While it may seem obvious that how negotiators communicate is as important as what they have to say, research has examined different aspects of how people communicate in negotiation. We address three aspects related to the “how” of communication: the characteristics of language that communicators use, the use of nonverbal communication in negotiation, and the selection of a communication channel for sending and receiving messages. 

Characteristics of Language

In negotiation, language operates at two levels: the logical level (for proposals or offers) and the pragmatic level (semantics, syntax, and style). The meaning conveyed by a proposition or statement is a combination of one logical surface message and several pragmatic (i.e., hinted or inferred) messages. In other words, it is not only what is said and how it is said that matters but also what additional, veiled, or subsurface information is intended, conveyed, or perceived in reception. By way of illustration, consider threats. We often react not only to the substance of a threatening statement but also (and frequently more strongly) to its unspoken messages that might imply something about the likelihood that the threat will be carried out or about our relationship or our prospects for working together in the future. Threats, which on the surface seem straightforward enough as negotiation gambits intended to compel the other party to make a concession, are actually complex and nuanced when analyzed in terms of the specific elements of language used within them.

Whether the intent is to command and compel, sell, persuade, or gain commitment, how parties communicate in negotiation would seem to depend on the ability of the speaker to encode thoughts properly, as well as on the ability of the listener to understand and decode the intended message(s). In addition, negotiators’ use of idioms or colloquialisms is often problematic, especially in cross-cultural negotiations. The meaning conveyed might be clear to the speaker but confusing to the listener (e.g., “I’m willing to stay until the last dog is hung” a statement of positive commitment on the part of some regional Americans, but confusing at best to those with different cultural backgrounds, even within the United States). Even if the meaning is clear, the choice of a word or metaphor may convey a lack of sensitivity or create a sense of exclusion, as is often done when men relate strategic business concerns by using sports metaphors (“Well, it’s fourth down and goal to go; this is no time to drop the ball”). Because people generally aren’t aware of the potential for such miscommunication. with someone from their own culture, they are less well prepared to deal with such miscommunication than they would be if the person were from a different culture.

Finally, a negotiator’s choice of words may not only signal a position but also shape and predict the conversation that ensues. Researcher Tony Simons examined linguistic patterns of communication in negotiation; two of his findings are relevant here:

1. Parties whose statements communicated interests in both the substance of the negotiation (things) and the relationship with the other party achieved better, more integrative solutions than parties whose statements were concerned solely with either substance or relationship.

2. Linguistic patterns early in the negotiation help define issues in ways that may help the parties discover integrative possibilities later on.