According to Sir Michael Palliser, “Ethics, in practice, is defined in a code, to which virtually anyone can subscribe, whether honestly or purely cynically. This means that ethics is more or less analogous to “motherhood”, as that expression is used nowadays” Ethics is not a strange thing to us, however, to understand the meaning and to apply them in real situation is extremely difficult. In some cases, we do not use ethical tactics even though we know clearly that we should not do.
It depends on what kind of negotiation, who we are negotiating and the aim we need to complete. In this essay, instead of making a decision that we should or should not use ethical tactics, we will discuss the meaning and the primary factors that negotiators consider when they need to choose whether tactics are ethical or unethical. Moreover, we focus on ethics in global negotiation, some cases of unethical practices in negotiation and some instances of moral dilemma for a negotiator.
Apart from table of contents, introduction, list of figures, list of tables, the main body of the thesis is divided into 3 chapters as follows: Chapter 1: The meaning of ethics and how do they apply to negotiation Chapter 2: Major types of ethical and unethical conduct likely occur in negotiation Chapter 3: The ways negotiators deal with the other party’s use of deception CHAPTER 1 The definition of ethics and how do they apply to negotiation In this chapter, we show some examples of ethics in negotiation in our daily life to help you easily approach the meaning of ethics.
Beside it, we compare the difference between ethics and morals and answer the question: Why do ethics apply to negotiation? 1. 1 The definition of ethics Consider the following examples: Example 1: * You are a manager needs more clerks for your office because the work is delayed. * Your boss is not sympathetic. She simply thinks the solution is the current clerks agree to work harder and volunteer work overtime. * Besides, the department’s budget is tight, so if you need additional personnel, you will have to express clearly to your boss: * Solution 1: Document all the process, especially the amount of work is delayed and report to her. Solution 2: Give your clerk extra works, create an artificial backlog so it will be easier to argue for more help * Solution 3: Convince your clerks to focus on quality and standard, create a slowdown and backlog to argue for more help * Solution 4: Transfer some clerks who drink coffee all day down the hall to your office. Example 2: You buy a new pair of shoes on sale, which cannot be returned as it was written clearly on the reception. However, after several days wearing it, you realize that they do not totally fit you.
You decide to bring them back to the store and ask for return but the clerk certainly does not agree. As she points at the bill’s conditions, you start to be angry and yell loudly among everyone. Finally, their manager has to agree to give you the money back. Firstly, ethics are different from morals. Look at the table 1. 1 below Ethics| Morals| Broadly applied social standards for what is right or wrong in particular situation or a process for setting those standards| Individual and personal beliefs about what is right or wrong | Table 1. * Ethics also hold several huge roles in social life: * Purporting to define the nature of the world where we live * Setting rules for living together 1. 2 How do ethics apply to negotiation Managers always face to important situations that they have to make decisions to gain the best achievements as possible, particularly when a wide range of influence tactics are available for them. There are many ethical issues appearing in negotiations that might confuse people among many other tactics and deception.
There are at least four standards for judging strategies and tactics in business and negotiation: End – result ethics| Base on evaluating the pros and cons of its consequences(the greatest return on investment)| Rule ethics| Base on existing laws and contemporary social standards| Social standard ethics| Base on the customs and norms of a particularly society or community| Personality ethics| Base on one’s own conscience and moral standards| Table 1. 2
Coming back to the first example that given above, we will come to this classification: Solutions| Ethics type| Explanation| 1| Rule ethics| Never suitable to lie, so you make a completely true report (and might use other tactics that not outright lying). | 2| End-result ethics| Do whatever necessary (such as create artificial backlog, deception…) to get the boss agree to hire more clerks. | 3| Social contract ethics| Convince all the current clerks to focus on uality, which you think appropriate to your specific department’s culture and the way you often work with them. | 4| Personality ethics| Follow your conscience. You see many different free clerks that do nothing in the office, so you tell your boss to transfer them. | Table 1. 3 In summary, in negotiations, people always have to classify clearly among what is ethical (standards of moral conduct), prudent (wise, understand clearly the results of tactics and relationships), practical (realistic, can really happen) or legal (follow the law completely).
