You are on page 1of 15

BUS 420

Ethics in Negotiation
Instructor: Prof. Azize ERGENEL
Prepare B!:
Orun DNTOPAL 20211888
M. Murat FT 20118!"
#t$u G%&ERN 20120'!
Era( ER)O* 2012001
Negotiation is a pervasive features of business life. Success in business typically
requires successful negotiations. In a competitive and morally imperfect world, business
people are often faced with serious ethical challenges. Herboting suspicious abut the ethics of
others, many feel justified in engaging in lessthanideal conduct to protect their own
interests. !he most sophisticated moral arguments are unli"ely to counteract this behaviour.
#e believe that this morally defensive behaviour responsible, in large part, for much
undesirable deception in negotiation. $rawing on recent wor" in the literature of negotiations,
we present some practical guidance on how negotiators might build trust, establish common
interests, and secure credibility for their statements thereby promoting honesty.
%#e must ma"e the world honest before we can honestly say to our children that
honesty is the best policy& 'eorge (ernard SH)#
What do we mean by ethics?
Ethics are broadly applied social standards for what is right and wrong in a particular
situation, or a process for setting those standards. )nd ethics grow out of a particular
philosophies which* define the nature of the world in which we live and prescribe rules for
living together.
Why do people choose unethical behaviour?
!he first answer that normally occurs to us is that people are corrupt, degenerate, or
immoral. In fact these answers are to simplistics* moreover, they do not help us understand
and control our own behaviour, or successfully influence and predict the behaviour of others
in a bargaining environment.
Here were three primary factors motivational factors which lead negotiators to
consider using unethical tactics+ the pursuit of profit, the desire to beat an opponent in a
competitive environment, and the need to insure or restore some standard of justice that has
been violated.
!hree major categories of ethical conduct were used to describe the broad range of
questionable negotiating strategies and tactics+ means,ends, truthtelling, and relativism.
!he more e is committed to abide by certain rules and procedures, the more one
believes that following the rules will eventually lead to the desired ends. !he second group of
tactics, relativistic vs. absolute, forces us to deal with questions of whether there are truly
absolute rules and principles of right and wrong, or whether questions of ethics must be
answered by each individual in his own personali-ed, subjective view of the world. .any
authors have suggested that bluffing, misrepresentation or factual distortion is sometimes
necessary in order to effectively negotiate* such behaviour, however, may well be seen by
others as unethical and inappropriate.
#e believe that the negotiation process raises a host of ethical issues, more so than
most other interpersonal transactions. .uch of what has been written on negotiating
behaviour has been strongly normative abut ethics, and prescribed %dos and don0ts&. #e do
not believe that this approach facilitates the understanding of how negotiators actually decide
to act unethically. #e believe this process can best be understood by a simple decision
ma"ing model.
#e proposed that a negotiator who chooses to use an unethical tactic usually decides
to do so in order to increase his negotiating power. 1ower is gained by manipulating the
perceived base of accurate information 2lying3, getting better information about n opponent0s
plan, or undermining an opponent0s ability to achieve his objectives. 4sing these tactics leads
to two "inds of consequences* first, actual attainment or nonattainment of these goals he was
see"ing* and second, evaluation and criticism of the tactics by the negotiator himself, by his
opponent and by observers. Negotiators usually feel compelled to justify their actions 5i.e.,
they "now they have done something %wrong& and need to establish a %good reason&
#e suggested that the decision to use ethical or unethical tactics may be influenced in
varying degrees by differences in individual bac"grounds, personality, rewards or
punishments associated with ethical or unethical actions, and the social and cultural norms
that dictate what is appropriate or inappropriate in a given environment. #e have made a
number of assumptions about ways to judge and evaluate human conduct in the realm of
ethics. #e have intentionally avoided ta"ing a strong normative stance, and have not tried to
emphasi-e our own biases about what "inds of conduct are ethical or unethical. Instead, we
have proposed several conclusions that can be drawn from research, e6perience and common
1 Individuals will often disagree as to what "inds of negotiating tactics are %ethical& or
%unethical&, and in which situations it is appropriate or inappropriate to use them.
