ETHICS IN NEGOTIATION
...AT ARE THE MAJOR ETHICAL CONCERNS THAT APPLY TO NEGOTIATION? (pp 238) END-RESULTS ETHICS Many of the ethically questionable incidents in business that upset the public involve people who argue that the ends justify the means. In the negotiation context, when negotiators have noble objectives to attain for themselves or their constituencies, they will argue that they can use whatever strategies they want. They draw on a view of ethics known as “act utilitarianism.” The highest moral conduct is to maximize the greatest good for the greatest number. RULE ETHICS They emphasize that individuals ought to commit themselves to a series of moral rules or standards, and make decisions based on those rules. “Rule utilitarians” argue that the best way to achieve the greatest good is to closely follow a set of rules and principles. The strongest proponent was the philosopher Immanuel Kant, who argued that these principles are established on pure rational grounds, and that the principles can be debated (and improved upon) as we improve upon the key tenets of rational science. SOCIAL CONTRACT ETHICS Social contract ethicists argue that societies, organizations, and cultures determine what is ethically appropriate and acceptable, and then indoctrinate new members as they are socialized into the fabric of the community. In a sense, each member of the group agrees to an implied (or even explicit) “social contract” that explains what the individual is expected to give to the community, what the individual can get back from the community, and the social rules or norms that all members are expected to follow. Applied to negotiation, social contract ethics would prescribe which behaviours are appropriate in a negotiation context, in terms of what people owe one another. PERSONALISTIC ETHICS People should simply consult their own conscience. As applied to negotiation, personalistic ethics maintain that everyone ought to decide for themselves what is right based on their conscience (whatever it may say to them) 3) WHAT MAJOR TYPES OF ETHICAL AND UNETHICAL CONDUCT ARE LIKELY TO OCCUR IN NEGOTIATION? (pp 245) There is a systematic bias that encourages people to attribute the causes of other people’s behaviour to their personalities, while attributing the causes to their own behaviour to factors of social environment. Another way to describe this is in terms of the “absolutist-relativist” disparity: In general, people tend to perceive others in absolutist terms and attribute the causes of their behaviour to a violation of some absolutist principles (e.g. It is wrong to lie), whereas they tend to perceive their own behaviour in more relativistic terms and permit themselves an occasional minor transgression because they had good reasons We propose a simple model to help explain how a negotiator decides whether to employ one or more deceptive tactics. FIGURE 7.1 A SIMPLE MODEL OF ETHICAL DECISION MAKING (pp 247) The Range of Available Influence Tactics (pp 246) -Ethics In Negotiation is Mostly about Truth Telling. Most of the ethics issues in negotiation are concerned with standards of truth telling –how honest, candid, and disclosing a negotiator should be. The questions about what constitutes truth telling are quite straightforward, but once again the answers are not so clear: 1) How does one define truth? 2) How does one define and classify deviations from the truth? 3) Should a person tell the truth at all the time, or are there times when not telling the truth is an acceptable (or even necessary) form of conduct? As we pointed out when we discussed interdependence (Chapter 1), negotiation is based on “information dependence”-the exchange of information regarding the true preference and priorities of the other negotiator. This results in two fundamental negotiation dilemmas: a) The dilemma of trust. Its implication is that negotiators believe everything the other says and can be manipulated by his or her dishonesty. b) The dilemma of honesty. Its implication is that negotiators tell the other all about their exact requirements and limits and will therefore never do better than this minimum level. Typologies of Deceptive Tactics and Attitudes toward Their Use (pp 249) Researchers have extensively explored the nature and conceptual organization of marginally ethical negotiating tactics, and six clear categories emerged. TABLE 7.2 CATEGORIES OF MARGINALLY ETHICAL NEGOTATING TACTICS (pp 250) CATEGORY EXAMPLE Traditional competitive bargaining Not disclosing your walkaway; making an inflated opening offer Emotional manipulation Faking anger, fear, disappointment; faking elation, satisfaction Misrepresentation Distorting information or negotiation events in describing them to others Misrepresentation to opponent’s networks Corrupting your opponent’s reputation with his peers Inappropriate information gathering Bribery, infiltration, spying, etc Bluffing Insincere threats or promises Some minor forms of untruths -misrepresentation of one’s true position to the other party bluffs, and emotional manipulations- may be seen as ethically acceptable and within the rules. In contrast, outright deception and falsification are generally seen as outside the rules. Strong cautionary notes on these conclusions: These statements are based on ratings by large groups of people; these observations are based on what people said they would do, rather than what they actually did; obviously by reporting these results, we do not mean to endorse the use of any marginally ethical tactic. Does Tolerance for Unethical Tactics Lead to Their