Hong Kong Has Thrived Because of the Rule of Law

Hong Kong is a great international commercial and financial center because of the rule of law. Similar to the United States, Hong Kong has benefited from the development of the common law and the rule of law created by centuries of conflicts and political agreements mostly occurring in England.

Except for a period in World War II, Britain controlled Hong Kong from 1841 until 1997. In 1984 China and Briton agreed to Sino-British Joint Declaration known as “one country, two systems.” In the exchange, China agreed that until 2047, Hong Kong will maintain a free-market economy and its legal systems. Essential was continuing with the common law legal system based on English laws and an independent judiciary. In 1997, England returned control of Hong Kong to China and it became a Special Administrative Region of China.

Prior to relinquishing power, the last British Governor of Hong Kong said, “The rule of law, if preserved, will ensure that Hong Kong continues to attract international business and investment and to hold its own entrepreneurial citizens here. This is a community largely made up of refugees from China – you don’t have to explain to those citizens the difference between having and not having the rule of law. The alternative to the rule of law can easily become Hobbesian, it can become the law of the jungle.”

Recently, Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam put forward legislation to extradite people from Hong Kong to courts in mainland China. Knowing extradition violates the agreement to have an independent judiciary and would be used to silence political opponents, 3000 Hong Kong lawyers march in black attire and in silence against the extradition legislation. Subsequently, more than two million people have protested – mostly peacefully.

Remember the Governor’s insight, “This is a community largely made up of refugees from China – you don’t have to explain to those citizens the difference between having and not having the rule of law.”

The extradition law has been postponed, but not abandoned. Obviously, Xi Jinping has the military power to crush the protesters. A knowledgeable observer, Dominic Carman concludes, “Beijing seems unlikely to give way for long, and it will eventually pass in some form. The rule of law in Hong Kong, which underpins its international financial status, would, therefore, be dealt a mortal blow. What that will mean for international business and investment is hard to predict with forecasts ranging from severely damaging to catastrophic.”

People and countries of the world must join the protest against this flagrant break of the legally binding Sino-British Joint Declaration and the destruction of the rule of law. Most effective would be to stop purchasing products produced in China.

Image result for ORDER NOW IMAGES

Regulatory Action Center Review – August 23, 2019

Welcome to FreedomWorks Foundation’s sixteenth regulatory review of 2019! Our Regulatory Action Center proudly updates you with our favorite tidbits from the swamp. We want to smash barriers between bureaucracy and the American people by delivering regulatory news straight to FreedomWorks activists. Check back in two weeks for the next edition.

1) Video of the Week: Leftist would have you believe that President Trump’s deregulatory agenda has caused any number of horrible calamities to befall the United States. Yet, as a direct result of cutting the red tape, business in America is booming like never before. In this week’s video, John Stossel sits down with Grover Norquist from Americans for Tax Reform to discuss how deregulation has helped the environment, the economy, and all American citizens.

2) Trump’s Record as a Regulator: “Republicans often talk deregulation but then add rules. People called President George W. Bush an “anti-regulator.” But once he was president, he hired 90,000 new regulators! Trump has been different. When he took office, he hired regulation skeptics. He told government agencies: Get rid of two regulations for every new one you add.”

Trump’s Record as a Regulator

3) DHS cyber agency to prioritize election security, Chinese threats: “The Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) plans to prioritize election security, cybersecurity at federal agencies, and the “persistent threat” posed by China, among its many goals.The agency laid out its key priorities in a new “strategic intent” document released on Thursday, which CISA Director Christopher Krebs described in the introduction as the “keystone” for the agency.”

4) New FDA cigarette labels include realistic images of smoking-related health problems: “The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday proposed long-delayed graphic health warnings for cigarette packages, taking a step toward fulfilling a requirement of a decade-old smoking prevention law. The new warning label proposal will now be subject to a public comment period, and is under a court-ordered deadline to be finalized by March 15, 2020.”

5) Trump admin aims to finally END catch-and-release in game-changing regulation: “The entire mass migration to our border and all its cascading ill effects can be traced to one thing: the Flores settlement’s expansion from children to family units by a single district judge. Flores is not a constitutional provision, a statute, or even a court ruling. It is a court settlement, designed as a temporary arrangement, that actually runs contrary to statute and has been used as a catalyst to undermine every bedrock law of sovereignty. After a full year of dithering, the Trump administration is finally using its unquestionable power to modify the settlement to finally end catch-and-release.”

