Talk, don’t email: Difference between revisions

{{A|negotiation|{{image|Onworld and Offworld Comms|png|A quadrant, yesterday. I’m no happier about it that you are, believe me.}}}}Some time in the last decade, we lost the art — the ''joy'' — of the spontaneous two-way conversation. We eschewed it for the transmission of electronic letters, flung like percussive grenades between barricaded trenches. If we talk at all, we do so by pre-arrangement, in formal, minuted, stage-managed, all-hands conferences.  

This is a shame.  

If process efficiency is your goal — if, like me, you’ve recently discovered the [[Toyota Production System]] and can’t stop thinking about it, if you are all about eliminating [[waste]] and {{wasteprov|waiting}} time, consider the difference between '''emailing''' the guy in [[credit]] with your question, and waiting 24 hours for him 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 [[calling]] the guy up and asking him there and then?

In the first case there is so much {{wasteprov|waiting}}: the time it takes to compose that [[email]], setting out the issue clearly, the pros and cons and the desired outcome. Then the {{wasteprov|waiting}}. The wondering. The nervousness. The stress. The heart flutters, as you neurotically pick petals off the daisy. Has he read it? Will he soon? Does he even ''care''? Should I maybe send a follow-up [[email]]? Will I seem ''needy''?

(It will ''never'' occur to a [[negotiator]] to call. This may be because systematic juniorisation of the [[negotiation]] function means the negotiators do not have the experience and expertise to talk fluently on their subject matter, and are therefore ''afraid'' to call — and ironically their counterparts, similarly juniorised, will be afraid to pick up.)

===External negotiation===

''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.

===Communication as an [[infinite game]]===