In next part, all of these following questions will be answer: * How ethics apply to negotiation? * What major types of ethical and unethical conduct are likely to occur in negotiation? * How can negotiators deal with the other party’s use of deception? CHAPTER 2 Major types of ethical and unethical conduct likely occur in negotiation In this part, we discuss some types of ethical and unethical in negotiation together with some stack examples. We also give some answer for how do negotiators choose to use ethical or unethical tactics.
Furthermore, we provide our knowledge about ethical tactics in Negotiation are mostly about truth telling, typologies of deceptive tactics, the motivation to behave unethically. Last but not least, we give some instances of moral dilemma for a negotiator 2. 1 How do negotiators choose to use ethical or unethical tactics? Why do some negotiators choose to use tactics that may be unethical? The first answer that occurs to many people is that such negotiators are corrupt, degenerate, or immoral.
However, that answer is much too simplistic. In addition, it reflects a systematic bias in the way negotiators tend to perceive the other parties and explain the reasons for his or her behavior…. In general, people tend to perceive others in absolutist terms and attribute the causes of their behavior to a violation of some absolutist principles, whereas they tend to perceive their own behavior in more relativistic terms and permit themselves an occasional minor transgression because they had good reason.
There are two reasons of choosing unethical tactics. The simple and basic reason is negotiators are corrupt or immoral and the last one is self-justification tendency: such negotiators tend to attribute the reasons of other people’s behaviors to their personalities, whereas they tend to attribute the reasons of their own behaviors to factors in the social environment. For instance, when someone is noisy in class and you can’t focus on studying, you may say that they’re impolite, they’re bad.
However, if you were talking in class and others say that you were impolite, you tend to blame on other factors such as you just want to borrow a book, a pen or you just want to ask your partner some parts of the lecture that you do not understand. This tendency is called the “absolutist – relativist” disparity. In general, in negotiation, people usually criticize others’ unethical tactics for bad behavior in absolute terms, like “It is wrong to behave badly no matter what the reason is”.
But they explain their using unethical tactics in more relative terms, like “I understand the principles but I have good reasons for doing this, and what I’m saying is justifiable”. So how to decide which tactics should to be used in negotiation? Firstly, negotiation starts with the state of being in a situation that needs to affect other people and need to choose which tactics they will use. (Influence situation). Secondly, negotiator have to make a list of possible tactics that may be used to influent others (identification of range of influence tactics).
Then they have to define what their motivations are, what their judgment of an appropriate tactic is …, to make a selection of suitable tactics they are going to use (selection and use of a deceptive tactic) Finally, negotiators have to consider the consequences of those tactics based on three factors: the impact of the tactics, self-feeling after using the tactics and the feedback as well as the reaction from other people about what they’ve done. It is these consequences are good or bad that will affect their decision to make similar tactics in the future and bring about their explanation or justification of their choices. 2. Ethical tactics in Negotiation are mostly about truth telling We all know that most of the ethics issues in negotiation are concerned with standards of truth telling. We always wonder how honest, candid we should be in negotiation. Some negotiators may cheat in some situation to have benefits. They may violate formal and informal rules. In other situations, the may steal (break into the other party’s database to secure confidential documents…), but most of the attention in negotiator ethics has been on lying behavior. No one wants to tell lies and we clearly understand that being truthful is the best way to keep our reputation and honor.
However, what does “being truthful” mean? We haven’t had a clear answer. Because firstly, it depends on How one defines Truth? Truth can be following a clear set of rules, determining what the social contract is for truth in your group or organization but truth can also be following your conscience. Secondly, how one defines and classifies deviations from the truth may be a problem. You think that all deviations are lies but I think small or minor deviations are not lies. So, we are different in the way of thinking. Finally, the most important question: should we tell the truth all the time, even it’s necessary to tell lies?
Many people have mentioned the ethical issues surrounding truth telling. For example, Carr wrote in his “Harvard Business review” article that strategy in business is analogous to strategy in a game of poker. He explained that poker players often cheat like marking cards or hiding an ace up your sleeve. And in some other situations, a good poker player often conceal information and bluffing, like convincing others that he has the cards when he really doesn’t, so do business transaction. From time to time, many people realize the importance of not telling the truth.