/ !he decision to use an unethical tactic can be probably best be understood as a
quasirational decision ma"ing process in which a variety of personality and situational
variables are li"ely to affect that decision.
7 In deciding to use an unethical tactic, a negotiator is li"ely to be most heavily
influenced by what he believes the consequences will be for his choice+ will it help
him accomplish his objectives, and what "ind of feed bac" is he li"ely to receive from
9 Negotiators who have used unethical tactics in the past, or might be considering their
use in the future, should strongly consider three possible consequences of using
unethical tactics+
a3 #ill they really help achieve objectives8
b3 How will they affect the quality of the relationship with this opponent in the future8
c3 How will they affect their reputation8
Negotiators frequently overloo" the fact that while unethical or e6pedient tactics may get
them what they want in the short run, these same tactics typically lead to longterm problems
and to diminished effectiveness.
Rules of the game
)n assumption+ every negotiation situation involves questions of ethics. #hat are the
understood %rules of the game8&
#hat is fair8
#hat is just8
#hat is legal8
#hat is appropriate and acceptable8
#hat is e6pected8
Is ethical behaviour :.
#hat is practical8
#hat is e6pedient8
#hat is efficient8
#hat serves one0s interests or a client0s interests8
#hat is necessary to win8
;i"e the po"er player, a negotiator hopes that his opponent will overestimate the value of
his hand. ;i"e the po"er player, in a variety of ways he must facilitate his opponent0s
inaccurate assessment. !he critical difference between those who are successful negotiators
and those who are not lies in this capacity both to mislead and not to be misled.
Four major approaches to ethical reasoning
1. <ndresult ethics 2results lens3
!he rightness of an action is determined by evaluating its consequences. Here
the question is+ what will be the result?
!. $uty ethics 2 reputation lens3
!he rightness of an action is determined by one0s obligation to adhere to
consistent principles, laws and social standards that define what is right and wrong.
Here the question is+ what will others thin"?
#. Social contract ethics 2 relationship lens3
!he rightness of an action is based o the customs and norms of a particular
society or community. !he question here is+ how will this impact others?
$. 1ersonalistic ethics 2rights lens3
!he rightness of the action is based on one0s own conscience and moral
standards the question here is+ what should % do?
So when in an ethical quandary we answer the following questions*
#hat will be the result8
#hat will others thin"8
How will this impact others8
#hat should I do8

=ommonly held assumptions reflect negatively on the ethics of the negotiation tactics
of car salespeople, lawyers, horse traders, and other people who have a reputation of trying to
influence fol"s into reaching agreements by misrepresenting facts. !his "ind of stereotyping
has attached itself to people from different countries, ethic groups, or even as reflected in the
e6pression from the >?s @$on0t trust anyone over 7?0.
Negotiation is about many things* one of its central elements is convincing others to
accept the accuracy or reality of information that will influence their decision. .ost
negotiators "now that it is, indeed, possible to influence people by lying to them. (ut good
negotiators also reali-e that when other parties find out they have been on the receiving end of
lies, the lying negotiator0s credibility goes down to tubes.
!here is an old e6pression @If you cheat me once, shame on you. @If you cheat me
twice, shame on me.0 1eople who have been ta"en in by dishonestly resent it* if they are able,
they try to get out of deals where there0s been misrepresentation.
In general, a general negotiator must ma"e positive misstatement to be held liable
fraud. Airst, when the negotiator ma"es a partial disclosure that is* or becomes, misleading.