Actual Use? (pp 251) The findings from the study suggested the following: There is a significant positive relationship between an intention to use a specific tactic and actually using the tactic. INTENTIONS AND MOTIVES TO USE DECEPTIVE TACTICS (pp 251) The purpose of using marginally ethical negotiating tactics is to increase the negotiator’s power in the bargaining environment. One view of negotiation is that it is primarily an exchange of facts, arguments, and logic between two wholly rational information-processing entities. Often, whoever has better information, or uses persuasively, stands to “win” the negotiation. A lie changes the balance of information power in the negotiating relationship, creating the image that the liar either has better information that the other party or is using it in a more persuasive an convincing manner. A negotiator uses inaccurate or misleading information o change the other party’s preferences or priorities. Different types of deception can serve different purposes in negotiation. The Motivation to Behave Unethically (pp 253) The motivation of a negotiator can clearly affect his or her tendency to use deceptive tactics. Whether negotiators are motivated to act cooperatively, competitively or individualistically toward the other can affect the strategies and tactics they pursue. Research results revealed that differences in the negotiators’ own motivational orientation –cooperative vs competitive- did not cause differences in their view of the appropriateness of using the tactics, but the negotiators’ perception of the other’s expected motivation did. Negotiators may rationalize the use of marginally ethical tactics in anticipated defence of the other’s expected conduct, rather than take personal responsibility for using these tactics in the service of their own competitive orientation. The Consequences of Unethical Conduct (pp 254) A negotiator who employs an unethical tactic will experience positive or negative consequences. The consequences are based on whether the tactic is effective (It should be fairly clear that the tactic’s effectiveness should have some impact on whether is more or less likely to be used in the future); how the other person, constituencies, and audiences evaluate the tactic (As a result of both the actual loss they may have suffered and the embarrassment they feel at having been deceived, most victims are likely to seek retaliation and revenge. Moreover, the importance of the information that was lied about is the most significant predictor of whether the relationship would eventually terminate); and how the negotiator evaluates the tactic. Explanations and Justifications (pp 256) The primary motivation to use a deceptive tactic is to gain a temporary power advantage. When a negotiator has used a tactic that may produce some reaction, he must prepare to defend the tactic’s use to himself, to the victim, or to constituencies and audiences who may express their concerns. Most of the following rationalizations have been adapted from Bok and her excellent treatise on lying: a) The tactic was unavoidable. b) The tactic was harmless. c) The tactic will help to avoid negative consequences. d) The tactic will produce good consequences, or the tactic is altruistically motivated. e) “They had it coming,” or “They deserve it,” or “I’m just getting my due.” f) “They were going to do it anyway, so I will do it firs.” g) The tactic is fair or appropriate for the situation (situational relativism) h) Those who espouse situational ethics suggest that rules against deceit may be suspended in at least two cases: when others have already violated the rules (therefore legitimizing the negotiator’s right to violate them as well), and when it is anticipated that others will violate the rules (and therefore the others’ actions should be pre-empted) We propose that the more frequently negotiators engage in this self-serving justification process, the more their judgement about ethical standards and values will become biased, leading to a lessened ability to make accurate judgements about the truth. Moreover, although the tactics were initially used to gain power in a negotiation, the negotiators who use them frequently will experience a loss of power over time. These negotiators will be seen as having low credibility or integrity, and will be treated as people who will act exploitatively if the opportunity arises. 4) WHAT FACTORS SHAPE A NEGOTIATOR’S PREDISPOSITION TO USE UNETHICAL TACTICS? (pp 260) FIGURE 7.2 A MORE COMPLEX MODEL OF DECISION MAKING (pp 261) The fundamental debate here is the “nature vs nurture” argument about what causes individuals to behave as they do. Many believe that making ethical decisions is completely determined by the moral standards of the individual actor; others, however, believe that situation factors can cause even ethical people to do unethical things. I. Demographic Factors (pp 262) 1. Sex. A number of studies have shown that women tend to make more ethically rigorous judgements than men. 2. Age and experience. Individuals with more general work experience, and with more direct work experience, were less likely to use unethical negotiating tactics. 3. Ethnicity. No significant differences were found. 4. Nationality and Cultural Background. American students and those with a Middle Eastern heritage were significantly more likely to use marginally ethical tactics. 5. Professional Orientation. All groups indicated that traditional competitive bargaining and misrepresentation were ethically acceptable. 6. Academic background. Students wi...