Ethics in
Negotiation.
OUR BIG IDEA
[Link] are ethics, and why do they
apply to negotiation?
[Link] questions of ethical conduct
are likely to arise in negotiation?
[Link] motivates unethical behavior,
and what are the consequences?
[Link] can negotiators deal with the
other party's use of deception?
2
Ethics are broadly applied social standards for what is right or wrong in a particular
situation. They differ from morals, which are individual and personal beliefs about
what's right and wrong. The "hard work" of ethics in practice is figuring out how
ethical philosophies differ from one another.
Our goal is to distinguish among different criteria, or standards, for judging and
evaluating a negotiator`s actions, particularly when questions of ethics might be
involved.
Four standards for evaluating strategies in business and negotiation:
1. Choose a course of action on the basis of results I expect to achieve.
2. Choose a course of action on the basis of my duty to uphold appropriate rules
and principles.
3. Choose a course of action on the basis of the norms, values, and strategy of my
organization.
4. Choose a course of action on the basis of my personal convictions.
The first may be called end-result ethics, in that the rightness of an action is determined by evaluating the pros
and cons of its consequences.
The second is an example of what may be called duty ethics, in that the rightness of an action is determined
by one's obligation to adhere to consistent principles, laws, and social standards that define what is right and
wrong and where the line is.
The third represents a form of social contract ethics, in that the rightness of an action is based on the customs
and norms of a particular community.
Finally, the fourth may be called personalistic ethics, in that the rightness of the action is based on one's own
3
conscience and moral standards. See Table 5.1 for an overview of these four approaches.
Applying ethical reasoning to negotiation:
.End-result ethics:the best outcome(including lie about an alternative buyer).
.Duty ethics:you might perceive an obligation never to engage in subterfuge.
.Social contract ethics:You would base your tactical choices on your view of
appropriate conduct for behavior of your community.
.Personalistic ethics:To decide whether your need for cash for your upcoming
trip justified using deceptive or dishonest tactics.
Ethics versus prudence versus practicality versus legality:
Versus what is prudent:Wise,based on trying to understand the efficacy of the tactic and the consequences it might have on the
relationship with the other.
Versus what is practical:What a negotiator can actually make happen in a given situation.
Versus what is legal:What the law defines as acceptable practice.
Analytical process for the resolution or moral problems:-
.You need to understand all the moral standards.
.define complete moral problem.
.consider the legal requirements.
.propose convincing moral solution.
Recognize all moral impacts:
.benefits to some.
.harms to others.
.rights exercised. 4
.rights denied.
What questions of ethical conduct arise in negotiation:
-Start by considering the economic, legal, and equitable
implications on the decision when determining whether
bargaining strategies and tactics are moral.
-Identify the financial effects of potential actions.
-The situation's legal obligations should be taken into
account.
-Analyze your ethical responsibilities to other parties and
what is equitable and fair.
-When you fully comprehend the economic, legal, and
equitable aspects, decide on a course of action based on:
the outcomes you hope to achieve, your responsibility to
uphold moral standards, your organization's or community's
standards, beliefs, and strategy, as well as your own
personal convictions.
5
Ethically Ambiguous Tactics:
Negotiators in negotiations are expected to be forthcoming and honest with their subjects, but
unethical tactics can be used to gain a short-term tactical edge. Here, rather than focusing on what is
really done, the focus is more on what negotiators say (communicate about) or what they promise to
do (although negotiators may act unethically as well).
A reputation for being truthful is likely to be highly valued by the majority of negotiators. But what
does telling the truth entail?
(The questions regarding telling the truth are simple, but the solutions are not ) .
Finally, one can give these queries a relativistic component: Is revealing the truth always advisable, or
are there circumstances in which it is appropriate (or even required) to withhold the truth? These are
issues that greatly interest negotiators (and thinkers throughout history!).
The moral dilemmas surrounding revealing the truth have been discussed in a number of papers
published in business publications.
That strategy in business is analogous to strategy in a game of poker."
Carr suggested that an executive is likely missing out on opportunities allowed by the norms of
business and is likely to be at a significant disadvantage in business negotiations if he or she feels
bound to always disclose the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 3
A number of critics argued that individual businesspeople and corporations should be held to higher
standards of ethical conduct, and they took Carr to task for his position.
Three decades later, one disputed Carr's assertion that engaging in dishonest behaviour while
bargaining is acceptable because most games do not do so, stating that Carr's rationale is flawed.