Second, where the negotiator acts as a fiduciary. !hird, when the negotiator has important
information about the transaction not accessible to the other side. Aourth, where required by
Bn the other side we can say that negotiation is not a competitive sport. In competitive
sports, the object is to end up winning the game, the race, or the event. Negotiators who focus
on treating other parties as opponents run the ris" of ending up with reluctant counterparties
to whatever agreements may be reached. 4nless all the parties are fully committed to their
agreement, it may well fall apart* in those circumstances the negotiation has failed.
!he ethics of negotiation should be based on several understandings*
Deluctant partners ma"e undependable partners so treating negotiation partners
with respect and honesty simply ma"es common sense.
Negotiators need to recogni-e up front that the only reason to use negotiation
to resolve a conflict, agree on a project, or conclude a sale because other
parties may be able to add value an individual or a single company cannot do
acting alone.
!ransparency in the negotiation process is more li"ely to bring about buyin
than hidden agendas or tric"y maneuvers.
Bther parties have feelings.
;ast understanding is the 'olden Dule of treating others as you would wish to be
treated has the bottom line value of increasing other parties0 enthusiasm about negotiating
with you as well as their enthusiasm about the ultimate agreement.
'ood negotiation ethics+ honesty, transparency, respect for others are all genuinely
pragmatic approaches to use. ) negotiator0s reputation is not unli"e that of a restaurant* if you
have bad meal, you are not li"ely to return. )nd a negotiator with whom others don0t want to
deal is effectively out of business.
Negotiator also should understand four major approaches to ethical reasoning+ end
result ethics, or the principals of act utilitarianism* rule ethics, or the principle of rule
utilitarianism* social contract ethics, or the principles of communitybased socially acceptable
behaviour* and personalistic ethics, or the principles of determining what is right buy turning
to one0s conscience. <ach of these approaches may be used by negotiators to evaluate
appropriate strategies and tactics.
=onsequently we can say that negotiation ethics is more important for negotiator that0s
why negotiator should recogni-e ethics carefully. )lso unethical behaviours are most
important to the negotiator. (ecause when he or she faced with unethical behaviour he or she
should find the reasons for unethical behaviour.
#hen negotiators deal with the other parties using of deceptions, negotiation ethics
become important. !hey behave differently li"e above+
Aulility portroyal
$iscomfort and relief
'entle prods
)ltered information
) chin" in the defense
1oint of deception cues
Eeeping the status guo
$irect approach
)s" 1robing Fuestions
Decogni-e the !actic
Ignore the tactic
)s" questions
%=all& the tactic
Despond in "ind
$iscuss what you see and offer to help the other party change to more honest
If we want to give an e6ample for the ethics importance, we can loo" at the
<42<uropean 4nion3!ur"ey negotiations. In this negotiations <4 seems to behave unethic.
(ecasue its criterians which they describe is not apply equally to all candidate countries.
=riterias that are negotiated are not objective.Aor e6ample a matter that says % In future if
there e6ists a digestion trouble, <4 will stop the negotiations with !ur"ey& is not applied for
=rotia which aply <4 at the same time with !ur"ey.
)lso we can see some tactics from !ur"ey government in negotiations.Bur 1rime
minister give a declaration that %#hen we perform criterias in the negotiation process, if <4
says we can not ta"e you, we will evaluate other choices.& !his is an e6ample of
indimitadion tactic.Is this tactic ethic or unethic8 #hy our prime minister give this
declaration8 Gs this tactic is a strategy or threat8 !his declaration is gived by prime minister
because in negotiations <4 behaves unethically that0s why our prime minister use a tactic for
this unethic behaviour.
!here e6ists a lot of e6ample for the ethics importance because in our life we
generalley negotiate.#hen we tal" with our friend, when we bargain in the shoppingcenter,
when discussed important subjects, when the countries improve their relationships etc.. )ll
that is e6ists when we negotiate ethics become important, well than why8 (ecause arriving at
clear, precise, effective, negotiated agreement depends on the willingness of parties to share
accurate information about their own preferences, priorities, and interests.)t the same time,
because negotiators may also be interested in ma6imi-ing their selfinterest,they may want to
disclose as little as possible of their positionsparticularly if they thin" they can do better bay
manipulating the information they disclose to the other party.!his situation may cause
unthical behaviours li"e deception,misstatement,bluffing,falsification or selective disclosure.
