Talk, don’t email: Difference between revisions

The [[JC]] feels we have either lost something important — if there must be a negotiation, then it should keep alive that spirit of Erroll Flynn — or put in something stupid — if the oracular art of negotiation,as a [[commitment signal]] is ''not'' important and all that is required is mechanical onboarding, this process of discovery by dial twisting is just ''[[waste]]'': we should long since have solved this problem and mechanised the process altogether.  

Of course, we are in a dun netherworld between the two states: we don’t have the fortitude to set our controls at a point where clients will just accept them, and clients in any case rather like being shown the attention of a joust.  

===On [[swordcraft]]===

Here, some [[swordcraft]] comes in handy. It is hard to practice swordcraft by the exchange of letters.

But if process efficiency is your goal — and the goal of [[Juniorisation|juniorising]] and the [[Playbook|playbookification]] of negotiation is, without question, process efficiency —  then this tendency is [[Sod’s law]] at work. Consider the difference between '''emailing''' the [[credit]] officer with your question, and waiting 24 hours for her to pick it up, think about it, and send you an elliptical reply (as likely as not kicking off a [[circle of escalation]]) — it never quite answers the question you had first time, does it? — or just [[calling]] her up and asking her there and then?

In the first case, there is so much {{wasteprov|waiting}}: the time it takes to compose that [[email]], describe your problem, outline the arguments for and against and your suggested outcome.<ref>This is the perfect means of escalation. Few are as well-formed as this.</ref> Then the {{wasteprov|waiting}}. The ''wondering''. The nervousness. The stress. The heart flutters, as you pick petals off the daisy. Has she read it? Will she soon? Does she even ''care''? Should I maybe send a follow-up [[email]]? Will I seem ''needy''?  

''Three'': You both understood the transaction, but there is perfidy afoot. The other side is trying to sneak points past you wholesale. </blockquote>''The overwhelming odds are that it is one of the first two''. Remember [[Hanlon’s razor]]: Do not attribute to ''malice'' things that can just as well be explained by ''stupidity''. There is plenty of stupidity: consider how little ''you'' know, and extrapolate it. Everyone is bluffing.

So, give the benefit of the doubt. ''Call and ask what’s going on''. You will quickly resolve any misunderstandings, and identify that yes, indeed, there has been some ghastly mistake. All can be restored without all-nighters pulled or drafts exchanged. Even if you it can’t be explained by stupidity, calling still the best strategy. You will know soon enough if your counterparty is a rogue.  

That call you will save you, your counterpart and your respective clients hours of time, expense and needless legal clerkship.

But, alack: at once the difficulty of asserting one’s [[legal value]] reveals itself. For if you do call and thereby avert that cost, time and inconvenience, who will notice? Who will ''appreciate'' how you stilled the night-time dogs, before they had a chance to bark? A paid advisor has little incentive to put in that call. She may be fearful of displaying her own ignorance (should it turn out to be scenario ''one''). If it turns out to be scenario ''two'', she simply spares her opponent’s blushes. Where is the fun in that? Correcting basic errors is one of the unalloyed joys of commercial practice.