NEGOTIATION: ONLINE OR IN-PERSON - an update on the science of negotiation

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. 

Arthur C. Clarke 

Introduction and focus of the essay 

It was during the Covid-19 pandemic that my negotiating consulting work, including that in online dispute resolution (ODR) and dispute systems design (DSD), really came face to face with this intriguing question: what brings the best results in elite negotiations: in-person or online negotiations? In time, the question of hybrid approaches was added to the debate. Given my background in legal and conflict management negotiations I initially leaned very strongly in the direction of in-person negotiations, and my mantra was “In-person always, unless it really could not be avoided, then online”. 

But these last five years have brought a range of experiences, debates and, as we will see, some excellent cases studies to the questions on the table. For those of us who are prepared to sit with the question, there is much benefit to be had in allowing the nuances and distinctions we are about to discuss to permeate our work, and to become the new way of approaching this series of questions. 

My article then seeks to update you on the best of the latest case studies and papers, and for us to evaluate the latest information in order to try and answer the questions I raised in the first paragraph. I will keep the actual references as light as possible in the article itself, with a more detailed resource and authorities list at the end of the article, and readers are, as always, invited to contact me directly if any additional information about these sources and studies is needed. I will also expand on the topic in more detail in my next book, which will be on the convergence of power flowing from a combination of negotiation and conflict management during diplomatic and business negotiation. 

Negotiation and other concepts 

As this article is directed at the more advanced negotiator, I am assuming a certain level of knowledge and comfort in working with the basic building blocks of high-level negotiation, and I do not intend adding to your reading load by including any definitions. Hopefully, we are all on the same page in the concepts I am using throughout. I am purposefully aiming the discussion at the advanced end of the negotiating scale, as that is where these small margins, these seemingly trivial or academic questions, make so much of a difference in the results we bring home. 

The case for in-person negotiation 

Here most of the arguments are well-known. In-person negotiation is personal, it allows us to use direct, physical techniques to influence and persuade, we can work on the relationship involved in a personal manner, and that personal magic can open doors that a Zoom screen does not know about. Small but important nonverbal clues can be given or received, trust is easier built or rebuilt, communication just seems to flow easier. And no-one has to shout “You’re on mute!!” Physiological, psychological and other reasons just make the personal, human touch seems like the best tool in the art of negotiation. 

The case for online negotiation 

Online negotiation is convenient, it connects people that may not be able to attend in-person negotiations, and in-person nonverbal clues can be made in other ways. Online is modern, its saves time and costs, and it is the superior form of negotiation. Or so the story goes. 

The case for hybrid negotiations 

Complex negotiations are best concluded by a hybrid approach, with some negotiations done in-person, and some online. It saves time and costs, and obtains the benefits of both the alternatives. It allows for a distinction to be made between various phases in such negotiations, which can then be assigned to online or in-person negotiations. It has become a rather popular compromise argument, and we will test that popularity later on in our discussion. 

What the science tells us 

Most of the earlier studies here leaned towards a qualified in-person preference, with a few exclusions and differentiations. And then things got complicated. Thankfully. Let us have a look at some of the best of these recent studies, without much comment at first, and then draw our conclusions and a practical framework when we have done so. I only refer to what I regard as the most important studies, those that establishes or support the conclusions we will consider later on, and while there is really a lot more to consider, the reliable studies all arrive at these conclusions. 

Scott Walker, in a 2024 paper for Harvard Business Review, started us off on a high note when he highlighted eight negotiating tools (emotional labelling, pauses etc.) that can be adapted and used across these three modalities, which was of course aimed at negating, as much as possible, the differences between the platforms. The study also, importantly, concludes that a specific hybrid approach where initial online work is done, and then concluded with in-person contact and continued negotiation, yielded 30% faster resolution than purely online negotiations. 

Also in 2024, the folks at Harvard Law School’s PON conducted a study showing how a hybrid approach confirmed that online negotiation was most effectively used for the streamlining of terms and process, but that in-person was best used for trust-based concessions. This study shows the power of hybrid methodology in balancing efficiency (online) with rapport (in-person). 

While not specifically focused on our enquiry into different modalities, I find the paper by Ayesha Zahid and Shazia Nauman (2024) to be of practical value to our enquiry, where they tested the effects of the negotiation environment on conflict outcomes, and found that the online environment reduced incivility by 10% (due to formality of process), showing also that digital platforms can curb emotional escalation. I want to return to this type of result in our conclusion below. 

But what about real world experiences? 

Sceptical about those case studies? Let’s look at a few case studies that involve actual negotiations in environments where our questions were tested. The Walker study used actual kidnapping cases, so we can certainly add that as confirmation of its findings in the real world. The PON case studies made use of actual data from the Microsoft/Nokia negotiations during that timeframe. Even if we only focus on 2024, we will find the Boeing machinist strike involving 33 000 workers over a period of seven week most effectively used in-person negotiation, Google’s antitrust disputes made most effective use of online negotiations, and the Paramount-Skydance merger and Amazon’s investment negotiations in Anthropic made most effective use of hybrid negotiations.  

So hybrid it is then, right?   

