Chapter 8: Ethics in negotiation

Chapter 8: Ethics in negotiation

In this chapter authors explored the question of whether there are or should be accepted ethical standards for behavior in negotiation. Ethics are broadly applied social standards for what is right or wrong in a particular situation or a process for setting those standards. Ethics proceed from particular philosophies, which purport to (a) define the nature of the world in which we live and (b) prescribe rules for living together.  The authors present a model to help explain how a negotiator decides whether to employ one or more deceptive tactics. Deception and disguise may take several forms in negotiation as follows: misrepresentation of one’s position to another party, bluffing, falsification (introduction of factually erroneous information), deception (collection of true and/or untrue arguments that leads the other party to the wrong conclusion) and selective disclosure or misrepresentation to constituencies. The authors predicted that (1) when motivated to be competitive and when expecting the other to be competitive the negotiator would see the marginally ethical tactics as appropriate and (2) when both parties were competitively motivated they would exhibit the greatest tendency to employ marginally ethical tactics. From the negotiator’s perspective the primary motivation to use a deceptive tactic is to gain a temporary power advantage.  Using these tactics then produces consequences: the tactic may work (produce desired results) or not work; people evaluate their own use of the tactics( asking themselves if they were satisfied with the results, and if using the tactic was personally acceptable) and people also may receive evaluative comments from the other negotiator from constituencies and from audiences. Those evaluative comments may serve to increase or decrease the use of similar tactics in the future. If using the tactic allows negotiators to attain rewarding outcomes that would be unavailable to them if they behaved ethically and if the unethical conduct is not punished by others the frequency of unethical conduct is likely to increase because the negotiator believes he or she can get away with it. Negotiators frequently overlook the fact that although unethical or expedient tactics may get them what they want in the short run these same tactics typically lead to diminished effectiveness in the long term. (Consequences of these tactics on the negotiator’s reputation and trustworthiness, other party retaliation and revenge)

If negotiators think the other party is using deceptive tactics he/she can do the following acts: Ask probing questions and recognize the tactic.

Question

1. How can negotiation deal with the other party’s use of deception?

·        Ask probing questions

·        Phrase questions in different ways

·        Force the other party to lie or back off

·        Test the other party

·        “Call” the tactic

·        Ignore the tactic

·        Discuss what you see and offer to help the other party change to more honest behaviors

·        Respond in kind

2. Why use deceptive tactics motives and consequences?

·        The power motive

- Purpose of using ethically ambiguous negotiating tactics is to increase the negotiator’s power in the bargaining environment

·        Other motives to behave unethically

- Negotiators are more likely to see ethically ambiguous tactics as appropriate if they anticipate that the others expected motivation would be more competitive

3. What do we mean by Ethics and why do they matter in negotiation?

Ethics:

·        Are broadly applied social standards for what is right or wrong in a particular situation, or a process for setting those standards

·        Grow out of particular philosophies which

- Define the nature of the world in which we live

- Prescribe rules for living together