Chapter 5
Ethics in Negot0iation
Overview
In this chapter,
we explore the question of whether there are, or should be, accepted ethical
standards for behavior in negotiations. This topic has received increased
attention from researchers in recent years. It is our view that fundamental
questions of ethical conduct arise in every negotiation. The effective
negotiator must recognize when the questions are relevant and what factors must
be considered to answer them. We want to be clear that it is not our intention
to advocate a specific ethical position for all negotiators or for the conduct
of all negotiations. Many treatises on business ethics take a strongly
prescriptive or normative position, advocating what a person should or should
not do. Instead, our aim in this chapter is to describe the ethical issues that
arise in negotiations. We identify the major ethical dimensions raised in
negotiations, describe how people tend to think about these ethical choices,
and provide a framework for making informed ethical decisions. Along the way,
we will highlight research that has yielded worthwhile findings in this area.
Learning Objectives
1.
A sampling of ethical quandaries.
2.
What do we mean by ethics and why do they matter in
negotiation?
3.
What questions of ethical conduct arise in negotiation?
4.
Why use deceptive tactics? Motives and consequences.
5.
How can negotiators deal with the other party’s use of
deception?
I.
A Sampling
of Ethical Quandaries
A. People in and out
of organizations are routinely confronted with important decisions about the strategies they will use to
achieve important objectives, particularly when
a variety of influence tactics are open to them. These decisions frequently
carry ethical implications.
B. The
major ethical
questions that arise in negotiation can be worked out through consideration
of these questions:
1. What are ethics
and why do they apply to negotiation?
2. What questions of
ethical conduct are likely to arise in negotiation?
3. What motivates
unethical behavior, and what are the consequences?
4. How can
negotiators deal with the other party’s use of deception?
II.
What Do We mean
by “Ethics” and Why Do They Matter in Negotiation?
A. Ethics defined.
1. Ethics are
broadly applied social standards for what is right or wrong in a particular
situation, or a process for
setting those standards.
2. Ethics grow out
of particular philosophies, which purport to
(a) define the nature of the world in which we live, and (b) prescribe rules for living together.
3. There are four
standards for evaluating strategies
and
tactics in business and negotiation:
a) Choose a course
of action on the basis of results I expect to achieve.
b) Choose a course
of action on the basis of my duty to uphold appropriate rules and principles.
c) Choose a course
of action on the basis of the norms, values, and strategy of my organization or
community.
d) Choose a course
of action on the basis of my personal convictions.
4.
There are four different approaches to ethical
reasoning: End-result ethics, duty ethics, social contract ethics,
personalistic ethics. These are
discussed further below.
B.
Applying ethical reasoning to negotiation.
1.
The four approaches to ethical reasoning (above) are
the basis for the in-depth treatment of ethics in the upcoming chapter
discussions.
C.
Ethics versus prudence versus practicality versus
legality.
1.
Discussion of business ethics frequently confuse the
following terms:
a) Ethical – defined as what is appropriate as determined by some
standard of moral conduct.
b) Prudent – wise, based on trying to understand the efficacy of
the tactic and the consequences it might have on the relationship with the
other.
c) Practical – what a negotiator can actually make happen in a
given situation.
d) Legal – what the law defines as acceptable practice.
D.
La Rue Hosmer (2003) developed a model of the process
of analyzing a moral problem. The first step is developing a complete
understanding of the moral problem at hand. With the problem fully defined, the
path to a convincing solution travels through the three modes of analysis:
1.
A determination of economic outcomes of potential
courses of action.
2.
A consideration of legal requirements that bear on the
situation.
3.
An assessment of the ethical obligations to other
involved parties regarding what is “‘right’ and ‘just’ and ‘fair’” (ethical
reasoning).
III. What
Questions of Ethical Conduct Arise in Negotiation?
A.
Ethically ambiguous tactics: It’s (mostly) all about
the truth.
1.
Ethically ambiguous – tactics that
may or may not be improper, depending on an individual’s ethical reasoning and
circumstances.
2.
Focuses on what negotiators say or what they will do
than on what they actually do.
3.
Arriving at a clear, precise, effective negotiated
agreement depends on the willingness of the parties to share accurate
information about their own preferences, priorities, and interests.