Most executives find themselves compelled to tell lies to keep their own interest or the interest of their company, their organization. They have to learn and practice some forms of deception when dealing with customers, labor unions, government officials…and it’s undeniable that if an executive insists of telling truth all the time, he can refuse many big chances for his business or even lead the company to risk. Ethics and legality are absolutely different. Bluffing, exaggeration and concealment or manipulation of information may be unethical but they are legitimate ways for both individuals and corporations to maximize their benefits.
Nevertheless, we have to consider carefully before using those tactics because they are not suitable for all situations all the time. An executive might plead poverty with employees and thereby, he can save a large amount of money for his company. On the other side, if he pleaded poverty to save money investigated on products, he may fail to make safety or quality improvements on company’s products and lead the company to risk. People have been arguing about the issues surrounding truth telling and standards of being ethical in negotiation.
In our opinion, negotiation base on the exchange of information regarding the true preferences and priority of the other negotiators. It means that effective negotiated agreement depends on the willingness of the parties to share accurate information about their goals, interests, priorities… At the same time, all negotiators may want to maximize their benefits, so they minimize the information about themselves, show as little as possible about their position ( in case they think that other parties can make use of their high position to offer more.. . 2. 3 Typologies of deceptive tactics There are many tips and forms of deception in negotiation. There are a lot of ways to classify them, too. However, we classify the deceptions into 6 clear categories of tactics emerged and have been confirmed by additional data collection and analysis. The first 2 tactics we mention here are viewed as generally appropriate and likely to be used. * Traditional competitive bargaining: not disclosing your walkaway or making an inflated opening offer. * Emotional manipulation: faking your feeling or emotion show.
For example, when you want to buy a dress in a market in Vietnam, you have to reduce the price the seller tells you. You can pretend that the dress has something you don’t like when you really like it. Then the seller may agree to reduce the price suitable for you. In contrast, if you like the dress and show the elation or satisfaction, the seller will know that you really want it and offer you a high price. The last 4 tactics are seen as inappropriate and unethical in negotiation but in many situations, they are very effective in successful distributive bargaining. Misrepresentation: means distorting information or negotiation events in describing them to others. * Misrepresentation to opponent’s networks: means corrupting your opponent’s reputation with his peers. It can make a lot of disadvantages to your opponent. For instance, you work for company A and your opponent is company B. You know that the executive of company B has an excellent manager and he helps that executive so much. You, somehow, make a rumor that the executive is going to expel the manager so that break the union of them. * Inappropriate information gathering: This action can be done by bribery, infiltration or spying. Bluffing: insincere threats or promises. We can see it when we are interviewed to work for a company. The executive may promise large benefits for you but the truth is that they give you the things not as good as you expect. To sum up, ethics surrounding truth telling in negotiation is still an arguing issue. We do not clearly show what is right or wrong, what a negotiator should do. We just think that a good negotiator should not tell the truth all the time and he has to consider carefully before deciding to use deceptive tactics in each situation.
We hope that the 6 categories of deception can help you more to get a successful negotiation. 2. 4 The motivation to behave unethically There is a truth that everything includes two opposite sides, the light and the dark one, negotiation is not an exception too. Behaving ethically in negotiation is a right way, but not always in use. The reason simply is negotiators have to face up with so many factors that interrupt they convince other parties, so unethical method maybe helpful in this situation.
However, after behaving ethically, negotiators would, or even surely, suffer a risk of terrible consequences such as losing belief of partners, bearing the disgracefulness during for a long time thereafter… This part will illustrate the definition of unethical behavior in order to help people recognize an opposite meaning of ethic in negotiation. After that, we are going to present the reasons why negotiation using these methods, even they aware of its disadvantages. Speak in other way, this is the motivation. As a result, consequences are depicted in the last part with several examples. . 4. 1 What does “unethical behaviour” mean? Negotiation requires a true attitude during interacting between two or more sides. When one of them abuses the belief of their partners to gain more benefit, it call unethical behavior in negotiation. Take a small consideration in business. Two companies are bargaining about exchange excellent stuffs for training 3 months. The company A suggests that they will provide private rooms, good working environment and regular training if the company B agree send them 5 best managers.