Trump admin aims to finally END catch-and-release in game-changing regulation

6) Americans divided on regulation for big tech firms: Gallup: “Americans are divided over government regulation of big tech firms, according to a Gallup poll released Wednesday, as concerns grow over users’ privacy and whether tech giants have formed monopolies. Forty-eight percent of survey respondents said the government should boost its regulation of technology companies like Amazon, Facebook and Google, while 40 percent said regulation of these firms shouldn’t change. Ten percent said the companies should face less oversight.”

7) On deregulation, Walker’s Wisconsin showed the way: “The Institute for Reforming Government recently issued its second policy paper, highlighting many of the regulatory reforms that Walker and legislators implemented, including the Wisconsin version of the federal REINS Act. Wisconsin’s reforms were helpful in cutting red tape and easing the burden of regulations on businesses like mine so that they could provide more jobs for Wisconsin families. Walker and the legislature also worked to reduce government waste, fraud and abuse through the lean government initiative. According to RealClearPolitics, it “eliminated 400 unneeded bureaucratic steps in state regulatory agencies, saved nearly 80,000 staff hours, reduced regulatory backlogs by an average of 54% and saved $1.6 million.”

Image result for ORDER NOW IMAGES

An Unpaid Tax Bill for Our Children

It has been about four years since I have blogged. One of my last blogs was about excessive government spending. Since the blog continued excessive spending has increased the federal debt and is putting an immoral unpaid tax bill on American children and grandchildren.

The late great Milton Friedman explains the evils of excessive spending: “Keep your eye on one thing and one thing only: how much government is spending, because that’s the true tax … If you’re not paying for it in the form of explicit taxes, you’re paying for it indirectly in the form of inflation or in the form of borrowing. The thing you should keep your eye on is what government spends …”

Recently, an editorial by Issues & Insights – “It’s the Spending Stupid” – shows that entitlement programs – healthcare and Social Security are major contributors to America’s debt. “[T]wo-thirds of the entire increase in spending is due to…three items in the budget: health care spending (Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare), Social Security, and interest payments on the debt,” the editorial notes. “In other words, it’s entitlement spending – and more specifically, health care spending – that is driving up the deficit, not tax cuts.”

Unfortunately, almost every Democrat running for president in 2020 wants “free” Medicare for all. Some want Medicare for illegal aliens. Additionally, many Democrats want free college, to expand other entitlements, and other costly new programs. The problem is that politicians used entitlements to please present-day voters – buying votes – and stick the debt to future generations. This is morally reprehensible and has been conducted by both political parties for too many years

Only a very strong law will restrain the power craving politicians. Fortunately, there is a nascent attempt in Congress as noted by FreedomWorks’ Adam Brandon: “Switzerland successfully employed the debt brake in the early 2000s. The Swiss plan caps government spending increases at trendline revenue increase levels. In this way, the government will never grow faster than the private sector — nor should it.”

“Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, and Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., have introduced the Maximizing America’s Prosperity (MAP) Act to address the United States’ $22 trillion national debt,” he explains. “The Brady-Braun plan is a close variation on the Swiss idea. It caps spending based on potential GDP, an economic statistic that measures sustainable GDP growth over the long term.”

Alas, only a law restricting spending will stop the politician’s constant crave for power at the expense of future generations.

Image result for ORDER NOW IMAGES

Removing the Last Remnants of the Free Market from Medicare

Created in 2003 as part of the Medicare Modernization Act, Part D of Medicare was designed to provide financial aid for prescription medication purchases of Medicare beneficiaries. As of 2018, 43 million people receive prescription drug coverage under Part D; 58% of those are on a stand-alone prescription drug plan, as opposed to the Medicare Advantage plans that provide supplementary coverage. Though is is open to all Americans who receive Part A and/or Part B benefits, Part D is an entirely optional program.

Though the efficacy of Medicare, and Part D in particular, are the subject of fierce debate, the limited successes that Part D has seen have almost certainly been due to the market-based mechanics that drive the list-price negotiations.

Unfortunately, these market based mechanisms have recently come under attack from the Senate Finance Committee. In a recent press release, Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) introduced the chairman’s mark of the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act (PDPRA). Citing a need for “accountability” in the prescription drug marketplace, the PDPRA would set a cap on list prices for drugs covered under Part D.

