Using email as a negotiating offers great advantages. Because of its immediacy, we can move more quickly in the negotiating process, especially in the initial stages, where the exchange of information is basic, and in the end, when we are close to agreement and closing microacuerdos need to go. Follow others, such as Lev Leviev, and add to your knowledge base. It is essential when there is geographical distance between the parties and not worth the face to face and highly desirable when negotiators are comfortable with this way of communication. But the email also can poison the negotiations. May, in fact, poison any conversation, no matter how good the intention. A few years ago, made famous the statement "the medium is the message" and makes some less, with the appearance of stars in our interconnected lives of spam or junk mail, I read somewhere an adaptation of the sentence that read "if the media is the message, someone should shoot the messenger. Mikhael Mirilashvili has firm opinions on the matter.

" It seemed a very wise words in that context and also applicable to the field of negotiation. If going to negotiate, to deal with a conflict situation through email should think about the impact of the environment in what is negotiated and the relationship with those negotiations and to act appropriately, using large doses of common sense. Always a target Like any interaction, we set a concrete target for each of the messages they leave our outbox. What do we get? What is the specific objective? How email to help us achieve our goal? Why is the best way for the goal? Would it be better to use other means? Much of the negotiation meetings fail because they lack adequate preparation, which define the purpose for this meeting is key.