The company B also be pleased with these conditions given above but do not want to lose their skilled personnel. As a result, they pretend that all conditions that the company A provided is deserve to have 3 members exchange, even 3 normal members. And then, 3 people will help B get more information from A. By this way, they can save their merit but also take advantage of the opponent. For example, the insincere promises of U. S imperialism in Geneva Convention (21/7/1954). At the behest of U. S. imperialism, Ngo Dinh Diem strengthened the persecution of the southerners.
Along with the increasingly blatant intervention of U. S. imperialism in the South, Ngo Dinh Diem, their henchmen, is serving a terrible policy terrorism campaign, discrimination and retaliation against those who have previously participated resistance. Article 14c of the Geneva Agreement states: “Each party pledged not to use revenge or discriminate against any individual or organization, for reasons of their activities during the war and committed to protection of the freedom of their democracy. ” Article 15d says: “The two sides do not tolerate any actions that violate the par … nd property of civilians. ” Article 9 of the final declaration of the Geneva Convention says: “The current local authority in the North and South Vietnam as well as Laos, Cambodia not to take the revenge act individually or collectively to the person or family who has any cooperation under form with one of the two sides during the war. ” However, in the south, all the terms which have not been respected opponent. The terrorist attacks and arrests occurred in the consecutive temporary stationing of French troops Union.
We feel their pains recalling massacre Kim Hill (TT) occurred on 2-8-1954, the day after the gunfire stopped explosion on the battlefield Central, making 84 people including many specific elderly and children cheering peace was shot and wounded. People will never forget the massacre at Cam Lo (Quang Tri), Cho Be (Quang Nam), Ngan Son, Chi Thanh (Phu Yen), Mo Cay (Ben Tre), Wing Chun (Can Tho) , Binh Thanh (Long Xuyen) make hundreds of people had been shot at and killed, thousands arrested and detained.
In conclusion, the U. S imperialism and Mr. Ngo Dinh Diem had an unethical behavior in negotiation, they gave insincere promises in Geneva Convention. They betrayed the belief of the other parties and the articles in convention opponents. Besides, sometimes negotiator has to face with moral dilemma, which can lead to the failure of negotiation. Moral dilemmas, also known as ethical dilemmas, are situations in which there are two choices to be made, neither of which resolves the situation in an ethically acceptable fashion.
In such cases, societal and personal ethical guidelines can provide no satisfactory outcome for the chooser. Moral dilemmas assume that the chooser will abide by societal norms, such as codes of law or religious teachings, in order to make the choice ethically impossible. Let see an example below: The company A wants to negotiate with the company B. The company B is bigger and stronger than the A and the truth is that A must depend on B to have sponsor to do a campaign. However, shortly before agreement, B has more requirements that A has to meet.
A manager in company A is afraid that B may not help his company in time, so he finds another company and calls for help. The company B finds out this and the executive of B is very angry. He says that he wants the A to find out who the manager is and expel him then he will help company A. The executive of company A stands between 2 choices which do not satisfy him totally: * Choice 1: He expels the manager. The manager is very excellent and helped the company a lot when he worked for company A. The executive doesn’t want to lose a good and loyal staff.
Moreover, the manager just wanted to help the company, so the executive feel sorry if expelling him. * Choice 2: He saves the manager. He has to tell lie that the manager is another man and expel that man (and give him a deserve amount of money). This action can reduce the anger of the B’s executive, not only save the manager but also succeed in negotiating with B. But lie telling is unethical behavior. 2. 4. 2 The motivation to behave unethically in negotiation There are heaps of motivations listed by experienced negotiation.
The first answer usually occurs to us is that people are corrupt, immoral or degenerate. In fact, these answers is not really clear, maybe weakly argue but not persuasive. Here were three primary factors which leads negotiators consider using ethical methods: gaining benefit, the desire to beat an opponent in competitive environment, and the need to insure or restore some standard of justice that has been violated. These three reasons also mentioned in many theories during negotiation history. According to Missner (1980), profit, competition and justice are three basic causes.
While the strategies and tactics of negotiating have little to do with advertising strategies in the conventional sense, questions and issues of profit, justice and competition are common to the evaluation of negotiating behavior. a. Profit In this context, we define profit as the “desire to get more” rather than in strict accounting terms. It means after negotiating, you earn or receive more than you pay for, especially in comparison with your partner. Even, you lose, but the opponent suffers a great damage. Profit is clearly a motive in negotiating.