In essence, the PDPRA is yet another proposed price control for prescription drugs. Under the new system, the federal government would place a cap on each prescription drug based on what they, in their ivory tower, believe the price should be. Then, after setting prices by fiat, the government would then force companies to index their price increases to an inflation factor like the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. Should the list price increase faster than inflation, the manufacturer would be forced to pay a rebate penalty to the government.

There is obviously an abundance of issues with this proposal. First and foremost is that the PDPRA would put the manufacturer entirely on the hook for price increases. The goal of this proposal is to reduce list prices. Yet, it chooses to target manufacturers; the people who have the least control over list prices. Manufacturers are far more concerned with raw material costs and wholesale prices than front end pricing. Forcing them to solely foot the bill for a system that is flawed on all sides is inherently unfair to the manufacturers.

This focus on the manufacturers rather than the entire system also creates major issues for the negotiation process. As anyone who has ever negotiated anything knows, it is against your interest to enter negotiations when the price has effectively already been set for you. Manufacturers would inevitably be left to foot the bill. Since the other parties of list-price negotiations already know that the manufacturer will be the only one punished for defecting, insurers and pharmacies would likely force manufacturers to bear the majority of the cost of price fixing.

The PDPRA would subsequently result in a decrease in innovation, since the manufacturers are the ones who invest the capital needed to research and develop new forms of medication. Since the government would maintain a tight grip on pharmaceuticals, it would become increasingly difficult for companies to justify massive expenditures on development without being able to determine the price-point at which they might recoup their investment. In tying the hands of manufacturers to negotiate prices, the federal government would also be hindering the massive innovative power of the American pharmaceutical industry.

The idea of capping prescription drug prices is quite popular with seniors, and thus quite popular among politicians. Yet, such a perception of the PDPRA ignores what economist Henry Hazlitt highlights in Economics in One Lesson; principally that good policymaking “consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.” Implementing a price-control system for Medicare Part D might be of miniscule benefit to those who already have three-fourths of their prescription drug costs paid by the taxpayers. Yet, doing so would have a devastating effect on the pharmaceutical industry that would counterproductively result in higher prescription drug costs. If the taxpayers are to be forced into subsidizing prescription drug costs, then we should at least maintain the last vestiges of the free-market in Part D.

Image result for ORDER NOW IMAGES

How to Manage Conflict at Work

Sooner or later, almost all of us will find ourselves trying to cope with how to manage conflict at work. At the office, we may struggle to work through high-pressure situations with people with whom we have little in common. We need a special set of strategies to calm tempers, restore order, and meet each side’s interests.
The following three strategies will help you learn how to manage conflict at work.

