Negotiate With Men Via Email (and Women Face-to-Face)

Should you negotiate via face-to-face or email?

Face-to-face builds more rapport, and it promotes more clarity because of the nonverbal cues (Drolet & Morris, 1999; DePaulo & Friedman 1998). Some studies argue that it’s more effective than email negotiations (Valley, Moag, & Bazerman, 1998).

However, other studies found the opposite: Email was better. Negotiators can leave an email thread more easily, so the parties are more motivated to reach an agreement (Hatta, Ohbuchi, & Fukuno 2007; Croson, 1999).

So, which is better?

Surprisingly, it depends on gender (Swab & Swab, 2008). Face-to-face has more tension and arousal, so people resort to their instinctive gender roles:

• Women are caring and communicative.
• Men are dominant and aggressive.

Negotiating with men? Reduce their urge to show dominance by removing nonverbal cues from the conversation — negotiate via email or phone. At the very least, minimize eye contact in person.

Do the opposite for females: Increase nonverbal cues.

• Croson, R. T. (1999). Look at me when you say that: An electronic negotiation simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 30(1), 23-37.
• Depaulo, B. M., & Friedman, H. S. (1998). Nonverbal communication. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 3–40). McGraw-Hill.
• Drolet, A. L., & Morris, M. W. (2000). Rapport in conflict resolution: Accounting for how face-to-face contact fosters mutual cooperation in mixed-motive conflicts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36(1), 26-50.
• Hatta, T., Ohbuchi, K. I., & Fukuno, M. (2007). An experimental study on the effects of exitability and correctability on electronic negotiation. Negotiation Journal, 23(3), 283- 305.
• Swaab, R. I., & Swaab, D. F. (2009). Sex differences in the effects of visual contact and eye contact in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(1), 129-136.
• Valley, K. L., Moag, J., & Bazerman, M. H. (1998). A matter of trust’: Effects of communication on the efficiency and distribution of outcomes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 34(2), 211-238.