By its very nature, negotiating is a process by which individuals strive to maximize their outcomes. Individuals trying to maximize their profit frequently use negotiating strategies and tactics because they are recognized as techniques for enhancing profit. For example, a businessman who is about to go bankrupt wants to sell his house. The house normally cost 2 billion dollars, which is very high to buy for a medium class. The customer desiring this house, after failing to bargain businessman sell it at 1,5 billion, flashes an idea.
He hides several people pretending spontaneously want to buy this house but pay very lower price. Thanks to the fact that the real customer have to persuade the seller that he is the only one paying largest amount of money for this house in his crisis time. In the end, the customer gets more profit in negotiation with the businessman by ethical way. b. Competition This behavior occurs in a social context in which the total amount of resources available is insufficient to satisfy everyone’s desires; therefore, competition occurs.
In this part, you will realize wining maybe not the highest target but beating the other is. Therefore, each one can consider every technique, even an unfair one, to compete. In the business system, there are several different types of competition. The fundamental differences between these types are (1) whether competitors know that they are competing, (2) whether they know the identity of their competitors, and (3) whether they attain their goal by simply “getting there first” or by blocking their opponent in his pursuit of the goal. An example of the first type is (1) someone trying to set a record for pizza-eating to win recognition in the Guiness Book of World Records; an individual is trying to surpass a previous record without knowing whether anyone else is trying to do as well. It is true also in negotiation, when multilateral negotiating were taken place, each party will try by their best to win the highest outcomes without thinking about that of others. * The second type of competition is (2) people know what other competing but not knowing exactly who they are.
For instance, in many fairy tales, there are thousands men wanting to get married with Princess. Each one convinces the Royal family that they are suitable candidate by showing their talents without awareness of the others. * The third is easily seen in a marathon race or an auction. It happens (3) when you know who is your competitors, what they are competing and how they enhance their profit. The only way to win in this situation is simply getting the number one in rank. * The last is (4) trying to defeat competitor by all means.
This is really deplorable behavior because of its unfairness. We shall call the first three types incidental competition, and this type essential competition. Here it can be argued that the closer a negotiator comes to a situation of essential competition, where a specific adversary has to be defeated in order to achieve a goal, the more a party is predisposed to use tactics that are ethically questionable. In most competitions, there are rules that limit what people can or can’t do.
It can be argued that when the goal is to defeat an opponent, there may be considerably greater pressures to violate the rules in order to make sure that defeat occurs. c. Justice Questions of justice largely based on differing standards of outcome distribution: what parties actually receive (in economic or social benefits) compared to what they believe they deserve. Conflict arises when parties disagree as to how well they have actually performed, and how much they deserve for their performance. Everyone thinks that their distribution is valuable and worth with a large outcome or a significant recognition.
As an example of the first case – determining how well they have performed – suppose one person becomes a millionaire through inheritance while the other person has had to work 60 hours a week for 20 years to attain the same status. In the second case – determining what they deserve for their performance – a justice question may arise over whether a labor union deserves an across-the-board increase of 25cents/hour. Moreover justice questions arise when parties disagree about whether the rules were followed in attaining a particular end.
The more parties fundamentally disagree about the nature of the rules that apply in a given situation, or the manner in which the rules were (or were not) observed, the more likely these disagreements will lead to an ethical controversy about which fairness standards are “right” and “wrong”. 2. 4. 3 Consequences of unethical behavior in negotiation This picture clearly illustrates the risk of using unethical behavior in negotiation. On the very first time, users can get high benefit, but not last long and substantial.
The failure happen in unexpected and unpredicted way, which will collapse all your effort made before. X axis represents the time. It may be the time of just one negotiation (30 minutes may be) or may represent the whole career of a negotiator (15 years maybe, if he is lucky). Y axis is the negotiation success through unethical behavior. As time passes, the success increases, through unethical behaviors and it makes the perfect trend! In a very short time the negotiator can be very successful. It does not mean every successful negotiator must behave unethically to be very successful.