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

1. Put formal systems in place.
Conflict in the workplace often arises when resentment, anger, and other negative emotions are left to fester. An accidental slight can lead into a full-blown dispute if the parties involved fail to address it explicitly. As a consequence, workplace conflict is often managed one dispute at a time, an approach that is inefficient and costly.
In recent years, organizations seeking to determine how to manage conflict at work increasingly have recognized the benefits of putting in place a formalized system for addressing conflict in the workplace. In an article in the Negotiation Briefings newsletter, Harvard Law School professors Frank E. A. Sander and Robert C. Bordone recommend that organizations engage in dispute system design—the process of diagnosing, designing, implementing, and evaluating an effective method of resolving conflicts in an organization. Those with basic experience with dispute-resolution processes such as negotiation, mediation, and arbitration, should be able to help their organization establish a dispute-resolution process.
One of the main goals of dispute system design, or DSD, should be to support low-cost, less invasive approaches to managing workplace conflict before moving on to more costly, riskier approaches. For example, an organization might encourage or require employees in conflict to engage in mediation before moving on to an arbitration hearing. In addition, write Sander and Bordone, employees should be able to tap into the dispute-resolution process at different points throughout the organization—for example, through their supervisor, an HR staff member, or some other leader—lest they avoid the system due to distrust of one person in particular.
Setting up a dispute system can be a complex process, but it will almost inevitably promote a more efficient means of managing workplace conflict than a case-by-case approach.
2. Promote better feedback.
Workplace conflict often arises because co-workers have difficulty giving one another effective feedback, or any feedback at all. When we fail to let people know how they can improve, our frustration grows as their mistakes mount. Similarly, if we give unconstructive feedback—feedback that is vague, very negative, or too personal—we can create destructive workplace conflict.
We need to learn to give more effective feedback and teach others in our organization to deliver meaningful and useful feedback as well. People who give good feedback ask questions, stay positive, give details, and describe how the situation makes them feel, writes Program on Negotiation managing director Susan Hackley in Negotiation Briefings. Leaders also need to make it easy for people to raise concerns.
In their 2014 book Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well, Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen offer advice on accepting feedback in a constructive manner—even when the feedback isn’t delivered constructively. We all need to learn to identify personal triggers that cause us to take perceived criticism personally, for example.
3. Focus on the problem, not the people.
When deciding how to manage conflict at work, try to focus on the problem rather than the personalities involved, recommends Hackley. Because conflict tends to promote competition and antagonism, you should strive to frame the situation in a positive light. For example, focus on the potential benefits to the organization if you are able to resolve the workplace conflict rather than on the potential negatives if you have difficulty doing so.
In addition, when dealing with conflict at work, remember that people tend to view conflicts quite differently, based on their individual perspective. Our perceptions of what went wrong tend to be self-serving. With each person believing he or she is “right” and the other person is “wrong,” it’s no wonder conflicts often fester in organizations.
For this reason, it’s crucial to start off your workplace conflict resolution efforts by taking a joint problem-solving approach. Ask open-ended questions and test your assumptions, advises Hackley. Make sure that each party has ample time to express his or her views without interruption.
When figuring out how to manage conflict at work, we need to remember the importance of exploring the deeper interests underlying the other party’s positions. When you listen closely, you will go a long way toward building trust and resolving difficult situations.
Does your organization have a formal process for resolving workplace disputes?

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

The post How to Manage Conflict at Work appeared first on PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.


FreedomWorks Statement in Response to CBO Projection of $1 Trillion Budget Gap by 2020

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In response to the release today of the updated Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that projects the United States’ budget gap to exceed $1 trillion in 2020, two years sooner than expected, Jason Pye, FreedomWorks Vice President of Legislative Affairs, commented:

“Coming on the heels of last month’s horrendously irresponsible budget deal, which was agreed to by Republican leadership, these CBO projections are unwelcome news for the United States’ fiscal sustainability. By the CBO’s updated projections, the budget deficit is set to hit more than $1 trillion two years sooner than expected. The spending-to-GDP ratio is set to rise nearly as high as it was during the 2009 recession. This will have catastrophic consequences for the United States economy when the debt crisis hits, as interest rates rise and private investment is crowded out.

“Seeing as every budget deal since 2013 has failed to get the United States’ fiscal house in order, Congress will likely keep its head in the sand. But something must be done soon, and that means taking a hard look at mandatory spending, the root cause of the United States’ fiscal woes. Without comprehensive entitlement reform and a willingness by both parties to rein in out of control spending, economic uncertainty is right around the corner, as indicated by today’s updated CBO projections.”

Image result for ORDER NOW IMAGES

Teaching Real Estate Negotiation: How to Identify and Create Value

How do you teach your students to identify and create value in real estate negotiations? 
Real estate negotiation can be difficult for both the buyer and the seller. Teaching real estate negotiation can involve value creation, distributive bargaining, as well as issue linkages. It is important for both buyers, sellers, and agents to identify ways to make an offer in a negotiation a win-win. That is, what can be offered that is easy for one party to give, but very valuable for the other party to receive? Teaching students to identify and create value in real estate negotiations can make a valuable difference in getting a win-win agreement.
The Teaching Negotiation Resource Center (TNRC) has developed a wide variety of negotiation simulations designed to teach real estate negotiation. Three of the TNRC’s best simulations for negotiating real estate are 67 Fishpond Lane, Bullard Houses, Bradford Development, and Hong Kong Property Deal. You can also discover step-by-step techniques for avoiding common business negotiation pitfalls when you download a copy of the FREE special report, Business Negotiation Strategies: How to Negotiate Better Business Deals, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.
67 Fishpond Lane – Featured Simulation
This two-party, two hour, distributive and potentially integrative negotiation is between principals over the sale of a house. 67 Fish Pond Lane in Cambridge, MA was purchased five years ago for $95,000 by two lawyers. Since then, its value has at least doubled. The owners, expecting to stay for some time, kept the house in excellent condition and added several unique features, including an elegant high-tech aviary for exotic birds. The owners recently moved to California, however, and the house has been on the market for a month. Two graduating business school students are interested in purchasing the house. One or both of them plan to meet with one or both of the owners while the latter are in town for a few days to see if a sale can be arranged. Major lessons include:

