A GENERIC E-NEGOTIATIONS FRAMEWORK: THE DRAWING BOARD IN
ITS SIMPLEST FORM
A framework is like the blueprint of a building that guides the construction of the
remaining details. In social sciences it is a conceptual structure of a social
phenomenon such as entrepreneurship and negotiations to name a few. The more
abstract and generic the framework the more diversity can afford in explaining reality.
It’s like the laws of physics – the simpler the formula the stronger it is or the less
exposed it becomes to external scrutiny.
The truth couldn’t be stronger in negotiations and especially e-negotiations. If one can
consider the width and breadth of what we are negotiating it could include every
single decision we make in our lives. From whether to take one route over another to
save time, to speak or stay silent, to whether we will sign an email with just our first
name or our full affiliation, and finally in our case to closing a business deal—it’s all
about negotiating things we value.
So what can it be more natural than negotiating? A generic framework could help
someone build awareness (as a first step) to how we should approach negotiating with
others. A problem solving approach will take someone through the phases of
intelligence and perception, followed by strategy and communication. This is more or
less the rational approach to solving any kind of problem in sciences and everyday life
(Figure 1). When an issue arises and registers in our senses, the first thing we do is to
organize the various bits of information and correlate them with related pieces in our
memory. Their affinity with our past will help us make sense of what they mean, plan
our actions, and finally implement them. Based on the response we get, we repeat the
process until we finally reach a satisfactory resolution or walk away. We then move to
the next challenge and we go on in life trying to optimize our path. Efficiency and
effectiveness shape our learning and guide our future approaches to problem solving
and negotiations.
Figure 1. Problem Solving Approach in a Systems Perspective
As we act to solve the problem, we transcend the spiral (Figure 2) of intelligence,
perception, strategy, and communication until we reach an agreement or abandon the
negotiation. It goes without saying that the length of each phase is not constant. It is
obvious that we need to spend more time on the intelligence phase at the beginning of
the negotiation when we are not familiar with the issue at hand instead of at the end
when we will have formulated a clear understanding of the issues and the variables
that affect them due to our previous exchanges with our counterparts. Perception
again is one of the phases that we would expect to decrease in time as the interaction
and information exchange moves on, with our counterpart hopefully gaining a better
understanding of the issues and process with time. On the other hand, the
communication phase and, to a lesser degree the strategy phase should be expected to
dominate the negotiation as time goes on. We experience rapid exchanges of
information in order to clarify issues and reach an agreement.
With certain types of negotiation we encounter frequently or with a case with which
we are familiar, we might spend very little time in intelligence, perception, and
strategy and early on go to the communication phase where we will spend most of the
negotiation time (Figure 3). This is a natural and expected move, but we should
occasionally reflect on the suitability of our applied strategies even in routine
negotiations since exceptions might appear that require additional consideration.
Figure 2 Evolution of the Negotiation Pages in Time
Figure 3 Negotiation Dominated by the Communications Phase
The transitions between phases can vary in speed and while sometimes it may appear
that we jump phases, we do actually go through them nevertheless. Even, for
example, when we have all the information in advance, it is unlikely that we will
formulate a strategy unless we reassure ourselves that the facts are the ones we have
and nothing more (meaning we go through to the intelligence phase) and that we
understand and interpret their meaning correctly (meaning we then pass onto the
perception phase). Similarly, it is unlikely that we will communicate something
without first ensuring it is aligned with our intended strategy: having said that, we
should keep in mind that just because we follow such a process, it does not mean that
individual elements are rational. Optimization of skills is a completely different issue
and has to do with our abilities, our experience, and the situation at hand. As one
would have probably figured out by now, nothing is really written in stone.
Understanding, flexibility, and good judgment will help negotiators choose their
approach and strategy specific to the issues they are facing.
The Framework of e-Negotiations
E-negotiations are no exception to the way we traditionally approach them at least
from the perspective of a framework. A major advantage of e-negotiations is the
ability to record every detail of the communication process including intentions,
outcomes, and information exchanged. This can provide a better understanding of the
negotiation process and behavior and allow analysis and evaluation of strategies that
would be impossible in face-to-face negotiation. On the other hand, the resulting time
lag from the asynchronous communication exchange has been shown to make
negotiators pay more attention to the substantive content of messages, and has
lessened the emotional stress brought about by conflicting positions and made it easier
to overcome socioeconomic differences.
Another important aspect of e-negotiations is the reduction of communication cues.