But assume; this is the graph of a hard negotiation, both sides insist on what they want to get and the negotiator can be only successful after 2 or 3 days negotiation. We glad to cite an example from data we found during our research “The case was same for Tin Men, the movie. In the movie, two salesmen, working for an aluminum siding company, are in the front garden of a house and they try to take some photographs of the house. Because they want to meet someone from the house, they speak with each other very loudly and so, the lady in the house comes to the garden and asks what they are doing.
The salesmen lies: “We are from Life Magazine and we try to take your house photographs to use in a presentation about aluminum siding this week, in Life magazine. ” Because Life Magazine is important for her, the lady wondered what they want to do with her house photo. Salesmen say that the photo will be a before picture in life magazine! As the salesmen hope, a before picture is unacceptable for the lady. So, they make the lady to buy aluminum siding for the house through unethical behaviors at the end of their negotiations. (Of course they have no relationship with Life Magazine).
They sell a lot using these unethical tactics and at the end they lose their licences for selling. They lose the only instrument to do what they are doing best, their jobs. ” In addition, the story about the boy raising sheep in the field and the wolf is a typical example. The boy feel totally boring with spending all day taking care about sheep, so he come up an crazy idea that screaming out “Wolf! Wolf! Help me!! ” can joke other farmers. On the first time, every people in the field immediately run toward his voice. They feel stupid and a little bit angry when realizing the joke.
After that, they lose their temper. The last time, the boy meets the real wolf but nobody believes in his screaming, despite his crying voice. This is the end of liar, who is unethical. 2. 5 Explanations and Justifications As we know, the main motivation for using a tactic in negotiation is to gain a temporary power benefit. There are two ways for people to use the tactics. They may casually or quickly make a decision to use the deceptive tactic to get the advantage. On the other hand, after they consider carefully and evaluate all of the possibilities, they use this method to achieve the target they want.
When a negotiator has used an ethically ambiguous tactics that may elicit a reaction, the negotiator must prepare to defend the use of the tactic. The primary purpose of these explanations and justifications is to rationalize, explain, or excuse the behavior – to verbalize some good, legitimate reason why this tactic was necessary. There is an increasing stream of research on those who employ unethical tactics and the explanations and justifications they may use to rationalize them. Here are seven rationalizations for unethical conduct. Firstly, the tactic was unavoidable.
This means negotiators sometimes don’t want to lie to anyone but they have to. Therefore, they must defend the tactic’s use to themselves. They claim that the situation made it necessary for them to act the way they did. The negotiator may feel that she was not in full control of her actions or had no other option, and hence should not be held responsible. It is possible that the negotiator was pressured to use the tactic by someone’s power even though they had no intent to hurt anyone. Secondly, the tactic was harmless. People tell white lies all the time.
Everyone tells a white lie on occasion, it’s just a question of why. Some white lies save relationships, some ease a hectic situation, and others buy us time. The list could go on forever. Stretching the truth is natural component of human instinct because it’s the easy way out. We all do it, so there is no reason to deny it. In negotiation, they may say that what he did was not very significant. For example, you meet your friend whom you haven’t seen for a long time with a nice behavior and a hug “Oh, Long time no see. I miss you so much. How are you doing? . In fact, you really hate her when both of you was classmates in high school, and obviously, you never miss her as you say. Exaggerations, bluffs, or peeking at the other party’s private notes during negotiations can all be easily explained away as harmless action. However, in some cases, the tactics may betray you. This particular justification interprets the harm from the actor’s point of view. Therefore, the victim may not agree and may have experienced significant harm or costs as a result. Thirdly, the tactic will help to avoid negative consequences.
When using this justification, negotiators are arguing that the ends justify the means. In this case, the tactic can protect you from getting in difficulties and decrease the harm. It is okay to lie to an armed robber such as “I don’t have any money. My little brother had taken my purse because he thought it was a toy and played with it”. Maybe, you can escape from him and avoid being injured. Negotiators may see lying as justifiable if it protects them against even more undesirable consequences should the truth be known. Fourthly, the tactic will produce good consequences, or the tactic is altruistically motivated.
