Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Negotiation
Section 01:
Negotiation Fundamentals
Chapter 05:
Ethics in Negotiation
© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Authorized only for instructor use in the classroom. No reproduction or further distribution permitted without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
Ethical Quandaries
© McGraw-Hill Education 2
Ethics and Negotiation
© McGraw-Hill Education 3
Applying Ethical Reasoning to Negotiation
Case: a person selling an e-bike tells a present buyer there is a second
potential buyer, when there is not.
If you believe in end-result ethics, you would lie to get the best
outcome.
If you believe in duty ethics, you might reject a tactic requiring a lie.
If you believe in social contract ethics, if others lie, you will too.
© McGraw-Hill Education 4
Ethics v. Prudence v. Practicality v. Legality
Ethical. 伦理主导
• Appropriate as determined by some standard of moral conduct.
Prudent. 谨慎从事
• Wise, based on trying to understand the efficiency of the tactic and the
consequences it might have on the relationship with the other.
Practical. 实用主义
• What a negotiator can actually make happen in a given situation.
Legal. 守法导向
• What the law defines as acceptable practice.
Others: intrinsic 性格使然 instrumental reasons 工具理性
• Some tactics are seen by all as unethical.
© McGraw-Hill Education 5
Exhibit 5.1: Analytical Process for the Resolution of
Moral Problems
© McGraw-Hill Education Source: Hosmer, LaRue T., The Ethics of Management. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2003. 6
End-Result Ethics
Negotiators with noble objectives, feel they can use any tactics.
• Drawing on consequentialism 结果主义 – a view that the moral worth of an
action should be judged on the basis of the consequences it produces.
Followers of utilitarianism 功利主义 believe the best moral choice
maximizes the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
Debate about end-result ethics centers on some key questions.
How do people define maximum utility, and how is it measured?
How do parties trade off between short-term and long-term consequences, when
one may damage the other?
If unable to create utility for everyone, is it adequate to create it for many, even if
some people will not benefit or will even suffer?
How do you balance the benefits of a majority with protection of the rights of a
minority?
© McGraw-Hill Education 7
Duty Ethics
Duty ethics emphasizes that individuals should commit to a
series of moral standards and use those to make decisions.
• The term deontology 道义论 is used to label this school of thought.
© McGraw-Hill Education 8
Social Contract Ethics
Proponents hold that the rightness of an action is determined by
the customs and social norms of a community.
• They argue that societies, organizations, and cultures determine what is
ethically appropriate and acceptable for themselves.
• Then indoctrinate new members as they are socialized into the community.
As applied to negotiation, social contract ethics would prescribe
appropriate behaviors in terms of what people owe one another.
Social contract ethics are not without problems.
• How do we decide what implicit rules should apply to a given relationship,
particularly when the rules are not explicitly spelled out?
• Who makes these social rules, and how are they evaluated and changed?
© McGraw-Hill Education 9
Personalistic Ethics
© McGraw-Hill Education 10
Questions of Ethical Conduct in Negotiation?
© McGraw-Hill Education 11
Ethically Ambiguous Tactics and Truth
Ethically ambiguous tactics may or may not be improper,
depending on an individual’s ethical reasoning and circumstances.
Focus here is on what negotiators say rather than what they actually do.
Questions about truth telling are clear, but not the answers.
First, how do you define truth?
Second, how do you define and classify deviations from the truth?
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 their
requirements will never do better than their walkaway point.
© McGraw-Hill Education 12
What Ethically Ambiguous Tactics are There?
There are six clear categories of tactics.
• Traditionally competitive bargaining.
• Emotional manipulation.
• Misrepresentation.
• Misrepresentation to opponent’s networks.
• Inappropriate information gathering.
• Bluffing.
Judgments are subjective – for any given tactic, some will
see its use as ethically wrong, others will have little or no
problem with it.
© McGraw-Hill Education 13
Does Tolerance Lead to Use of Such Tactics?
© McGraw-Hill Education 14
Are Ethically Ambiguous Tactics Acceptable to Use?
Studies indicate there are tacitly agreed-on rules in negotiation.
• Some minor forms of untruths may be seen as ethically acceptable
and within the rules.
• In contrast, outright deception is generally seen as outside the rules.
The authors offer some caution.
• Statements are based on large groups of people and do not indicate or
predict any individual negotiator’s use of such tactics.
• By reporting the results, the authors do not endorse the use of marginally
ethical tactics.
• This is a Western view of negotiation, not true for other cultures –
“let the buyer beware” at all times.
© McGraw-Hill Education 15
Deception by Omission versus Commission
© McGraw-Hill Education 16
Figure 5.2: A Simple Model of Deception
in Negotiation
© McGraw-Hill Education 17
Motives for Using Deceptive Tactics
© McGraw-Hill Education 18
Consequences of Unethical Conduct
Effectiveness.
• Evidence points to the effectiveness of deceptive tactics in certain
circumstances.
• Misrepresenting interest on an issue that both parties want can induce
concessions that lead to favorable outcomes.
Reactions of others.
• “Targets” who discover the deception are typically angry.
• For serious and personal deception, the relationship suffers.
Reactions of self.
• When the other party suffers, a negotiator may feel discomfort.
• Negotiators in a simulated situation who lied tended to make larger
concessions later in the negotiation to compensate.
© McGraw-Hill Education 19
Explanations and Justifications
© McGraw-Hill Education 20
Factors Shaping Predisposition to Deception
Demographic factors.
• Women tend to make more ethically rigorous judgments than men.
• Female negotiators are lied to more than male negotiators.
• Both men and women behaved more ethically as they aged.
• Older parties see bluffing as more acceptable, deception less so.
• Professional orientation may increase, or decrease, acceptability.
• There are cultural differences in attitudes toward ambiguous tactics.
Personality differences.
• Your “straightforwardness” leads to greater concern for the other party.
• There are four other dimensions of personality that may predict the
likelihood of using ethically ambiguous tactics, discussed next.
© McGraw-Hill Education 21
Personality Differences
© McGraw-Hill Education 22
Moral Development and Personal Values
© McGraw-Hill Education 23
Contextual Influences on Unethical Conduct
© McGraw-Hill Education 24
Contextual Influence
© McGraw-Hill Education 25
Dealing with the Other’s Use of Deception
© McGraw-Hill Education 26
End of Chapter 05.
www.mheducation.com
© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Authorized only for instructor use in the classroom. No reproduction or further distribution permitted without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.