: group processes in

problem solving’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 71 – 94.

Baltes, B. B., Dickson, M. W., Sherman, M. P., Bauer, C. C. & LaGanke, J. S. 2002, ‘Computer-

Mediated Communication and Group Decision Making: A Meta-Analysis’,

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 156 – 179.

Derks, D., Fischer, A. H. & Bos, A. E. R. 2008, ‘The role of emotion in computer-mediated

communication: A review’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 766 –

785.

Fells, R. 2009, Effective Negotiation: From Research to Results, Cambridge University Press,

Port Melbourne, Victoria.

Galin, A., Gross, M. & Gosalker, G. 2007, ‘E-negotiation versus face-to-face negotiation what

has changed – if anything?’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 787 –

797.

Geiger, I. & Parlamis, J. 2014, ‘Is there more to email negotiation than email? The role of

email affinity’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 32, pp. 67 – 78.

Johnson, N. A. & Cooper, R. B. 2009, ‘Power and Concession in Computer-Mediated

Negotiations: An Examination of First Offers’, MIS Quarterly, vol. 33, pp. 147 – 170.

Johnson, N. A., Cooper, R. B. & Chin, W. W. 2009, ‘Anger and flaming in computer-mediated

negotiation among strangers’, Decision Support Systems, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 660 – 672.

Katz, R., Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Manisterski, E. & Kraus, S. 2008, ‘Different orientations of

males and females in computer-mediated negotiations’, Computers in Human

Behavior, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 516 – 534.

Kiesler, S. & Sproull, L. 1992, ‘Group decision making and communication technology’,

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 96 – 123.

Lea, M. & Spears, R. 1991, ‘Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group

decision-making’, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 283

– 301.

Kahler s2799588 10 | P a g e

Moore, D. A., Kurtzberg, T. R., Thompson, L. L. & Morris, M. W. 1999, ‘ Long and Short

Routes to Success in Electronically Mediated Negotiations: Group Affiliations and

Good Vibrations’, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 77, no.

1, pp. 22 – 43.

Morris, M., Nadler, J., Kurtzberg, T. & Thompson, L. 2002, ‘Schmooze or Lose: Social friction

and Lubrication in E-Mail Negotiations’, Group Dynamics, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 89 – 100.

Musa, F., Mohamed, M., Mufti, N., Latiff, R. A. & Amin, M. M. 2015, ‘Incorporating

Computer-Mediated Communication in Project Work’, International Education Studies,

vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 150 – 157.

Pak, J. & Zhou, L. 2014, ‘Social structural behavior of deception in computer-mediated

communication’, Decision Support Systems, vol. 63, pp. 95 – 103.

Parlamis, J. D. & Geiger, I. 2015, ‘Mind the Medium: A Qualitative Analysis of Email

Negotiation’, Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 359 – 381.

Thurlow, C., Lengel, L. & Tomic, A. 2004, Computer Mediated Communication, Sage

Publications, London, England.

Volkema, R. J., Fleck, D. & Hofmeister, A. 2011, ‘Getting Off on the Right Foot: The Effects of

Initial Email Messages on Negotiation Process and Outcome’, IEEE Transactions on

Professional Communication, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 299 – 313.

Walther, J. B. 1992, ‘Interpersonal Effects in Computer-Mediated Interaction: A Relational

Perspective’, Communication Research, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 52 – 90.

Walther, J. B. 1996, ‘Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal, and

Hyperpersonal Interaction’, Communication Research, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 3 – 43.

Wainfan, L. & Davis, P. 2004, Challenges in virtual collaboration: videoconferencing,

audioconferencing and computer-mediated communications, RAND, Santa Monica,

California, United States of America.

Yang, G. 2012, ‘Analyzing Computer Mediated Buyer-Seller Negotiations: An Application of

Social Presence Theory’, International Journal of Marketing and Business

Communication, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 25 – 34.

Kahler s2799588 11 | P a g e

Appendix 1 - Reflections

GTechnica Negotiation: I found the GTechnica negotiation quite enjoyable. I found it was a

good way to undertake my first negotiation as I was new to the class and did not know

many of the basics and content outlined within this course. It was helpful to be arranged in

pairs with someone who I had created a rapport with. I found the negotiation quite easy and

relaxed, which is often not what is identified within the literature for a CMC based

negotiation. However, this was likely due to the simplicity of the task, as the medium of E-

mail can be extremely effective in non-complex negotiations. Moreover, the negotiation

may have been easier and quicker due to both parties of the negotiation being determined

to finish the exercise early. From this exercise I got an insight as to why CMC negotiation

methods are becoming increasingly popular, as it was time and energy effecient and it did

not allow for social based factors to influence the outcome (e.g. introvertedness etc.).

Journey to Antipodes Negotiation: The Journey to Antipodes negotiation was also an

enjoyable exercise. However, there was a great frustration when trying to achieve the goal

of the exercise due to the other party continually ignoring offers set forward by the party I

was involved in. Additionally, one group member had a greater input in the negotiation than

myself and the last group member which resulted in an unequal involvement. This may have

actually limited the ability of achieving a good outcome for our party. Overall, what I learnt

from the exercise that you should not come into a negotiation with pre-determined bias

based on what you have heard about the other party.

Kahler s2799588 12 | P a g e

Appendix 2 – GTechnica negotiation exercise (Email exchange)

Note: Text highlighted in grey are communications to the other party from myself

On 7 September 2015 at 19:13, <[email protected]> wrote:

To whom it may concern,

We are glad that you are willing to consider undertaking our business proposition for your GT7

Processors. We are a company supplying the AMPro50 Accelerators and we are looking to continue

our supply by sourcing your GT7 Processors. AccelMedia would like an indicative price per unit for

GTechnica’s GT7 Processors for 18,000 units.

We look forward to doing business with you.

Accelmedia - Director of Component Sourcing

Jesse Kahler

Sent: Monday, 7 September 2015 7:43 PM

To: [email protected]

Hi Jesse,

How've you been? It was nice to meet you at the Trade Fair recently. I can see that there would be a

great mutual benefit from working together.

I spoke to a few different clients at the Trade Fair, and noticed that there was a lot of enthusiasm

about the new product and market growth.

In regards to your request, I am sure we can be of assistance. Our products is currently being offered

to other clients at $37.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Sharon

Kahler s2799588 13 | P a g e


Hello Sharon,

After consulting with our Financial Directors and Marketing Analysts we have concluded that there is

no scope for AccelMedia to agree to your proposed $37/unit for 18,000 units. However, after a cost-

benefit analysis and a strong consultation with our team, we are willing to offer you $28/unit for

18,000 units. How do you feel about this offer?

Regards,


Jesse Kahler



Hi Jesse,

Thank you for your offer and the input from your team.

Due to high demand we can only offer 15,000 units at present. However, regardless of this the price

is too low for our production, we would be happy to meet half way at $34 per unit.

Kind regards,

Sharon


Hi Sharon,

We are very thankful for your counter offer and your consideration.

We understand that you are seeking the highest price for your GT7 Processors due to high demand,

as you mentioned. However, after further consultation with our AccelMedia Executive Team we

have come to the conclusion that we are only able to offer you $30/unit for the 15,000 units you are

willing to supply.

We are hoping that you may look upon our offer favourably.

Regards,

Kahler s2799588 14 | P a g e


Jesse Kahler



Hi Jesse,

Thank you for the offer. We accept your counter offer of $30 per unit for 15,000 units.

Kind regards,

Sharon

mailto:[email protected]

(95%) major essay - final

Documents