Identifying Ethically Ambiguous Tactics and Attitudes toward Their Use What Ethically Ambiguous
Tactics Are There : For almost 20 years, researchers have been trying to figure out what these
strategies are and how theyre put together. The standard method has been to ask CEOs and
students to score a list of methods based on their perceived effectiveness, propensity to use the
tactic, andor appropriateness of the tactic. Six distinct categories of techniques emerged from the
examination of these questionnaire results, and these categories have now been supported by 6
additional data gathering and analysis.
Is It Okay to Employ Ethically Ambiguous Techniques?
According to research, there are unspoken ground rules for negotiations.
Some negotiators may view certain small forms of lying—misrepresenting one's
genuine position to the opposing side, calling bluffs, and manipulating other people's
emotions—as ethically acceptable and within the bounds of the rules (but not by
others).
Outright dishonesty and falsification, on the other hand, are typically regarded as
breaking the law.
7
When it is legal to lie in negotiation
• A knowing misrepresentation of a material fact on which the victim reasonably relies, and which causes damage.
• A misrepresentation. An affirmative misstatement of something.
• A knowing misrepresentation is when you know something is false when you say it, but can you use that
knowledge to avoid coming into contact with the truth? Shall say no courts would regard that reckless disregard
for the truth as grounds for legal action in a defamation case.
• A fact, misrepresenting an opinion or intention can get you into trouble if it builds on factual misrepresentation. To
be illegal, in theory, the thing being misrepresented generally must be an objective fact. But in practice, shell
points out that misstating an opinion is more common than people realize.
• A. material fact, In the United States, demands and reservation pints are not regarded as material to the deal, so
it not actionable fraud to bluff around them. But lying about alternatives or other offers or other buyers can get
you into trouble. It may be left up to a jury to decide if a claim of fraud went to trail.
• Reliance/ causation, for deceptive statement to be legally fraudulent the receiver must prove that he or she relies
on the information and that doing so caused harm.
• There are legal grounds under which you are legally bound to share truthful information - for instance, if the
parties stand in a fiduciary relationship to one another.
• Ethical constraints on negotiated transactions may be minimal or hard to determine clearly, and let the buyer
always beware. We do not mean to endorse the use of any marginally ethical tactic. Instead, our objective is to
focus debate among negotiators on exactly when these tactics might be appropriate.
8
Deception by Omission versus Commission : The use of deceptive tactics can be
active or passive. To illustrate, consider a study that examined the tendency for
negotiators to misrepresent their interests on a common-value issue-an issue
for which both parties are seeking the same outcome. 16 A negotiator using
this tactic deceives the other party about what she wants on the common-value
issue and then grudgingly agrees to accept the other partys preference, which
in reality matches her own. By making it look as though she has made a
concession, she can seek a concession from the other party in return. Overall,
28 percent of subjects in the study misrepresented the common-value issue in
an effort to obtain a concession from the other party. The re searchers
discovered that negotiators used two forms of deception in misrepresenting the
common-value issue misrepresentation by omission failing to disclose
information that would benefit the other and misrepresentation by commission
actually lying about the common-value issue.
9
Deception in negotiation :
Negotiators frequently use deceiving their opponents to gain advantage and make money.
Individuals have private and asymmetric information at the outset of negotiations, which is
how most negotiations are defined. most individuals aren't very good at detecting lies.
there are many appealing opportunities to utilise dishonesty during negotiations. These
benefits might, however, come at a high price; exposed dishonesty could harm relationships
and reputations and inspire retaliation Deception is the deliberate use of words and/or
actions, including omissions, to deceive a counterpart.
In a negotiation, there are several ways to lie. Even though not all lies are motivated by self-
interest These comprise self-interested misrepresentations, bluffs, and falsifications and are
referred to as selfis black lies by Erat. These lies boost the payoffs of the liars at the expense
of their targets.
Making the distinction between active deceit (commissions) and passive deception is another
method for categorising falsehoods (omissions).
For instance, Schweitzer and Croson (1999) found that lying by omission was much more
common in negotiations than lying by commission, and subsequent research found that
people view commissions as being more significant than omissions.
.Motives to behave unethically : Negotiators are motivated to avoid being exploited by
another party and may use deception to diminish the risk. Motivational orientation whether
negotiators are motivated to act cooperatively com-petitively, or individualistically toward
each other can affect the strategies and tactics they pursue.
10
3 Reasons Employees Act Unethically :
1. (Bad apples (individual factors):
Unethical choices are more likely from people with specific personal
characteristics — specific views and values. Overwhelmingly, these
employees are driven by self-interest. For example, they manipulate others
for their own personal gain, fail to see the connection between their action
and outcomes.