W&' () *&E +E,)*%-*)R. +EE( *) /+)W -0)1* *&E E*&%2.?
<ven the subjects are different, everyone negotiates. ;ittle has been published and said
about the ethics in negotiation because questions or comments about the ethics in negotiation
arise for someone, when he or she negotiates, otherwise ethics will not be discussed. !here
are no written, certain rules about the ethics 2in negotiation3. (ut the basic solution for ethics
in negotiation is too simple, it is empathy. E./at,( 2the ability to identify with and
understand somebody elseIs feelings or difficulties3 will ma"e the sides of the negotiation
thin" about what they are doing 5 ethical or unethical. (ut negotiators use empathy when they
want to use, especially in the business life, mainly for profit 5 even it is for short term , there
are many unethical conducts in negotiations.
!he answer of the topic, in fact, lies in the short term 5 long term relationship.
4nethical tactics may give 2just a probability3 the negotiators what they want in the short run.
!hese same tactics typically lead to long term problems and to diminished effectiveness. In
other words a short term gain may easily become a long term stumbling bloc" to future deals.
So, unethical behaving negotiator0s credibility goes down the tubes. In the recent decades, in
business life, the importance of the creditability for all parts involved in the business, has got
more and more meaning. <ach sides of a business do not want just the sellbuy, service
benefit or giveta"e relationship. !hey want to become a part in the business through adding
some value to what they are doing. In this unnamed cooperation everyone should add value to
ma"e the business more valuable 5 should not ma"e problems 2of course through the
unethical behaviours3
)s the old e6pression says+ %If you cheat me once, shame on you. If you cheat me
twice, shame on me.& people who have been ta"en in by dishonesty resent it* if they are able,
they try to get out of deals where there0s been unethical behavior. If one behaves unethically
in a negotiation, every word he told, in fact, is a bomb in his,her mouth and ready to go off.
)fter these significant e6amples, you will see a graphic in the below. It shows the relationship
between success in unethical negotiation and time, including the short and long run.

K a6is represents the time. It may be the time of just one negotiation 27? minutes may
be3 or may represent the whole career of a negotiator 21C years maybe, if he is luc"y3. L a6is
is the negotiation success through unethical behavior. )s time passes, the success increases,
through unethical behaviors and it ma"es the perfect trendM In a very short time the negotiator
can be very successful. It does not mean every successful negotiator must behave unethically
to be very successful. (ut assume* this is the graph of a hard negotiation, both sides insist on
what they want to get and the negotiator can be only successful after / or 7 days negotiation.
!his short and successful negotiation seems practical and easy, but really ris"y. !he
negotiator may gain a lot in the short run but surely, at least in the long run, he may get lots of
things that should not be lost, even the business itself. )fter lying, coercion, bribe, corruption,
violence: surely the dirty success will come at the end of the negotiation. It will not be
eternal and when the other parties aware of the unethical conduct, it will really be hard to
overcome this situation.
!he case was same for !in .en, the movie. In the movie, two salesmen, wor"ing for
an aluminum siding company, are in the front garden of a house and they try to ta"e some
photographs of the house. (ecause they want to meet someone from the house, they spea"
with each other very loudly and so, the lady in the house comes to the garden and as"s what
they are doing. !he salesmen lies+ %#e are from ;ife .aga-ine and we try to ta"e your house
photographs to use in a presentation about aluminum siding this wee", in ;ife maga-ine.&
(ecause ;ife .aga-ine is important for her, the lady wondered what they want to do with her
house photo. Salesmen say that the photo will be a before picture in life maga-ineM )s the
salesmen hope, a before picture is unacceptable for the lady. So, they ma"e the lady to buy
aluminum siding for the house through unethical behaviors at the end of their negotiations.
