ETHICS IN NEGOTIATION
In business negotiations, when is lying acceptable? To what extent should a negotiator withhold or exaggerate information? According to Anne Burr, there is a line fine between ethical and unethical tactics in negotiations.Exsisting law generally provides that the duty of good faith apply to the performance and enforcement of agreement not negotiations. The unscrupulous negotiators might take this as a license to behave unethically during negotiation. For as long as such behaviour is not out-and-out fraudulent; Burr however, argue that there is such a thing as a “reputation effort “and that a bad reputation ultimately deleterious.1 There is a fundamental question of ethical conduct which arises in every negotiation, but let’s examines what ethics in negotiations entails first.
Ethics are broadly applied social standards for what is right or wrong in a particular situation, or a process for setting those standards. They differ from morals which are individual and personal belief about what is right and wrong. Ethics grow out of particular philosophy, which purport to:
A. Define the nature of the world in ethic we live
B. And, prescribe rules for living together.
Different philosophies adopt distinct perspectives on these questions, which means in practice that they may to lead different judgement about what is right and wrong in given situation. The” hard work “of ethics in practice is figuring out how ethical philosophies differ to one and other, deciding which approaches are personally preferable, and applying them to real-world situations at hand. Our goal is to distinguish among different criteria’s or standards, of judging and evaluating a negotiator‘s actions, particularly when questions of ethics might be involved. Although negotiation is our focus, the criteria involved are really no different than what might be used to evaluate ethics in business generally. An ethical dilemma exist for a negotiators when possible actions or strategies put the potential economic benefits of doing a deals in a conflict with one’s social obligations to other involved parties or one’s broader community.
Most of the ethics issues in negotiations are concern with standard of truth telling—how honest, candid, and disclosing a negotiator should be. The attention here is more on what negotiators say, or what they say they will do, than on what they actually do. Some negotiators may cheat (violate formal and informal rules) or steal (break into the others parties database to secure confidential documents, but most of the attention in negotiators ethics has been on lying behaviour. Most negotiators would probably place a high value on a reputation for being truthful. Thus certain questions arise with regards to ethical conduct in negotiations; and these include:
Why do some negotiators choose to use a tactics that may be unethical?
Why you as the negotiators might use the same tactics?
What does being truthful mean?
Do you follow a clear set of rules?
Are deviations lies?
How does one define and classify deviations from the truth?
Is business bluffing ethical?
Questions and debate regarding the ethical standards for truth telling in negotiation are ongoing. As we pointed out earlier when we discussed interdependence, negotiation is based on information dependence—the exchange of information regarding the true preferences and priorities of the other negotiator.2arriving at a clear, precise, effective negotiated agreement depends on the willingness of the other patties to share accurate information about their own preference, priorities, and interests. At the same time, because negotiators may want to maximize their self-interests, they may want to disclose as little as possible about their positions. The dilemma of honesty in negotiation is that a negotiator who tells the other party all of his exact requirements and limits will, inevitably, never do better than his walk-away points.Sustainning the bargaining relationship means choosing a middle course between complete openness and complete deception.3however,as regards the subject of truth telling in negotiation, there is, beyond ethics, the matter of legal obligations to be truthful. Deception in negotiation can rise to the level of legality actionable fraud. The law on this subject is complex and often hard to pin down.4
In the preceding pages we discussed what ethics is and the fundamentals questions that arise concerning proper conduct in negotiations. Now we will turn discussions with regards to categories of marginally ethical negotiating tactics, why the use of deceptive tactics?Motives and consequences.
CATEGORIES OF MARGINALLY ETHICAL NEGOTIATING TACTICS
Traditional competitive
Emotional manipulation
Misrepresentation
Misrepresentation to opponent’s networks
Inappropriate information gathering
Bluffing
WHY DECEPTIVE TACTICS? MOTIVES AND CONSEQUENCES
Let’s start this discussion with motives, and motives inevitably begin with power. The purpose of using ethically ambiguous negotiating tactics is to increase the negotiator’s power in the bargaining environment.However; information is a major source of leverage in negotiation. Information has power because negotiation is intended to be a rational activity involving the exchange of information and the persuasive use of that information. One view of negotiation is that it is primarily an exchange of facts, arguments, and logic between two wholly rational information-processing entities.Often, whoever has better information, or uses it more persuasively, stands to “win” the negotiation. In fact, it has been demonstrated that individuals are more willing to use deceptive tactics when the other party is perceived to be uninformed or unknowledgeable about the situation under negotiation, particularly when the stakes are high.5
The motivation of a negotiator can clearly affect his or her tendency to use deceptive tactics. a person’s” motivational orientation”—whether negotiators are motivated to act cooperatively, or individualistically toward each other—can affect the strategies and tactics they pursue. Individualistic negotiators—those who are willing to maximize their own outcome, regardless of the consequences for the other—were more likely to use misrepresentation as a strategy. Cultural differences may also map onto motivational influences: there is the evidence that individual in highly individualistic culture are more likely to use deception for personal gain than those in a more collectivist culture.6 Other motives to behave unethically are, competitive or a cooperative motivational orientations.