2. Bad cases (issue-specific factors):
An employee might make an unethical choice in one situation but not in
others. Employees are more likely to act unethically when they don't see
their action clearly causing harm. Unethical choices also occur when an
employee feels that peers will not condemn their actions.
3. Bad barrels (environmental factors):
An organization's performance management system might reward
employees for their bottom-line achievement, no matter how it is achieved.
Unethical choices are more likely when an organization encourages
individualistic behaviour rather than doing what is best for other
employees, customers, and the community. 11
FIGURE 5.2 I A Simple Model of Deception in Negotiation
12
• Own reactions Under certain circumstances, such as when the other party is truly distressed, the negotiator may feel anxious, stressed, guilty, or
remorseful.
• For example, in one study, people who lied to their partners during mock business negotiations compensated by making greater concessions later in
the negotiation.
• This compensation for previous lies was especially common among study participants who self-identified because of their "moral qualities" (such as
being honest in business dealings).
• Of course, negotiators who feel comfortable using deceptive tactics may want to use deceptive tactics again, and may start thinking about how to use
them more effectively. .
• On the one hand, the use of unethical tactics can have serious consequences for the reputation and credibility of negotiators, but parties rarely seem
to consider these consequences in the short term.
• On the other hand, negotiators can rationalize and justify the use of tactics, especially if they work. As previously explained, if a negotiator uses an
ethically ambiguous tactic that may provoke a reaction, the negotiator may consider the use of that tactic to himself (e.g., be considered "unethical"). ,
victims, or advocates. And an audience that can express their concerns.
• The main purpose of these explanations and justifications is to rationalize, explain, or excuse behavior. That is, verbalize a good justification for why
the tactic was necessary.
• Negotiators often justify their actions by saying that the circumstances required them to act as they did.
• Perhaps the negotiator didn't mean to hurt anyone, but was under pressure from someone else to use this tactic.
• Exaggerating, bluffing, or looking at your opponent's personal notes while negotiating can easily be described as harmless behavior. This tactic helps
avoid negative consequences.
• With this rationale, negotiators argue that the ends justify the means.
• In this case, the reason given is that the tactic helped avoid greater damage.
• Similarly, negotiators may see lying (or other exhaustive tactics) as justified if it protects them from even more undesirable consequences should the
truth come to light.
• Either the tactic yields good results or the tactic is altruistically motivated. Again, the ends justify the means, but in a good way.
• Negotiators who judge tactics by their results are acting according to the utilitarian tenet that the quality of a particular action is measured by its results.
• Utilitarians may argue that certain kinds of lying and exhausting tactics are appropriate. Because they can bring more profit.
13
In practice, most negotiators employ deceptive tactics for their own benefit, not the public interest.
"You deserved it" or "You deserved it" or "I'm in debt now". These are all variations on the theme of lying or deceiving individuals who have taken
Deception is identified as using misleading arguments, distorting the truth, and leading the
party to believe in a false statement. Some effective negotiation techniques could be used to
avoid deception. Deceptive tactics in negotiation can run rampant: parties “stretch” the
numbers, conceal key information, and make promises they know they can’t keep. The
benefits of negotiation in business offer strong incentives to detect these behaviors.
Unfortunately, however, most of us are very poor lie detectors.
An effective negotiator could deal with the other party's deception in the following ways:
1. By implying that the other party's choices to the current contract are restricted.
2. By promoting urge for your colleagues to join an ethical organization, like a trade association.
3. By persuading the other party that they are progressing.
4. By emphasizing the legal ramifications of unethical behavior to the other party.
5. Look for changes in general behaviors that research suggests lying is likely to produce. These include:
• facial expression – while remaining ‘poker-faced’ watch for subtle movements, changes in microexpressions
• eye contact – may be reduced, but mostly liars train themselves not to break eye contact (also note cultural variance of
dropping gaze as a mark of respect)
• arms/hands – less expansive gestures, reduced movement in arms/hands/fingers, possible increase in fidgeting and
hand-to-face contacts (eg. mouth cover, nose touch),
• blink rate – less than people telling the truth
• body posture – more controlled, tight
• body orientation – less close, moves/turns away
• body movements – while decrease in overall body movements note a possible increase in small body shifts, squirms
14
• nonverbal speech – note changes in pitch/pace and more pauses
Thank You!
Abdullah Rafik 20193605.
Seifeldin Ahmed 20190916.
Sandy Ayman 20195073.
Ibrahim Mohamed 20192586.
Mohamed hassan elsayed 20192280.
Mamdouh Mostafa 20194912.
Omnia Sayed 20206074.
Hossam el din adham 20192094.
adel tamer 20191061.
Hussien Hossam gebril 20204829.