2Bf course they have no relationship with ;ife .aga-ine3. !hey sell a lot using these
unethical tactics and at the end they lose their licences for selling. !hey lose the only
instrument to do what they are doing best, their jobs.
4nethical behaviors can be perceived as available all the time or practical to use. (ut
they require ris"s, not to be ta"en for rational people or firms.
W&-* 3)*%4-*E. 1+E*&%2-5 2)+(12*?
!here are several major dimensions of human conduct and the business system that
motivate unethical conduct. .issner 21NJ?3 suggest four+ profit, competition, justice and
generating wants 2advertising3. #hile the strategies and tactics of negotiating have little to do
with advertising strategies in the conventional sense, questions and issues of profit, justice
and competition are common to the evaluation of negotiating behavior.
!he pursuit for profit is fundamental to the business system, whether it be the
company president who is striving to ma6imi-e the earnings of the competition, the
stoc"holders who are loo"ing for bigger dividends, or the salaried cler" who is pushing for a
raise. In this conte6t, we define /rofit as the %0e1ire to 2et .ore3 rather than in strict
accounting terms.
1rofit is clearly a motive in negotiating. (y its very nature, negotiating is a process by
which individuals strive to ma6imi-e their outcomes. Individuals trying to ma6imi-e their
profit frequently use negotiating strategies and tactics because they are recogni-ed as
techniques for enhancing profit.
(usinessmen frequently defend profit and the profit motive as ethically neutral, not
inherently bad or good. In contrast, however, many ethical philosophers and political theorists
have argued that profit is a %dirty si6letter word&. ;astly and surely it can be said that desire
to get more can not motive always unethical conduct. (ut there is a strong relationship
between the two.
!his behavior occurs in a social conte6t in which the total amount of resources
available is insufficient to satisfy everyone0s desires* therefore, competition occurs.
In the business system, there are several different types of competition. !he
fundamental differences between these types are whether competitors "now that they are
competing, whether they "now the identity of their competitors, and whether they attain their
goal by simply %getting there first& or by bloc"ing their opponent in his pursuit of the goal. )n
e6ample of the first type is 213 someone trying to set a record for pi--aeating to win
recognition in the 'uiness (oo" of #orld Decords* an individual is trying to surpass a
previous record without "nowing whether anyone else is trying to do as well. !he second
case, 2/3 "nowing that others are competing but not "nowing who the competitors are, is
e6emplified by many scientists simultaneously searching for a cure for cancer. !hese scientist
"now that they are in a competition but generally don0t "now where each one stands in the
race. )n e6ample of the third case 273 might be two scientists, each of whom "nows the other
well, and each racing to gain recognition for solving a specific scientific problem. #hile both
may ultimately achieve their goal, only one will get the recognition. )n e6ample of the fourth
case would be 293 two athletic teams competing in a trac" meet. In most events, team
members "now who their components are, and "now that they have to beat their opponent in
their individual events. T,e $e( 0i1tin2ui1,in2 a1/e+t of t,i1 fourt, t(/e i1 t,at t,e +o./etitor
+an on4( a+,ie5e ,i1 o67e+ti5e 6( 0efeatin2 t,e o//onent. If there were only one team in the
trac" meet and none of the team members was good enough to set world records 5 then the
fundamental nature of the competition would be lost.

#e shall call the first three types in+i0enta4 competition, and this type e11entia4
competition. Here it can be argued that the closer a negotiator comes to a situation of essential
competition, where a specific adversary has to be defeated in order to achieve a goal, the more
a party is predisposed to use tactics that are ethically questionable. In most competitions, there
are rules that limit what people can and can not do. It can be argued that when the goal is to
defeat an opponent, there may be considerably greater pressures to violate the rules in order to
ma"e sure that defeat occurs.
