Chapter 5

ETHICS IN NEGOTIATION

© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part. 5-1
Ethical or not ethical?

1. Selling a car to a friend. You ask AED 40,000

but your resistance point is AED 30,000 and you
keep this secret.

2. Bribing someone to get inside information

about your competitor.

3.Selling your laptop but not telling that hard

drive is not good.

4. Selling your laptop but lying that the hard

drive is good.
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part. 5-2
 WHAT DO WE MEAN BY ETHICS AND
WHY DO THEY MATTER IN NEGOTIATION?
Ethics defined:
• 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

© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part. 5-3
 FIGURE 5.1 AN ANALYTICAL PROCESS
FOR RESOLVING MORAL PROBLEMS

© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part. 5-4
 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 okay to use ethically ambiguous tactics?

© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part. 5-5
It is interesting to note that of the six categories, two—emotional
manipulation, and the use of “traditional competitive
bargaining” tactics—are viewed as generally appropriate and likely
to be used. These tactics, therefore, while mildly inappropriate, are
nevertheless seen as appropriate and effective in successful
distributive bargaining. The other four categories of are generally
seen as inappropriate and unethical in negotiation.
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part. 5-6
 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 (next slide)

© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part. 5-7
FIGURE 5.2 MODEL OF DECEPTION IN NEGOTIATION

© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part. 5-8
 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

© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part. 5-9
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

© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part. 5-10
 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

© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part. 5-11
 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”
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part. 5-12
 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

© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part. 5-13
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 (if lying,
bring it out)
• Test the other party
• To check trustworthiness ask question for which you already
know the answer
• “Call” the tactic (indicate to the other party “you are lying”)
• Ignore the tactic
• Discuss what you see and offer to help the other
party change to more honest behaviors
• Respond in kind
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any manner.
This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part. 5-14