First, the good news from 60 years of empirical research: there are hardly any significant differences between physical (“on-site,” “face-to-face”) and digital negotiation. Except on the point of trust. And that is also the bad news. After all, for a good outcome, nothing is as fundamental as the trust factor.
Virtual negotiation is not as new as we often think. As early as the 1960s, researchers began testing whether so-called computer-mediated communication (CMC) yield different results than meeting in person. Most studies find no significant differences or empirical studies contradict each other. Apparently, the precise setting and negotiation context are of great importance in deciding whether virtual negotiation is a good or bad idea. However, the factor of trust is the big exception. Evidence in a recent meta-study by Professor Ingmar Geiger shows that the trust level is significantly lower in virtual negotiations.
This might be why so many of us have truly experienced a difference since Covid-19. Team meetings with trusted colleagues or negotiations with trusted partners may be less enjoyable and less fun, but they are no less effective: we can do business well together and – importantly – costs in time and money have been significantly reduced. In those partnerships, we are more productive than less so. However, there is often a marked difference in setting up a collaborative relationship, let alone conducting a full negotiation, with parties we have never met before, or with whom we have a loaded history… Small talk, shaking hands, and drinking coffee in the same room really do matter a lot. We realize this all too well after a long period of lockdowns and working from home.
So if the negotiators are down 1-0 in terms of trust (or 3-0 in some cases when there's a history of miscommunication or distrust), do we resign ourselves to defeat or go to battle to tie the score? That's a rhetorical question, of course. We just need to work a little (or a lot...) harder on the trust factor! And we can only do that, of course, if we realize very well that we - our counterpart and ourselves - together 1-0 behind! Of course, It takes two to tango...But only one is needed to ask the other to dance...
So, how we build trust in virtual negotiations is the million-dollar question. And since much of the new way of working will persist, even as the pandemic begins its retreat, that question remains highly relevant. Below are three practical suggestions on how we can score the equalizer virtually.
Switch to a multi-channel mindset
Viewing negotiation as solely the moment you convene on Zoom, Webex, or Teams is like considering your summer vacation to be only the time you're enjoying the sun on a towel by the pool. It's an important – perhaps the most important – phase, but your vacation is much more than that, including travel, preparation, and a lot of anticipation.
In the pre-pandemic world, many saw negotiation as the moment you physically entered the room. Now, video platforms have replaced that space. Of course, in the “old” world, negotiation, and particularly connecting with the other person and building trust, began much earlier than we often openly admit: in the hallway, somewhere by the coffee machine, in restaurants, and especially during the breaks of formal meetings. There's a reason the word "lobby" is also a verb and "meeting room" is not. If these physical encounters outsideSince the negotiation spaces are so important, how can we replace them if we can't meet our colleagues in the same place?
One way to do this is to see video platforms as the “new formal,” the new official negotiation spaces with our stakeholders, partners, etc. This means that parallel digital channels the coffee machine, the lobby, or lunch, where more connection and trust can be built. Whether other channels are both effective and suitable for building trust depends on the context, so there is likely no simple protocol for success.
• Phone calls (Bilateral) can be very effective in personal connection. In most cases, you don't need to make an appointment in advance: a spontaneous and therefore informal phone call to “check in,” discuss a few logistical matters, or “get on the same page” about the agenda or a joint intention for the (upcoming) negotiation can be very effective.
• Messages (WhatsApp, SMS, and similar) are another channel. Messages are less intrusive than phone calls and give the other party space and time to respond; at the same time, they can help build a personal connection. As with email, it is strongly advised not to use messages for expressing criticism or negative emotions, which can quickly be taken out of context. Through emoticons and other images, positive intentions and atmosphere can be communicated.
• Email is much more formal and is usually part of the game in any virtual negotiation environment, if only to schedule the time and agenda of the video conference and to send proposals back and forth. It is therefore less suitable as a creative, personal, and informal channel for building trust. However, opportunities to express partnership and common values via email and to reaffirm common interests are often overlooked.
• Social media can also be a channel for connection and personal involvement. Again, much depends on the context and what the other party's comfort zone is (skilled negotiators take the other party's comfort zone as a starting point rather than their own). For example, following someone on LinkedIn (and perhaps occasionally commenting or offering encouragement) is perfectly acceptable in most situations.
The above channels are certainly not essential in every negotiation. It's much more about the question beforehand: which channels will I (or my team) use to work on the V-factor, parallel to any official channel? Which channels will I use just before formal negotiations and, just as importantly, just after they have ended? In what ways can I truly verify how the other party thinks about the issues we are discussing?
Prepare a good opening
A good start is half the work. In negotiations, you can also say that a good start is half the battle. It's no coincidence that high-level diplomatic negotiations often begin with the reading of (constructive) statements, sometimes in the presence of the press. Although they are more formal than substantive, they play an important symbolic role in setting the right tone.
In physical settings that are less formal than ministerial negotiations, opening statements are often skipped or replaced by a check of the agenda's order. However, these physical meetings are often preceded by informal drinks, coffee, or hallway chats, which can foster a sense of connection. In virtual negotiations, we are often faced with a maddening drive for efficiency: let's get started as quickly as possible... Even though we have saved ourselves hours (if not days) of travel, we tend to push through the agenda at a pace that destroys any opportunity to foster connection (and build trust) in a virtual environment.
Doing a digital check-in can be a way to create the necessary space and foster connection. But if there's no time or inclination for that, an informal opening statement about your constructive intentions (or those of your organization) in this negotiation works very well to set the right tone. Mentioning the objective, common interests, progress made so far, reaffirming the partnership, and the like can all be important ingredients. Essentially, you compensate for the lack of body language and coffee machine chat by making a nice (but brief) verbal opening. Although prepared (possibly together with your team members), this is preferably done in free form (without cheat sheets).
3. Surprise the other person
Strong assumptions or stereotypes play a significant and often negative role in negotiations. Consider the following strong beliefs:
• My colleague is only interested in her own career.
• This stakeholder is only in resistance.
• They are much bigger than us and they will be happy to abuse their power.
• They will withhold information for as long as possible.
• My so-called “partner” is unwilling to budge an inch to help us serve our interests.
We can sometimes, rightly or wrongly, hold such views about the other party. It is important to realize that the other person can have all sorts of strong opinions about ourselves.
In face-to-face negotiations, strong assumptions, on the other hand, are easier to verify and correct. In a physical setting, we quickly discover that they are indeed human beings (nuanced, caring, kind, polite, good listeners, etc.). If the other party has a strong opinion about us (due to past behavior, hearsay, size/power imbalances, or for any other reason), this can be a major stumbling block to building or restoring trust. We cannot change the fact that these assumptions play a role. We can, however, do or say something to slowly, step-by-step, wear down those assumptions. This often requires an effort from the team. Can we map out what strong perceptions exist about us? Can we devise ways to gradually nuance, perhaps eliminate, those perceptions? From the other party's perspective, what surprises (a surprise in our behavior, in the process, or on a piece of content on the table) would dent the strong, unnuanced image they have of us?