According to the situation or the adopted strategy, this can act as an advantage or
disadvantage. Inability to observe body language, facial expressions, and tone of
voice may assist in focusing on the issue at hand, but it can also lead to
misinterpretation, frustration, and mistrust. Negative emotions seem to be more
influential in online negotiations than in face-to-face situations; but at the same time
the faceless world of online communications appears to allow freedom of expression
that would otherwise be hindered offline. Research seems to indicate that as
individuals become more familiar with the Internet and they use it in their daily
communication, they tend to apply the same values as they do with other
communication mediums. After all, a world is a “world” whether real or virtual since
we function on past experiences that we carry from the physical world.
To convey feelings and emotions online in an attempt to avoid misinterpretation and
get our point across, a form of language in terms of symbols and norms have come
into use through general acceptance: symbols like ‘smileys’ can be used to magnify
and express feelings of text-based information, while switching from lower case to
upper case can be used to emphasize text—an act similar to shouting in the physical
world. Time, data, and location tracking along with direct request and translation
services can further assist in clarifying the content that is being communicated.
Individuals disadvantaged by geographical location, confinement, threats, mobility,
and sight or hearing impairment can now use the Internet to access information and
negotiate on equal terms. The virtual environment nevertheless brings its own unique
hierarchies and “social” structures. The privileged ones can have fast access with
state-of-the-art hardware and software, while the less privileged will be on the other
side of the “digital divide.” Typing speed and fluency with English can also be a
divider in that the fast typists and native speakers can easily keep up in chat rooms
and intense communication exchanges.
The negotiations framework presented before allows the expression of the different
stages with their intrinsic characteristics and peculiarities:
 Intelligence: In online negotiations this stage involves many aspects with
primary the ability to profile a situation, individuals and organizations with
extreme ease providing quality results and strong leverage to efficient users of
medium. The data evaluated when profiling a person online include pictures,
videos, and text they developed or others produced about them. The data
evaluated when profiling a person online include pictures, videos, and text
they developed or others produced about them. Pictures will reveal most of
their genetic characteristics and provide snapshots of their interaction with the
world. Videos will additionally reveal changes of behavior in social settings.
Even looking at a seemingly meaningless video of your subject (attending an
event, for example) can offer valuable clues about your subject’s
psychological and social profile. Profiling organizations is much easier
simply because organizations are legal entities that need to keep public records
of their activities, have identifiable internal structures, and need to interact
with their environment though rules and procedures that are more or less
standard. Having all that information about organizations and combining it
with their past and present policies and actions, we can more precisely predict
their perspective on negotiation issues. With the advent of the Internet,
nowadays it is easier than ever to locate information about organizations,
especially large public and private corporations which store a multitude of
data on the Internet.

Perception: This is a follow-up phase where and critical element in enegotiations primarily because of the lack of visual social cues found in faceto-face negotiations. Perceptions are based on our subjective judgment. They
directly impact the way we communicate, form our strategies, and plan our
actions. Our cultural norms and values, whether familial, social, ethnic, tribal,
religious, or regional serve as our reference point in conducting negotiations.
Perceptions can be seen as transformations of information to knowledge after
it’s filtered through four generalized layers (Figure 4). These layers encase: 1)
inherited personality and intelligence (DNA imprinting); 2) environments
where we grew and matured and that conditioned us to certain beliefs and
values; 3) the society we live in that imposes cultural traits in us; and 4) the
world at large with its global economic, social, and political trends. All these
layers affect the messages we send and receive.
The major activities that penetrate and guide our perspective and being-in the
world is education and the personal experiences which influence personal style
and build intellectual abilities and coping skills throughout our lifetime.
When conducting e-negotiations, perception is primarily affected by lack of
sensory data and especially the visual stimulus we are so much dependent on.
By nature we are creatures that rely heavily on vision since it allows us
parallel processing of information. While the acoustic signals are processed
one at a time, our visual cortex is designed for processing visual signals from
many sources. This is why it is easy to make sense of a picture of a crowd
while it is difficult to make sense of it by listening to everyone speaking
together.
What we lack in information online, we replace with imagination, especially
when it comes to forming perceptions of others. This can range from idealistic
images of our counterparts to cold realism with its illusion of objectiveness.
All interpretations are based on extrapolations of past experiences and
knowledge we acquired in our lives. While this serves as a good first estimate,
the inherent generalization of our assumptions might miss the different reality
that each situation expresses.
Mutual invisibility in e-negotiations can facilitate adversarial, contentious, and
trust-breaking behavior. Denial is stronger when damaging a faceless other,
particularly when we feel protected by a shield of anonymity and physical
distance. This sense of anonymity and distance can lead negotiators to
assumptions that they won’t be accountable for the social characteristics of
their behavior and as a result they can freely engage in aggressive or trustbreaking behavior.