THE CONSEQUENSES OF UNETHICAL CONDUCT
The negotiator who employs an unethical tactics will experience consequences that may be positive or negative, based on three aspects of the situation:
Whether the tactic is effective;
How the other person, his or her constituencies, and the audiences evaluate the tactics; and
How the negotiator evaluate the tactics
Explanations of justifications
When a negotiator has used an ethically ambiguous tactics that may elicit a reaction—as described above—the negotiator must prepare to defend the use of the tactic. The primary purpose of these explanations and justifications is to rationalize, explain, or excuse the behaviour—to verbalise some good, legitimate reason why this tactic was necessary. There is an increasing stream of research on those who employ unethical tactics and the explanations and justifications they may use to rationalize them. Some examples include.7
The tactic was unavoidable.
The tactic was harmless.
The tactic will help to avoid negative consequences.
DEALING WITH DECEPTIVE NEGOTIATOR
Ask probing questions
Force the other party to lie or back off.
“Call” the tactics
Discuss what you see and offer to help the other party change to more honest behaviour
Respond in kind
Ignore the tactics
As self-serving rationalizations for one’s own conduct, explanations allow the negotiator to convince others—particularly the victim—that conducts that would ordinarily be wrong in a given situation is acceptable. Explanations and justifications help people to rationalize the behaviour to them as well. but there is a risk: we surmise that the more frequently negotiators engage in this elf-serving process, the more their judgements about ethical standards and values will become biased, diminishing their ability to see the truth for what it is. The tactics involved may have been used initially to gain power in a negotiatin, but negotiators who use them frequently may experience a loss of power over time. These negotiators will be seen as having low credibility or integrity, and they will be treated accordingly as people who will act exploitatively if the opportunity arises. Good reputations are easier to maintain than to restore once damaged.
Endnotes
1. Ann Burr.M.2001.
2. Kelley and Thibaut, 1969.
3. Rubin and Brown, 1975.
4. ibid.
5. Boles, Croson, and Murnighan, 2000.
6. Sims, 2002.7. Bok, 1978.
In business negotiations, when is lying acceptable? To what extent should a negotiator withhold or exaggerate information? According to Anne Burr, there is a line fine between ethical and unethical tactics in negotiations.Exsisting law generally provides that the duty of good faith apply to the performance and enforcement of agreement not negotiations. The unscrupulous negotiators might take this as a license to behave unethically during negotiation. For as long as such behaviour is not out-and-out fraudulent; Burr however, argue that there is such a thing as a “reputation effort “and that a bad reputation ultimately deleterious.1 There is a fundamental question of ethical conduct which arises in every negotiation, but let’s examines what ethics in negotiations entails first.
Ethics are broadly applied social standards for what is right or wrong in a particular situation, or a process for setting those standards. They differ from morals which are individual and personal belief about what is right and wrong. Ethics grow out of particular philosophy, which purport to:
A. Define the nature of the world in ethic we live
B. And, prescribe rules for living together.
Different philosophies adopt distinct perspectives on these questions, which means in practice that they may to lead different judgement about what is right and wrong in given situation. The” hard work “of ethics in practice is figuring out how ethical philosophies differ to one and other, deciding which approaches are personally preferable, and applying them to real-world situations at hand. Our goal is to distinguish among different criteria’s or standards, of judging and evaluating a negotiator‘s actions, particularly when questions of ethics might be involved. Although negotiation is our focus, the criteria involved are really no different than what might be used to evaluate ethics in business generally. An ethical dilemma exist for a negotiators when possible actions or strategies put the potential economic benefits of doing a deals in a conflict with one’s social obligations to other involved parties or one’s broader community.
Most of the ethics issues in negotiations are concern with standard of truth telling—how honest, candid, and disclosing a negotiator should be. The attention here is more on what negotiators say, or what they say they will do, than on what they actually do. Some negotiators may cheat (violate formal and informal rules) or steal (break into the others parties database to secure confidential documents, but most of the attention in negotiators ethics has been on lying behaviour. Most negotiators would probably place a high value on a reputation for being truthful. Thus certain questions arise with regards to ethical conduct in negotiations; and these include:
Why do some negotiators choose to use a tactics that may be unethical?
Why you as the negotiators might use the same tactics?
What does being truthful mean?
Do you follow a clear set of rules?
Are deviations lies?
How does one define and classify deviations from the truth?
Is business bluffing ethical?