The end justifies the means in a positive sense. That means the quality of any given action is judged by its consequences. Act utilitarian will argue that certain kinds of lies or means-ends tactics are appropriate because they may lead to better results. For example, Robin Hood tactics in which someone robs from the rich to make the poor better off. Another tack on this is the “I was only trying to help you…” explanation. In reality, most negotiators use deceptive tactics for their own advantage, not for the general good.
In this case, others are likely to view these actions as less excusable than tactics that avoid negative consequences. Fifthly, “They had it coming”, or “They deserve it,” or “I’m just getting my due”. People believed that it was appropriate to take advantage of the generalized source of authority in various ways. They may get benefits from tax evasion, petty theft, shoplifting, improper declaration of bankruptcy, journalistic excesses, and distortion in advertising. Time goes on, all of these problems are increasing dramatically. Sixthly, “They were going to do it anyway, so I will do it first. Sometimes, the negotiator rationalizes the use of a tactic because he predicts that the other intends to use similar tactics. In a profound study, Anne Tenbrunsel pointed out that individuals whose partners were more tempted to misrepresent information expected the other to be less honest than individuals whose partners were less tempted. In further research, one’s own temptation to misrepresent creates a self-fulfilling logic in which one believes one needs to misrepresent because the other is likely to do it as well. Seventhly, the tactic is fair or appropriate to the situation.
This approach uses situational relativism as a rationale or justification. Most social situations, including negotiations, are controlled by proper conduct and behavior. In conclusion, explanations and justifications are the ways for people to rationalize the behavior to themselves as well as one’s own conduct. However, if the more frequently negotiators use this processes, the more their judgments about the proper ethics will become worse and biased. These negotiators will not be respected and considered to be low of integrity. Therefore, they cannot seize the opportunities when they come.
The truth is always having a latent power. Negotiators abuse these rationalizations too much, as a result, they will probably unsuccessful unless they are professional in staying ahead of the negative reputation generated by their conduct. CHAPTER 3 The ways negotiators deal with the other party’s use of deception This chapter will identify some of the things that you should do if you believe the other’s party using deceptive tactics. There are two main ways: ask probing question and recognize the tactic. Up on to specific situation, you should consider to use one of them or both. 3. 1 Ask probing question
When you believe the other party’s answer is fully disclosing a problem, asking probing questions may help you uncover the key information that was omitted. Police interrogations and Researchers have identified a number of verbal tactics that you can use to determine if the other party is acting deceptively. The first tactic is “Intimidation”. You can force the other to admit he is using deception by intimidating him into telling the truth. For example, if you see the other tell lies, you can make threats again them by saying: “I’ll report your mother” or “I’m not interested in anything you have to say on the matter”.
The second tactic is “Futility portrayal”. In this way, press the other party that the truth will come out someday. Saying that: “Don’t dig the hole deeper by trying to cover it up”, “You’re all alone in your deception” is also useful. The third one is “Discomfort and relief”. Help them reduce the tension and stress associated with being a known deceiver by saying “Confession is good for your soul” or “Don’t scare. If you told everything, I would feel more comfortable and cheerful”. The fourth tactic is “Bluffing”. You need to pretend that you have uncovered the truth but will not discuss it.
You can say to him “your sins are about to be uncovered” or “I know what u said is not completely true. You can tell the truth before I disclose you”. The fifth one is “Gentle prods”. Please encourage the other to keep talking so that he gives you information that may help you separate true facts from deceptions. Ask him to elaborate on the topics being discussed. Ask questions but indicate that you are asking because “other people want to know”. Play devil’s advocate and ask playful questions. Praise the other so as to give him confident and support that may lead to information sharing.
The sixth one is “Minimizations”. In this situation, you need help the other find excuses for why he/she was deceptive, min the consequences of the action, shift the blame to someone else. The seventh one is “Contradiction”. Get the other to tell his story fully in order to discover more information that will allow you to discover inconsistencies and contradictions in his comments or reports. Point out and ask for explanations about apparent contradictions. Ask the speaker the same question several times and look for inconsistencies in his response.
Put pressure on the speaker and get him to slip up or say things he doesn’t want to say. The eight tactics is “Alter information”. Asking the suspected deceiver a question containing incorrect information and hope he corrects you. “A chick in the defense” is also one of the tactics. You should try to get other to admit a small lie about some info, and use this to push for admission of a large lie “If you lie about this one little thing, how do I know you have not lied about other thing? Another tactics is “Self- disclosure”.