Strategy: E-negotiations offer certain strategic advantages that do not exist in
face-to-face negotiations, like the opportunity for in-depth intelligence and
analysis before initiating the actual communication. They also allow for more
reflection during the process as time in most cases is not of direct influence.
These aspects of present day negotiations, combined with the fact that
negotiation behavior can often be deduced by the strategy used, offer great
opportunities for solutions that can be quite rewarding and lasting.
Effective negotiation requires a coherent framework linking means to ends.
Identifying the fundamental interests and limits of all the parties and assigning
values to them is a very important step. Careful negotiation analysis is also
important to identify possible barriers to agreement, as well as structural
elements that might be optimally rearranged to provide insight and gains
during the negotiation process. All these may additionally reveal important
moral and ethical issues as well.
A progressive shift from a situational to an institutional view of negotiations
may represent a radical change that organizations need to seriously consider in
the “information era” in which we live. This will directly impact how
negotiators conduct themselves and force radical changes in the way they
perceive negotiations. A carefully planned approach with emphasis in
communicating the rationale and benefits of the new approach might be all
that is needed. As long as the overhead created by a formal approach to
negotiators doesn’t overload them, distracts them from their work, or alters
their behavior, radically organizational success in that issue is almost certain.
E-negotiations by their very nature lend themselves to such change in mind
frames since they free organizational resources related to face-to-face
negotiations. In addition, a lot of the formalities that might be required in the
form of reporting might be easier to make since everything is more or less in
some form of documentation already. In the online world it is a lot easier to
provide support to negotiators in the form of case studies and training that the
negotiators can customize to their own individual needs. Based on the personal
and professional “age” of their workforce, organizations should observe a gain
in productivity by institutionalizing negotiations. With more effective and
reactive negotiators, companies will reap the benefits of closer and more
rewarding relationships with suppliers, customers, and their partners.

Communication: In all communication modes and mediums, one should
capitalize on their advantages and be aware of their limitations. The correct
choice and combination of communication modes could be a strategic decision
and dependent on the issue at hand. Our focus here will be on e-negotiation
modes that are frequently used and will be used in the near future like
telephone and teleconference, videoconference and email, while briefly
mentioning science fiction style modes like virtual reality, among others.
The basic communication mediums that we present here facilitate and can
project some form of social cues (empathy). Their main advantage is that they
overcome geographic distance and widely function irrespective of
environmental factors (hot or cold, snow, rain, and so on).
Communication is a vital process in e-negotiations as it is the means by which
we exchange offers and counteroffers along with their supporting material.
The process is effective and complete when the receiver of the message has
understood the meaning the sender intended to convey. It can span distance
and time, cross nations and cultures, and use different mediums for message
transmission. It can involve text, speech and visual representations, and
involve expressions of emotion like body language, facial expressions, and
paralanguage. Negotiation strategies have been identified in the literature
ranging from distributing, avoiding, accommodating, integrating,
compromising, collaborating, and exploiting, to competing, among others.
Naturally, negotiators don’t necessarily belong in exact stereotypes, but the
general rule is that if the spiral doesn’t progress in the intended fashion then
there is something seriously wrong in the negotiation. Competitive negotiators
tend to spend more time in the last phases of positioning and communication
while cooperative ones spend more time in understanding the opponent and
position accordingly.
From the point of view of the suggested framework, the suggested spiral will more
than cover the e-negotiations process while allowing the individual to employ their
own personal style by acting on the time length of each phase. The communication
mediums employed today include teleconferencing, videoconferencing, and webbased communication. It should be taken as a certainty for the future ahead of us that
e-negotiations and the technology supporting them will create new and unique
advantages and disadvantages. The absence of traditional social cues and their
substitution with new forms could lead to more objective evaluations, while also
diffusing identity perceptions and lessening self-awareness. On the other hand,
communicating through the Internet defies logistic boundaries of time, place, and
hierarchy, and allows focused considerations of task content and performance.
Nicholas Harkiolakis has taught international marketing and crosscultural negotiations at the Normandy Business School in France
and he is currently Visiting Fellow at the Brunel
Business School in UK. He recently published “E-Negotiations:
Networking and Cross-Cultural Business Transactions”
(www.e-negotiations.org).
Copyright © 2013 Nicholas Harkiolakis
The Negotiator Magazine August 2013
Copyright © 2013 The Negotiator Magazine