Using Online Negotiation
Effects on the Alternative Dispute Resolution Industry
As the use of online negotiation grows, organizations need to consider its use in the light of the lessons learned in the field of alternative dispute resolution.
Use and practice of online negotiation can compare to the competitive approach to negotiation. Similarities are style, collaboration and risk. The style of the competitive approach uses positional arguments, knowledge as power and exaggerated information.
As a business, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is seen as highly collaborative and open to exchange of information. Competition between online ADR businesses may force development of the industry towards the opposite case. E-mail presents an increased risk of impasse, allows conflict to degenerate rapidly and there is no time constraint on a response to an offer.
Hallmarks of the competitive approach for negotiating a position are stretching the facts, using knowledge as a source of power and having little concern over future relationships. Use of e-mail puts the facts and positions stated in black and white. Any response is vetted to insure that it will not weaken the overall argument. It is easy to distort the facts and there is no face to face feedback to help gauge the presenter’s sincerity. Placing the negotiating position in type instantly makes the exchange of information more rigid. Positions are recorded permanently and can be used later in the negotiation process. There is no give and take, no clarification of details occurring during the conversation. The release of information is tightly controlled and is not spontaneous.
Online business is highly competitive, investment is substantial and there is an expectation of profit. Big business tries to limit competition by seeking patents, developing trade secrets, building brand loyalty and limiting the exchange of information with competitors. Traditional ADR is a open source process. Information sharing between practitioners happens freely. It is a high collaboration process and has a low level of secrecy. Negotiators enjoy sharing their successes and one mediator’s success helps improve the image of the entire industry.
The Internet as a communications medium presents a set of risks very similar to the competitive approach. These can be rigidity, limited development of alternative solutions, lack of process control, no acknowledgement of mutual benefits, threats to future relations and the increased likelihood of impasse.
The use of e-mail places no time constraint on the response to an offer. Responses can be highly calculated and part of an overall negotiation strategy. Expectations of reciprocity are more rigid. There is no instinct to share information. Information gained by one party could weaken the other’s position. The free flow of ideas and possible solutions is limited. E-mail is very impersonal and can allow conflict to degenerate rapidly. Participants in e-mail discussion lists have all seen flame wars develop. Without face-to-face contact, competitors are more apt to haggle at a point and have no need to maintain interpersonal relations. Since there is no face-to-face feedback, it is difficult to determine the veracity of data presented. Information may be altered or distorted and its source obscured. Competitive negotiation has a high risk of impasse. It is negotiation for position and not necessarily a desired outcome or solution. E-mail fosters many of these same traits and will have a high rate of impasse if both parties are not sensitive to its limitations. The use of e-mail as a negotiating tool can be valuable if both parties in the discussion share a concern for the overall relationship. A well-placed telephone call can make a great deal of difference in success of the discussion.
Internet based ADR has a chance evolve into a useful service. The addition of audio and video streaming will improve feedback. The cost to seek ADR will be much lower and could reduce the number of disputes that end up in court. Since the Internet is borderless, maintenance of professional standards will be a problem. The need for strong professional organization is warranted.
