Lewicki_EON_2024Rel_Chap05_PPT_ACCESS (2).pptx

chapter 5 negotiations slides

1. Essentials of Negotiation 2024 Release Chapter 05: Ethics in Negotiation © McGraw Hill LLC. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw Hill LLC.

2. A Sampling of Ethical Quandaries You are selling your e-bike to raise money for a trip. Is it ethical to mention another offer, when there is none? You have a consultant friend call and ask around about problems or threats a competitor faces. Is this an ethical way to learn about a competitor? When selling your laptop, you decide not to tell potential buyers that the computer crashes without warning. Is this ethical? Would you be likely to do this? You buy a pair of shoes on sale (no returns), but you make a scene in the store and the manager refunds your money. Is this ethical? Would you be likely to do this? 2

3. Ethics Defined Ethics are broadly applied social standards in a particular situation, or a process for setting those standards. Differs from morals, which are personal beliefs. End-result 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 an obligation to adhere to principles, laws, and social standards. Social contract ethics —the rightness of an action is based on the customs and norms of a particular community. Personalistic ethics —the rightness of the action is based on one’s own conscience and moral standards. 3

4. Applying Ethical Reasoning to Negotiation Using the example of the selling of the e-bike. If you believe in end-result ethics, then you might do whatever is necessary to get the best possible outcome (including lie). If you believe in duty ethics, you might perceive an obligation never to engage in subterfuge and might reject a tactic that involves an outright lie. In social contract ethics, you base your tactics on appropriate conduct in your community; if others would use deception in a situation like this, you will too. In personalistic ethics, your conscience decides whether acting dishonestly matches how you see yourself as a moral actor. 4

5. Ethics Versus Prudence Versus Practicality Versus Legality Ethical . Appropriate as determined by some standard of moral conduct. Prudent . Wise, based on trying to understand the efficiency of the tactic and the consequences on the relationship. Practical . What a negotiator can actually make happen in a given situation. Legal . What the law defines as acceptable practice. 5

6. Figure 5.1: Analytical Process for the Resolution of Moral Problems Access the text alternative for slide images. Source : Hosmer, LaRue T., The Ethics of Management , (New York: McGraw Hill/Irwin, 2003). 6

7. Ethical Conduct in Negotiation Why do some negotiators use unethical tactics? The first answer—immoral—may be too simplistic. People regard other people’s unsavory behavior as due to personality and attribute their own behavior to factors in the social environment. A negotiator might consider an opponent’s use of an ethically questionable tactic as unprincipled. In contrast, if the negotiator uses the same tactic, they may say they have a good reason for deviating from principles, this one time. The following section discusses negotiation tactics that bring issues of ethicality into play. 7

8. Ethically Ambiguous Tactics and Truth Ethically ambiguous tactics may or may not be improper, depending on a person’s ethical reasoning and circumstances. Effective agreements depend on sharing accurate information, but negotiators want to disclose little about their positions. The dilemma of trust is that a negotiator who believes everything the other says can be manipulated by dishonesty. The dilemma of honesty is that a negotiator who tells the other party all they require will never do better than their walkaway point. 8

9. What Ethically Ambiguous Tactics Are There? Traditional competitive bargaining—not disclosing your walkaway, making an inflated opening offer. Emotional manipulation—faking anger, fear, disappointment; faking elation or satisfaction. Misrepresentation—distorting information or negotiation events in describing them to others. Misrepresentation to opponent’s networks—corrupting your opponent’s reputation with their peers. Inappropriate information gathering—bribery, infiltration, spying, and so on. Bluffing—insincere threats or promises. 9

10. Is It Acceptable to Use Ethically Ambiguous Tactics? There are tacitly agreed-on rules of the game in negotiation. Some minor forms of untruths may be seen as ethically acceptable and within the rules. Outright deception is generally seen as outside the rules. The authors offer some caution. Statements are based on large groups and do not indicate or predict any one negotiator’s use of such tactics. Observations are based on what people said they would do, rather than what they actually did. The authors do not endorse marginally ethical tactics. This is a Western view of negotiation. 10

11. Deception by Omission Versus Commission The use of deceptive tactics can be active or passive. Misrepresentation by omission— failing to disclose information that would benefit the other. Misrepresentation by commission— actually lying about the issue. A student role-play study showed the following. Students could lie by omission or commission. Far more students were willing to lie by omission. 11

12. Figure 5.2: A Simple Model of Deception in Negotiation Access the text alternative for slide images. 12

13. Motives for Using Deceptive Tactics Negotiators use ethically ambiguous tactics to increase power. If deception gains power, then are weak negotiators more likely to be tempted to engage in deception? Motivation affects a negotiator’s tendency to use deception. They may use it to achieve their goals. They may use it to avoid being exploited. Individual differences of personality or culture affect use. Negotiators rationalize deception in anticipation of the other’s conduct. 13

14. Consequences of Unethical Conduct Deceptive tactics are effective in certain circumstances. Consequences occur whether the tactic worked or not. Reactions of others. “Targets” are typically angry and now mistrust you. For serious and personal deception, the relationship suffers. Reactions of self. When the other party suffers, a negotiator may feel discomfort. Negotiators who have no discomfort may use tactics again and ponder how to use them more effectively. 14

15. Explanations and Justifications The tactic was unavoidable— so there is no responsibility. The tactic was harmless— for who? The tactic will help to avoid negative consequences— for who? The tactic will produce good consequences or altruistically motivated . “They had it coming,” or “They deserve it,” or “I’m getting my due.” They were going to do it anyway, so I will do it first— anticipation. “They started it” — anticipation in the past tense. The tactic is fair or appropriate to the situation— ethical relativism. 15

16. Dealing With the Other’s Use of Deception Ask probing questions to reveal a great deal of information. Rephrase questions to uncover answers which skirt the truth. Force the other party to lie to your face or back off. Test the other party by asking a question you already know the answer to, and note the response. “Call” the tactic, and indicate your displeasure. Ignore the tactic for a relatively minor aspect. Discuss and help the other party shift to more honest behavior. Responding in kind will escalate the conflict. 16

17. End of Main Content © McGraw Hill LLC. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw Hill LLC.