This is a special ways of dealing with deceptions. You will reveal a number of dishonesty things about yourself and the other will begin to trust you and reciprocate with disclosures of dishonesty. In addition, make a list of behaviors that might be an indication he is telling lie: sweating, nervousness, changing of voice…. It calls “Point of deception cues”. Besides, concern about the other party is effective. When you see that they are telling lies, indicate that you are honestly concern for their welfare by saying: “You’re important to me” or “I care deeply about u”….
The next tactic is “Keeping a status quo”. Everyone wants to have their own reputation. You just must appeal to his pride in order to maintain reputation. For examples: “What will people think if they know you’re liar? ” In facts, you also can directly approach to them. “Let’s be honest” “Surely I can keep secret if you tell me everything you know”. If all of that tactic are not useful and be helpful for forcing the other to tell the truth, please keep silent. This way is the only thing you can do in every situation.
Keep silent and create a “verbal vacuum” that makes the other uncomfortable and gets him to talk and disclose information. When he tells a lie, simply maintain direct eye contact but remain silent. By this way, normally he will scare and respect you more than ever. 3. 2 Recognize the tactic Another method to deal with deceptive tactics is to recognize the tactic. There are five ways for you to choose. Firstly, you can ignore the tactic. If you figure out the other party is not telling the truth, just neglect it or pretend you didn’t hear anything.
Once the tactic is recognized, it has no chance to bring further undue pressure. Unfortunately, there are a few negotiators who are slow learners, if you ignore them, they may not get the message that you want something more honest. Secondly, you can ask questions to get at the truth. For example, a student lies to his teacher that he’s done all homework but he forgot to bring along. The teacher may then ask him something about the homework supposed to have been finished. If he is lying, he may either not be able to answer the questions, or give wrong ones.
However, the student can still get away with it if he tells the teacher that the homework was too hard for him. Thus, he could not fully understand. Thirdly, if you don’t want to beat around the bush, then you should “call” the tactic. Let your opponents know you see what they are trying to do by pointing the tactic out. Do so tactfully, but firmly. Indicate your displeasure with it. Sometimes, the embarrassment of such an observation is sufficient to make them give up the tactic or even convert their behavior to more win-win negotiating.
Fourthly, you may also respond in kind, which means to do whatever the other side is doing at a higher level. If the other side recognizes that you are lying too, he will probably realize his tactic is no longer useful. Nevertheless, this option is a double-edged sword because it is likely to intensify the conflict. This is not recommended at all cost. Finally, this is quite similar to calling the tactic, which is to discuss what you see and offer to help the other party change to more honest behaviors.
Announce that you have noted your opponent’s behavior and suggest a better way to negotiate. The logic of this lies in the assumption that, once the other negotiator understands that either you know what he is doing or continuing this behavior will entail certain costs (including the possibility that you will walk away from the negotiation), the other party may respond to your suggestion for a more integrative exchange. SUMMARY Ethical negotiating tactics and unethical ones are much more familiar than might have been expected. Ethical and unethical tactics are still under discussion.
The decision to use a deceptive tactic probably be best understood through a decision-making model Negotiator is influenced by his or her own motivations, expectations of what the other party will do for the expected future relationship. Before negotiating, we should think of three questions: Will they really enhance my power and help me achieve my objective? How will these tactics affect future relationship? How will these tactics s affect my reputation as negotiator? According to these analyses and researches, we can see that ethics are not the most important element in negotiation.
However, in some specific situation, ethics play decisive role in the success of negotiation. Negotiators, therefore, need to consider carefully before choosing suitable tactics. REFERENCES 1. Roy J. Lewicki, The Ohio State University (2004), Ethics in Negotiation, Essentials of negotiation, McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2. Lecture Sir Michael Palliser on Wednesday 24 May, 2000, Ethics and Diplomacy: Contradiction in Terms? , http://www. wpct. co. uk/lectures/2000. htm ——————————————– [ 1 ]. Roy J. Lewicki , Essentials of Negotiation, pp. 184-185