Fuestions of justice are largely based on differing standards of outcome distribution+
what parties actually receive 2in economic or social benefits3 compared to what they believe
they deserve. =onflict arises when parties disagree as to how well they have actually
performed, and how much they deserve for their performance. )s an e6ample of the first case
5 determining how well they have performed 5 suppose one person becomes a millionaire
through inheritance while the other person has had to wor" >? hours a wee" for /? years to
attain the same status. In the second case 5 determining what they deserve for their
performance 5 a justice question may arise over whether a labor union deserves an acrossthe
board increase of /Ccents,hour. .oreover justice questions arise when parties disagree about
whether the rules were followed in attaining a particular end. !he more parties fundamentally
disagree about the nature of the rules that apply in a given situation, or the manner in which
the rules were 2or were not3 observed, the more li"ely these disagreements will lead to an
ethical controversy about which fairness standards are %right& and %wrong&.
Factors *hat -ffect - +egotiator *o 0ehave 1nethically8
(emographic Factors8 Bne factor that affect people to behave ethically or unethically is
demographic factors, major demographic factors that affect people0s ethical behavior are* age,
gender, nationality and cultural bac"ground, and past e6perience. 1eople in different age
groups may differ in their opinions of what is ethical and what is not.) behavior that is ethical
for one country0s culture may not be ethical for another country0s culture.
6ersonality (ifferences8 .ajor personality traits that affect people to behave ethically or
unethically are* being a team oriented or self oriented individual, being cooperative or
competitive, being a high mach or low mach 2machiavellist3 and locus of control. 2Internal or
<6ternal3 1eople who are more team oriented, more cooperative, lower mach and who has an
e6ternal locus of control tend to have more strict ethical rules and live their lives according to
those rules.Aor e6ample Oapanese people fits very well with this e6ample they value ethical
rules very much, they are team oriented and cooperative individuals and they have an e6ternal
locus of control so they believe in their destiny.#here as )merican people are more self
oriented and competitive individuals they believe that what is ethical for them is ethical for
3oral (evelopment8 !his subject is e6plained very well under Eohlberg0s .oral
$evelopment !heory.!his theory holds that moral reasoning, which is the basis for ethical
behavior, has si6 identifiable development stages and these stages are grouped under three
6re92onventional 5evel8 !his level of moral reasoning is common especially in children but
adults also use it. 1eople in the preconventional level judge the morality of an action by its
direct consequences.
.tage )ne )bedience and 6unishment )rientation8 In stage one, individuals focus
on the direct consequences of their actions on themselves.Aor e6ample, an action is
percieved wrong if the one who commits it gets punished, worse the punishment is, act
is percieved to be more immoral.
.tage *wo .elf9%nterest )rientation8 In Stage two, right behavior is defined by what
is in oneIs own best interest.Stage two reasoning shows a limited interest in the needs
of others unless the interest we show on other0s benefit, improves our position. 2If you
scratch my bac", i0ll scratch yours.3
2onventional 5evel8 !he conventional level of moral reasoning is common especially in
adolescents and adults. 1eople who are in conventional level, judge the morality of actions by
comparing these actions to societal views and e6pectations.
.tage *hree %nterpersonal -ccord and 2onformity8 In this stage people try to fill
social roles and they loo" for the feedbac" 2)pproval or $isapproval3 from the
society. !hey try to be a good boy or good girl to live up to society0s e6pectations.
.tage Four -uthority and .ocial9)rder 3aintaining )rientation8 In this stage
people believe that obeying society0s rules is not important because of the feedbac"
they receive from society, but they believe that, it is their duty to obey rules because if
anyone does not, it may ruin society0 well being.
6ost92onventional 5evel8 !he postconventional level is also "nown as the principled
level.In this level individuals begin to reali-e that they are separate from the society at large
and they believe that oneIs own perspective should be viewed before the societyIs.