In my own work I have noticed a tendency these last few months to drift towards hybrid solutions, but I sense that this is more a case of compromise and a reluctance to get involved in what is a rather complex, but crucially important strategic consideration, than it is based on the merits after due consideration. So, on this question, the answer is “Not so fast, my friend”. Let us then get to the practical side of the debate, where we can distil the various studies (those I selected here, and a few others) into a framework that you and your negotiating teams can start working with. This changes the art of negotiation more into the science of negotiation, obviously with a bit of art thrown in. 

Assessment and conclusion 

As much as this survey of the state of the art may tempt us into complacency, into a sense of having reached the end of the debate, I would think that such a sense would be premature. As valuable as the survey is, I still get the sense of so many unanswered questions, especially when we start looking at some of these findings through the lens of advanced conflict, which is really what high-end negotiations are. For instance, what is the role of specific identity conflicts, face saving considerations and perceptions of procedural fairness on the studies that we considered? What stage of differentiation have the negotiations tested for reached, and what was the stage of ripeness for resolution that was involved in the various case studies, if these considerations were tested for consistently or at all? 

What role does the specifics of an in-person negotiation play in these test results, when we start looking at factors such gender, the specific venue, the workplace culture of the company tested and so on? How, if at all, do these readings change if it is not a negotiation but mediation that is being assessed, when we have a mediator involved, when the process changes meaningfully? What role does the in-person personality of some of our protagonists play in these results? Do we want emotional escalation to be curbed, as in the Zahid study above? Does this not aid the negotiation side of the equation but harm the relationship and conflict side thereof? Conflict management is clear about the dangers of unwarranted compromise and the suppression of emotions. 

Experience itself will raise, and answer, a few further intriguing and yet very practical negotiation questions in this debate. If a person is non-confrontational by nature, or as a result of experience with your company, would they not prefer an online option? Do we notice how leaving the decision up to the other parties fails to really answer the question for that specific negotiation? Is there a generational influence in the specific question, for instance, does the age of the negotiation party(ies) play a role? 

Much work clearly remains to be done, and our conclusions here should be held lightly, at least until these and other real world questions have been answered by further comprehensive testing. With those caveats in mind, I would suggest that the current state of the art would allow us to work with the following framework, and here I want to split the answer into (a) a focus on the modality itself, and (b) a focus more on our negotiating goals, in order for you to be able to decide what tool is needed for what job. 

(A) Modality Focus 

(i) In-person: 

This works best for trust-dependent, high stakes negotiations, where enduring relationships and specific emotional issues are, or may come into play. Of course, this option can be expensive, time-consuming and it may limit access for certain parties. 

(ii)Online: 

Best for data-heavy negotiations, efficiency or routine negotiations. It suits the globally dispersed negotiating team, but may miss nonverbal cues, and may be deficient in building rapport. 

(iii) Hybrid: 

This brings flexibility and, if well-managed, the best of both the other two options. It works best in complex negotiations where distinct stages can be identified or created. Needless to say, options A(i) and (ii) require top-class equipment and technological resources, as well as training for involved negotiators. The case studies fall apart if you cannot make optimal use of the technology.

(B)Negotiating Goal Focus 

(i) For trust, nuance and sensitive relationship issues: optimize in-person negotiation 

(ii) For speed, scale and efficiency: online 

(iii)For complex negotiations that occur over a sufficient period of time, and that can be conceptualized in various stages: use a hybrid approach, ensuring that the requisite protocols and training are in place. 

The bad news then, is that there is no quick and easy one-size-fits-all answer to this fascinating, and practical, question. The good news tells us that we have an increasingly valuable body of work that can guide us in our decisions and work, and that we should continue to value and work with localized integrated, nuanced information, experience and knowledge in order to choose the right tool for each and every job. These studies and resultant best practices should feature in your negotiating coaching / training programs, with some urgency, and these insights deserve some prominence in general strategizing important negotiation projects, including where relevant, internal processes and best practices. 

The sub-field, often filed under this debate, of the efficiency and risks of negotiation via email should stand over for another day, you can just maybe keep an eye on that if much of that happens in your organization. It has its own minefields and maps. 

All the best with your strategic choices and negotiations. 

Summary of main sources, references and suggested reading 

1. Walker, S. (2024); “Negotiate like a Pro: The Level-Five Mindset in Digital and Physical Spaces, available in the March-April 2024 issue of HBR 

2. Harvard Law School’s Program on Negotiation (2024), Teach by Example: Microsoft-Nokia Deal, available online at PON Case Studies 

3. Zahid, A and Nauman, S. (2024): Does Workplace Incivility Spur Deviant Behaviours, available at (PDF) Does workplace incivility spur deviant behaviors: roles of interpersonal conflict and organizational climate 

4. Dangerous Magic: essays on conflict resolution in South Africa, by Andre Vlok, Paradigm Media (2022), especially Chapters 5, 8 and 9.   

5. Relevant articles for your general negotiation and conflict work, and their source material, can be found at www.conflict-conversations.co.za

• Full references, further reading material, courses, coaching, study material, workshops / seminars, mediation and representation are available on request.
• A summary of Andre Vlok’s cv / bio can be accessed at https://www.conflict-conversations.co.za/conversations/2025-online-curriculum-vitae-andre-vlok

(Andre Vlok can be contacted at andre@conflict1.co.za for any further information.) (c) Andre Vlok April 2025