The tendency to haggle is strong, and a variety of bargaining tactics can be used. Review can explore which tactics are effective under what circumstances, and why.
Many important concerns and legitimate criteria in the case are intangible and/or difficult to measure. This raises the question of how arguments can persuasively be turned into numbers.
Comparison of results also raises questions about what techniques, attitudes and tactics produce more competition and/or animosity? How does amicability correlate with pareto optimality of results?
A variety of questions are raised concerning the concept of BATNA. How does a party’s perception of its BATNA affect conduct in the negotiation? How should it? How can BATNAs be improved? When is it ethical to try to change the other side’s BATNA for the worse? When not? What are some ways of doing that?

Download a Teacher’s Package today.
Bullard Houses – Featured Simulation
This two hour, two-party, multi-issue real estate negotiation is between representatives of Downtown Realty, Inc. and Absentia, Ltd. Downtown Realty, Inc. owns the historic Bullard Houses, a set of 51 attached brownstones in the city of Gotham. The Houses, occupied for decades by the city’s wealthy elite, have fallen into disrepair and are currently occupied only by a few low-income families. Downtown Realty is eager to sell this property, and Absentia is confident it has an appealing offer. Watch this free video of the simulation in action:

Major lessons include:

Appraising your BATNA.
Confidentiality: under what circumstances, if any, can the attorney reveal information, and what other ways are there to avoid suspicion?
Information assessment: during the negotiations, while much information cannot be revealed, what can has important, probably unforeseen, but not obvious implications for the other side.

Download a Teacher’s Package today.
Bradford Development – Featured Simulation
This two hour, two-party, single-issue distributive negotiation is over a linkage payment that a developer must make to a city government. Bradford, an old New England industrial city, is experiencing an economic boom. The city has recently adopted a ‘linkage agreement’ policy, requiring developers to make once-off payments to the city to offset infrastructure and housing costs. Curry Corporation (‘Curry’) is the first developer to propose a major project under the new administration. After meeting with all the appropriate municipal agencies and citizen groups, the only major issue left unresolved in the proposed project is the appropriate size of the linkage payment that Curry should make to the city. Major lessons include:

Pre-negotiation analysis should include a realistic appraisal of one’s BATNA.
Distributive bargaining divides up a fixed pie, and is therefore inherently constant-sum. One party’s gain is another party’s loss.
Each party should explore the interests of the other side before making an offer. Making an offer before exploring the other side’s interests could anchor the bidding too high or too low, thereby minimizing one’s own potential gains.
When the negotiating parties are involved in an ongoing relationship, it is rarely (if ever) prudent to lie or misrepresent one’s interests.

Download a Teacher’s Package today.
Hong Kong Property Deal – Featured Simulation
This one hour, two-party, integrative negotiation is between a property owner and a neighboring business over the sale of two real estate parcels. The simulation is set in Hong Kong in 1996, just before the British returned Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China. The Hong Kong Property Deal is a simple two-party negotiation that appears to have a single distributive issue (price), but contains several hidden issues that offer integrative opportunities. Major lessons include:

Bargaining range (both positive and negative bargaining range); (ZOPA).
First offers in a distributive negotiation: how and when to present a first offer.
Gathering information to determine the other party’s intentions and goals.
Managing information about our own intentions and goals.
Introduction to integrative strategy.

Download a Teacher’s Package today.
Take your training to the next level with the TNRC
The Teaching Negotiation Resource Center (TNRC) offers a wide range of effective teaching materials, including

Over 250 role-play simulations
Critical case studies
Enlightening periodicals
More than 30 videos
100-plus books

Most TNRC materials are designed for educational purposes— for use in college classrooms or corporate training settings. TNRC cases and exercises help mediators and facilitators introduce their clients to a process or issue and help individuals who want to enhance their negotiation skills and knowledge.
Role-play simulations introduce participants to new negotiation and dispute resolution tools, techniques and strategies. Videos are also a helpful way of introducing viewers to key concepts, and TNRC books, case studies, and periodicals address the theory and practice of negotiation and conflict management.
Check out all that the TNRC has in store >> 
The post Teaching Real Estate Negotiation: How to Identify and Create Value appeared first on PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.


