Ethics in Negotiation - Essay Example

? Ethics in Negotiation Introduction Ethics broadly defines the social standards that determine what could be rightor wrong given a particular situation. Ethical decisions have proven to be inescapable in negotiations as they prescribe the rules needed in a society where people live together. Negotiation refers to the potential opportunistic interaction between parties who apparently have some conflict and seek to do better through a decision made jointly other than they would otherwise (Agarwal, 2009). This implies that in a negotiation context there have to be interdependent parties, conflict of interest, attempt by each party to employ particular form of interest to obtain better outcome, and, finally, the concession of give and take in resolving the conflict. The requirement to move the opponents from their preferred solution could motivate individuals involved to go against contemporary ethical standards; they could employ inappropriate influence tactics so as to gain compliance from the other. Guasco and Robinson put the ethical argument in context noting that “what is one negotiator’s appropriate tactic is another’s unethical trick” (2007, p. 135). Approaches to ethical reasoning In business negotiation, various standards have been used to evaluate tactics, as identified by Lewicki, Barry and Saunders (2007). The end result tactic would be applied where the negotiator chooses to adopt an action based on the expected results. Duty ethics would cause the negotiator to choose a course of action based on such person’s duty to uphold suitable rules and principles. The third standard referred to the fact social contract would cause one to choose a specific course of action based on the strategy, values and norms of an organization or community they exist in. Finally, personality ethics would cause one to choose to follow a specific course of action based on personal convictions. Negotiation tactics The major dilemma in negotiation, as noted by Cohen (2004), revolves around the choice to deceive or not to. Deception misleads a party putting the other at an advantage. The first tactic employed in negotiation has been referred to as misrepresentation of the opponent’s position (Guasco & Robinson, 2007). Here, the negotiator aims at distorting the settlement point. For example, a buyer willing to spend up to $10,000 on machinery could indicate to the buyer the willingness not to spend more than $8,000. This tactic has been noted to be necessary in creating a rationale that would make the opponent make concessions. According to Lewicki, Barry and Saunders (2007), negotiators who make extreme demands and have the opponents give in achieve favorable settlements. In bluffing negotiation tactic, the negotiator would falsely state the intention to perform an act. These have been described by Lewicki, Barry and Saunders (2007) as false threats and acts. For example, a negotiator could threaten to undertake a specific course of action should the opponent fail to perform a specific task. But this would be said without any intention to live up to the stated consequences. Guasco and Robinson (2007) argue about the unethical form of bluffing such as the one where a seller lies to a buyer of a prospect who has bid a higher price for a car, yet in real sense no one else has participated in negotiations. Therefore, the scholars liken bluffing in negotiation to poker. With falsification, erroneous or incorrect information would be introduced as if it were true (Lewicki, Barry & Saunders, 2007). Some examples include erroneous financial information, false guarantees and warranties. Falsification could be printed or spoken and would be aimed at using erroneous information to distort actual facts, thus changing the position of the opponent. The fourth negotiation tactic, as identified by Lewicki, Barry and Saunders (2007), is known as deception. Here, the tactic would attempt to manipulate the logical and inferential processes of the opponent so as to cause incorrect deduction or conclusion from the said opponent. The negotiator could give part of the relevant information and fail to give all the information. For example, a person looking for a job could indicate the blue chip companies he or she has allegedly worked for but fail to indicate that the working periods have been short-lived. This is what has been referred to as omission by the Harvard Business School (2005) where the negotiator fails to disclose information that would benefit the opponent. Similarly, deception would be said to have occurred when a negotiator pieces together arguments which would cause the opponent to make a wrong conclusion. A negotiator could, for instance, give indications of support for a particular action but fail to finally endorse it, claiming not to have lied because of lack of explicit indications. Finally, misrepresentation to constituencies or selective disclosure occurs where parties other than the opponent get involved in the negotiation. The major aspect in this tactic would be the target audience (Guasco & Robinson, 2007). Negotiators could misrepresent the occurrences during negotiation or could misrepresent the desire of the constituents to the opposing negotiators. Reasons for use of deceptive tactics Deceptive tactics would be motivated by search for power by the negotiator. Since negotiating primarily involves exchange of arguments, logic and facts between two rational entities processing information, the party with better information or more persuasiveness wins the negotiation. Individualistic motive would propagate use of deceptive tactics so as to maximize own outcome, irrespective of the consequences to the other party. These motives could contradict the argument by Cohen (2004) that ethical negotiation should be based on transparency, honesty and respect for others. How to deal with deception in negotiation Various techniques have been discussed by Lewicki, Barry and Saunders (2007) in dealing with the use of deception by the other party. One of them includes asking probing questions which would help negotiators identify deception. However, this leaves loop holes for deception in areas which would not be probed into. Another approach would be to force the opposing party to tell a direct lie which would make the party nervous. Finally, calling the tactic involves giving indications that one is aware of the bluffs or lies from the other party. This should, however, be done tactfully and firmly. Conclusion Various deception tactics employed in negotiations include misrepresentation, bluffing, falsification, deception and selective disclosure. The use of these deception tactics could be motivated by search for power, individualistic or cultural factors. The line between ethical and unethical negotiation behaviors have been observed as being fine. The rationalizations argued for unethical conduct in negotiations include its unavoidability, harmlessness, avoidance of negative consequences, positive outcome and its appropriateness in the situation. Though some behaviors could be identified as clearly unethical, there would be others that would be dependent on personal motivation, culture and the negotiators’ reaction. References Agarwal, N. (2009). Negotiation decision support systems: analyzing negotiations under the conditions of risk. Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics, 4 (3), 11 – 25. Cohen, S. P. (2004, September). Negotiation ethics: a matter of common sense. The Negotiator Magazine. Retrieved 13 Nov. 2012 from: http://www.negotiatormagazine.com/article217_1.html Guasco, M. P. & Robinson, P. R. (2007). Principles of negotiation: strategies, tactics, techniques to reach agreement. Irvine, CA: Entrepreneur Media Inc. Harvard Business School (2005). The essentials of negotiation. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Publishing. Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B. & Saunders, D. M. (2007). Essentials of negotiation. 4th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Read More