Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
ETHICS IS NEGOTIATION (CHAPTER 5) - Coggle Diagram
ETHICS IS NEGOTIATION (CHAPTER 5)
A Sampling of Ethical Quandaries
These situations are hypothetical, however the problems they present are ones for
negotiators.
People are routinely confronted with important decisions about the strategies they
will use to achieve important objectives.
What are the ethics, and why do they apply to negotiation?
What major approaches to ethical reasoning are relevant to negotiation?
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
Choose a course of action on the basis of results I expect to achiever
Choose a course of action on the basis of my duty to uphold appropriate rules and principles
Choose a course of action on the basis of the norms , values, and strategy of my organization or community
Choose a course of action on the basis of my personal convictions
4 Approaches to Ethical Reasoning
End-results ethics: The rightness of an action is determined by evaluating the pros and cons of its
consequences
Duty ethics:
The rightness of an action is determined by one’s obligation to adhere to consistent
principles, laws, and social standards that define what is right or wrong & where the
line is
Social contract ethics: The rightness of an action is based on the customs and norms of particular community
Personalistic ethics:
The rightness of action is based on one’s own conscience and moral standards
Analytical Process for the Resolution of Moral
Problems
Understand all
moral standards
Recognize all moral impacts :
• Benefits to some
• Harms to others
• Rights exercised
• Rights denied
Define complete
moral problem
Determine the
economic outcomes
Propose convincing
moral solution
Consider the legal
requirements
Evaluate the ethical
duties
What Questions of Ethical Conduct Arise in Negotiation?
Negotiators who choose to use unethical tactics may look corrupt
People tend to regard other people’s unsavory behavior as caused by
disposition or personality
A negotiator might consider an adversary who uses an ethically questionable
tactic unprincipled, profit-driven, or willing to use any tactic to get what he wanted
In contrast, when attempting to explain why you as the negotiator might use
the same tactic, you would tend to say that you are highly principled but had very good reason for deviating from those principles just this one time
Ethically Ambiguous Tactics
Ethically ambiguous reflects a carefully considered choice of word
In negotiation are concerned with
standards of truth telling
Individual must decide when should tell the truth as opposed to
engaging in some behavior short of telling the truth
Six categories of marginally ethical negotiating tactics
Traditional competitive bargaining
ii. Emotional manipulation
iii. Misrepresentation
iv. Misrepresentation to opponent’s networks
v. Inappropriate information gathering
vi. Bluffing
Categories of Marginally Ethical Negotiating
Tactics
Traditional competitive bargaining
Not disclosing your walkaway, making an inflated opening offer
Emotional manipulation
Faking anger, fear, disappointment, faking elation, satisfaction
Misrepresentation
Distorting information or negotiation events in describing them to
others
Misrepresentation to opponent’s networks
Corrupting your opponent’s reputation with his or her peers
Inappropriate information gathering
Bribery, infiltration, spying, etc.
Bluffing
Insincere threats or promises
Why Use Deceptive Tactics? Motives & Consequences
To increase the
negotiator’s power in bargaining environment.
Information has power because negotiation is intended to be rational activity
involving the exchange of information and the persuasive use of that information.
Individuals are more willing to use deceptive tactics when the other party is
perceived to be uninformed and unknowledgeable.
Having power may affect the style of reasoning a person uses to judge the ethics of a
situation.
How Can Negotiators Deal with the Other
Party’s Use of Deception?
Futility portrayal
Emphasize the futility & impending danger associated with continued deceit
Intimidation
Force the other to admit he is using deception by intimidating him into telling the truth.
Discomfort & relief
State the maxim. Help the other reduce the tension & stress associated with being a known
deceiver
Bluffing
Lie to the other to make her believe you have uncovered her deception
Gentle prods
Encourage the other to keep talking so that he gives you information that may help you
separate true facts from deceptions.
Minimization
Play down significance of any deceptive act
Contradiction
Get the other to tell his story fully in order to discover more information that will allow you
to discover inconsistencies
Altered information
Trick the other into revealing deception
A chink in the
defense
Try to get the other to admit a small or partial lie about some information
Self-disclosure
Reveal a number of things about yourself, including, perhaps, dishonesty on your own part,
hoping other will begin to trust you & reciprocate with disclosure of dishonesty.
Point of deception
cues
Point out behaviors you detect in the other that might be an indication he is lying: sweating,
nervousness, change of voice, inability to make eye contact, and so on.
Concern
Indicate your true concern for the other’s welfare.