.tage Five .ocial 2ontract )rientation 8 )t this stage individuals are viewed as
holding different opinions and values, and so they should be valued and respected
seperately. ;aws and rules are regarded as social contracts not as dictations that
everyone must obey and laws that do not increase social welfare should be changed
when necessary to meet the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
.tage .i: 1niversal Ethical 6rinciples8 In this stage moral reasoning is based on
universal ethical principles.;aws are considered to be valid if they are grounded on
justice and disobeying the laws that are not just is the society0s duty.
3ajor (imensions )f Ethical 2onduct8
3eans9Ends -pproach8 .&<nds Oustify .eans.& !his is the motto of the .achiavellist
approach and it means that when outcome of a certain activity is desirable, we can tolerate the
ways we used to achieve that outcome.
Aor e6ample you are wor"ing in a construction company and there is a bridge building
contract that will ta"e place in two days and your manager decided that you should go to
bidding and you should win the contract whatever it ta"es, he told you whatever it ta"es
maybe he meant that you can use an inside man and learn the appropriate price for the
contract and you bid that price and you win, or maybe he meant you can bribe the rival firm0s
agents and ma"e them withdraw their offers and even you can hire somebody to "ill the rival
firm0s agents if they don0t accept the bribeM !hese e6ample may seem e6treme but at the
meansends approach if you reached your goal it justifies your ways you used when reaching
-bsolutism 4s. Relativism8 )bsolutism and relativism are two e6treme ethical approaches
to reality. #hile they are both valid and supported by facts, they are very contrasting in their
views. In absolutism, everything is certain. Bn the other hand, relativism is more subjective.
)n ethical absolutist believes that there is a single or universal moral standard for the whole
society, and everybody must conform with these standards.Aor e6ample if two individuals in
society are in conflict about something if it is right or wrong, then one one of them should be
mista"en, because according to absolutist view ethical standards are universal. !he e6treme
opposite of absolutism is relativism. Delativists thin" that in some situations, e6ceptions of
moral standards may be necessary.In contrast to absolutists, relativists thin" that if two
individuals in society are in conflict about something if it is right or wrong they can be both
right because there is nothing li"e an absolute universal moral standard.
*ruth *elling or Withholding %nformation8 !ruth telling is an important subject in ethical
conduct, especially in medicine ethics.Aor e6ample there is a patient diagnosed with cancer in
late stages, and he e6presses that he doesn0t want to "now the truth if the results of his tests
are bad.Should the doctors tell him the truth or withhold the information8In this situation
probably it is best if he doesn0t "now the truth but if he didn0t requested it, i thin" he would
have right to "now about his condition.
!here is a good e6ample in our country about truth telling, at first sight it seems not
related with medicine ethics but its consequences is very much related+ =ahit )ral 2) Aormer
!rade .inister3 was at charge of !rade .inistry during the =hernobyl $isaster in 1NJ>. #hen
people in !Pr"iye started to tal" about radiation effects on (lac" Sea Degion0s agricultural
products 2!ea <specially3, !rade .inistry became afraid of lower agricultural trade income
and to avoid the @gossips0 about effected products =ahit )ral dran" a glass of tea during a
press conference and said %Nothing happens to us.& )fter a few years there was an enormous
rise in the number of birth defects and cancer patients in (lac" Sea Degion. If he didn0t
withhold the truth and warned people about possible effects of radiation, maybe such things
wouldn0t happen and people wouldn0t have suffered.
5EW%2/% 7. Roy; (avid 3. .-1+(ER.; 7ohn W. 3%+*)+; !<<<
+egotiation =3c,raw9&ill %nternational Editions>
*&)36.)+ 5eigh; 1??@
*he 3ind and &eart of the +egotiator =6rentice &all>
0-AER3-+ 3. &.; B Roy 7. 5ewic"i; 1?@#
+egotiation in )rganiCations =0everly &ills>
W&%*E 7ames; 1?@<
3achiavelli and the 0ar8Ethical 5imitations on 5ying in +egotiation
=7ournal of 6ersonality and .ocial 6sychology>