Questions and debate regarding the ethical standards for truth telling in negotiation are ongoing. As we pointed out earlier when we discussed interdependence, negotiation is based on information dependence—the exchange of information regarding the true preferences and priorities of the other negotiator.2arriving at a clear, precise, effective negotiated agreement depends on the willingness of the other patties to share accurate information about their own preference, priorities, and interests. At the same time, because negotiators may want to maximize their self-interests, they may want to disclose as little as possible about their positions. The dilemma of honesty in negotiation is that a negotiator who tells the other party all of his exact requirements and limits will, inevitably, never do better than his walk-away points.Sustainning the bargaining relationship means choosing a middle course between complete openness and complete deception.3however,as regards the subject of truth telling in negotiation, there is, beyond ethics, the matter of legal obligations to be truthful. Deception in negotiation can rise to the level of legality actionable fraud. The law on this subject is complex and often hard to pin down.4
In the preceding pages we discussed what ethics is and the fundamentals questions that arise concerning proper conduct in negotiations. Now we will turn discussions with regards to categories of marginally ethical negotiating tactics, why the use of deceptive tactics?Motives and consequences.
CATEGORIES OF MARGINALLY ETHICAL NEGOTIATING TACTICS
Traditional competitive
Emotional manipulation
Misrepresentation
Misrepresentation to opponent’s networks
Inappropriate information gathering
Bluffing
WHY DECEPTIVE TACTICS? MOTIVES AND CONSEQUENCES
Let’s start this discussion with motives, and motives inevitably begin with power. The purpose of using ethically ambiguous negotiating tactics is to increase the negotiator’s power in the bargaining environment.However; information is a major source of leverage in negotiation. Information has power because negotiation is intended to be a rational activity involving the exchange of information and the persuasive use of that information. One view of negotiation is that it is primarily an exchange of facts, arguments, and logic between two wholly rational information-processing entities.Often, whoever has better information, or uses it more persuasively, stands to “win” the negotiation. In fact, it has been demonstrated that individuals are more willing to use deceptive tactics when the other party is perceived to be uninformed or unknowledgeable about the situation under negotiation, particularly when the stakes are high.5
The motivation of a negotiator can clearly affect his or her tendency to use deceptive tactics. a person’s” motivational orientation”—whether negotiators are motivated to act cooperatively, or individualistically toward each other—can affect the strategies and tactics they pursue. Individualistic negotiators—those who are willing to maximize their own outcome, regardless of the consequences for the other—were more likely to use misrepresentation as a strategy. Cultural differences may also map onto motivational influences: there is the evidence that individual in highly individualistic culture are more likely to use deception for personal gain than those in a more collectivist culture.6 Other motives to behave unethically are, competitive or a cooperative motivational orientations.
THE CONSEQUENSES OF UNETHICAL CONDUCT
The negotiator who employs an unethical tactics will experience consequences that may be positive or negative, based on three aspects of the situation:
Whether the tactic is effective;
How the other person, his or her constituencies, and the audiences evaluate the tactics; and
How the negotiator evaluate the tactics
Explanations of justifications
When a negotiator has used an ethically ambiguous tactics that may elicit a reaction—as described above—the negotiator must prepare to defend the use of the tactic. The primary purpose of these explanations and justifications is to rationalize, explain, or excuse the behaviour—to verbalise some good, legitimate reason why this tactic was necessary. There is an increasing stream of research on those who employ unethical tactics and the explanations and justifications they may use to rationalize them. Some examples include.7
The tactic was unavoidable.
The tactic was harmless.
The tactic will help to avoid negative consequences.
DEALING WITH DECEPTIVE NEGOTIATOR
Ask probing questions
Force the other party to lie or back off.
“Call” the tactics
Discuss what you see and offer to help the other party change to more honest behaviour
Respond in kind
Ignore the tactics
As self-serving rationalizations for one’s own conduct, explanations allow the negotiator to convince others—particularly the victim—that conducts that would ordinarily be wrong in a given situation is acceptable. Explanations and justifications help people to rationalize the behaviour to them as well. but there is a risk: we surmise that the more frequently negotiators engage in this elf-serving process, the more their judgements about ethical standards and values will become biased, diminishing their ability to see the truth for what it is. The tactics involved may have been used initially to gain power in a negotiatin, but negotiators who use them frequently may experience a loss of power over time. These negotiators will be seen as having low credibility or integrity, and they will be treated accordingly as people who will act exploitatively if the opportunity arises. Good reputations are easier to maintain than to restore once damaged.
Endnotes
1. Ann Burr.M.2001.
2. Kelley and Thibaut, 1969.
3. Rubin and Brown, 1975.
4. ibid.
5. Boles, Croson, and Murnighan, 2000.
6. Sims, 2002.7. Bok, 1978.
No comments:
Post a Comment