Professional Negotiators: Give Texts a Chance

Do you negotiate via text? If you’re a young person early in your career, your answer may be an emphatic yes. If you’re a little older, maybe you answered no. Even so, if you took a closer look at the saved text messages on your smartphone, you might find you’ve recently negotiated the division of chores with a family member, texted with a stranger about the sale of a used car or other item, or messaged a colleague about swapping shifts or responsibilities.
Whether or not we like it, texting is an increasingly common tool for professional negotiators. In a chapter in the book The Negotiator’s Desk Reference, Vol. 2 (DRI Press, 2017), Creighton University professor Noam Ebner encourages professional negotiators to view texting not as a sign of society’s decreased formality and civility but as one of many examples of negotiation techniques that can improve the efficiency and outcomes of negotiations.

Build powerful negotiation skills and become a better dealmaker and leader. Download our FREE special report, Negotiation Skills: Negotiation Strategies and Negotiation Techniques to Help You Become a Better Negotiator, from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

The Hidden Richness of Texting
Texting originated in the instant-messaging programs and chat rooms of the mid-1990s, eventually migrating from computers to mobile phones in the early 2000s. In parts of the world where cellular service is spotty or unavailable, Internet-based messaging apps such as WhatsApp are replacing SMS (short message service) messages as the main form of text communication, writes Ebner.
Like e-mails, texts lack the visual and vocal cues of other communication modes, such as in-person meetings and phone calls. When we don’t have body language, tone of voice, eye contact, and other cues to rely on to help us “read” others, we can have trouble building rapport, and misunderstandings and conflict can become more likely.
Texts also tend to be a highly informal means of communicating. The hassle of typing on a small screen and potential for errors encourage succinct messages that lack the conventions of e-mails and other written correspondence, including salutations and sign-offs. As a result, texts seem abrupt and impolite to some.
Yet texting can be an effective negotiation tool for professional negotiators. It offers the ability to reach out instantaneously across the miles regarding logistics, ideas, or offers when a phone call might be impossible or disruptive. People who are shy or conflict averse may find they can assert themselves better in texts than in person. And young people, who tend to text frequently, report feeling more comfortable expressing their emotions through texts as compared to other media, research by Jennifer Crosswhite of the National Council on Family Relations and her colleagues shows. Texting also allows for both fast and slow communication: We can carry out a text conversation synchronously, like a phone call, or take time to think between messages.
Integrating Texts into Your Negotiations
It’s usually wise for professional negotiators to launch talks with one or more face-to-face meetings. Or you might start with phone calls or videoconferences before adding texts and e-mails to the mix, as visual and vocal cues will enhance rapport right from the start. If you feel like texting, the following three guidelines from Ebner will help improve your negotiation skills and strategies via text:

Proofread your messages. One advantage of texting—the ability to dash off messages on the run—results in one of its frequent pitfalls: misspellings and embarrassing autocorrect errors. Before hitting “send,” make it a policy to review every message for mistakes and to double-check that it’s going to the right person.


Don’t take offense. Text abbreviations (LOL, SMH, BRB, etc.), emojis, incomplete sentences, and slang can leave older professional negotiators, in particular, wondering what the business world is coming to. Ebner’s advice: “Do not infer disrespect, inappropriateness, unprofessional behavior, or uncouth behavior” from a counterpart’s informal texts. If you’re uncomfortable with certain conventions of texting, address the issue directly or ask to combine texting with other negotiation tools and techniques.


Give them the benefit of the doubt. A similar guideline applies to long delays between text messages and messages that seem curt. Rather than taking offense, consider that your counterpart may be typing under the table at a meeting or unable to text at all. You might avoid the negativity that can be triggered by aspects of texting by agreeing with your counterpart to let each other know when you need some time to respond at length.

Do you believe professional negotiators should add texting to their toolbox of business negotiation strategies? Why or why not?
The post Professional Negotiators: Give Texts a Chance appeared first on PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.