Negotiations chap008 ethics in negotiation

Questions of Ethical Conduct that Arise in Negotiation • Using ethically ambiguous tactics: It’s mostly all about the truth • Identifying ethically ambiguous tactics and attitudes towa

Ethics in Negotiation

McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2011 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc All rights reserved.

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

Resolving Moral Problems

Questions of Ethical Conduct

that Arise in Negotiation

• Using ethically ambiguous tactics: It’s

(mostly) all about the truth

• Identifying ethically ambiguous tactics and

attitudes toward their use

– What ethically ambiguous tactics are there?

– Is it all right to use ethically ambiguous tactics?

Questions of Ethical Conduct

that Arise in Negotiation

• Deception by omission versus commission

– Omission – failing to disclose information that

would benefit the other

– Commission – actually lying about the

common-value issue

• The decision to use ethically ambiguous

tactics: A model

Model of Deception in Negotiation

Why Use Deceptive Tactics?

Motives and Consequences

• The power motive

– The 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 other’s expected motivation would be

more competitive

The Consequences of Unethical Conduct

A negotiator who employs an unethical tactic

will experience positive or negative

consequences The consequences are based on:

• Effectiveness – whether the tactic is effective

• Reactions of others – how the other person,

constituencies, and audiences evaluate the tactic

• Reactions of self – how the negotiator evaluates the tactic, feels about using the tactic

Explanations and Justifications

The primary purpose of explanations and

justifications is:

– To rationalize, explain, or excuse the

behavior

– To verbalize some good, legitimate

reason why this tactic was necessary

Rationalizations for Unethical Conduct

• The tactic was unavoidable

• The tactic was harmless

• The tactic will help to avoid negative consequences

• The tactic will produce good consequences, or the

tactic is altruistically motivated

• “They had it coming,” or “They deserve it,” or “I’m just getting my due”

Rationalizations for Unethical Conduct

• “They were going to do it anyway, so I will do it

first”

• “He started it”

• The tactic is fair or appropriate to the situation

How Can Negotiators 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