4.
Deception in negotiation can rise to the level of
legally actionable fraud.
B.
Identifying ethically ambiguous tactics and attitudes
toward their use.
1.
What ethically ambiguous tactics are there?
a) The six
categories of tactics—traditional competitive bargaining, emotional
manipulation, misrepresentation, misrepresentation to opponent’s networks, inappropriate
information collection, and bluffing—are generally seen as potentially inappropriate
and unethical in negotiation. The first
two are likely to be used and, while mildly inappropriate, are nevertheless seen
as appropriate and effective. The other
four are generally seen as inappropriate and unethical in negotiation.
2.
Does tolerance for ethically ambiguous tactics lead to
their actual use?
a) A study by
Volkema (2001) addressed this issue, and five conclusions were drawn.
3.
Is it all right to use ethically ambiguous tactics?
a) The studies
summarized here indicate that there are tacitly agreed-on rules of the game in
negotiation. In these rules, 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.
b) Outright
deception and falsification are generally seen as outside the rules.
C.
Deception by omission versus commission.
1.
O’Connor and Carnevale (1997) found two forms of
deception in misrepresenting the common-value issue:
a) misrepresentation
by omission (failing to disclose information that would benefit
the other); and
b) misrepresentation
by commission (actually lying about the common-value issue).
D.
The decision to use ethically ambiguous tactics: A
model.
1.
The selection and use of a given tactic is likely to
be influenced by the negotiator’s own motivations and his or her perception/judgment
of the tactic’s appropriateness.
2.
Once the tactic is employed, the negotiator will
assess consequences on three standards:
a) Whether the
tactic worked;
b) How the
negotiator feels about him or herself after using the tactic;
c) How the
individual may be judged by the other party or by neutral observers.
IV. Why Use Deceptive Tactics? Motives and Consequences
A.
The power motive.
1.
In the exchange of facts, arguments, and logic, it is
assumed that the information is accurate and truthful. Any inaccurate and untruthful statements
(i.e., lies) introduced into this social exchange manipulate information in
favor of the introducer. Through the tactics such as bluffing, falsification,
misrepresentation, deception, and selective disclosure, the liar gains
advantage.
B.
Other motives to behave unethically.
1.
In a study on tactics, Lewicki and Spencer
(1991) asked negotiators about their predisposition to use marginally ethical
tactics.
2.
The authors predicted that (a.) when motivated
to be competitive, and when expecting the other to be competitive, the
negotiator would see the marginally ethical tactics as appropriate and (b.)
when both parties were competitively motivated, they would exhibit the greatest
tendency, to employ marginally ethical tactics.
(c.) The results revealed that differences in the negotiators’ own
motivational orientation – cooperative versus 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! In other words, negotiators were
significantly more likely to see the marginally ethical tactics as appropriate
if they anticipated that the other would be competitive versus cooperative.
C.
The consequences of unethical conduct.
1.
A negotiator who employs an unethical tactic
will experience positive or negative consequences.
2.
The consequences are based on whether the tactic
is effective; how the other person, constituencies, and audiences evaluate the
tactic; and how the negotiator evaluates the tactic.
a) Effectiveness.
(1)
Consequences will occur depending on whether the
tactics worked or not – that is, whether the negotiator got what he or she
wanted as a result of using tactics.
b) Reactions of others.
(1) A second set of consequences may come from the
judgments and evaluations of that negotiator – from the opponent, from
constituencies, or from audiences that can observe the tactic.
c) Reactions
of self.
(1) A third set of consequences may result
depending on how the negotiator evaluates his or her own use of the tactic –
whether using the tactic creates any discomfort, personal stress, or even guilt
– or, in contrast, whether the actor sees no problem in using the tactic again
and even begins to consider how to use it more effectively.
D.
Explanations and justifications.
1.
There is an increasing stream of research on
those who employ unethical tactics and the explanations and justifications they
use to rationalize them.
2.
Rationalizations have been adapted from Bok
(1978) 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 first.”
g) “He
started it.”
h) The
tactic is fair or appropriate to the situation.
V.
How Can
Negotiators Deal with the Other Party’s Use of Deception?
A. If
you think the other party is using deceptive tactics, in general you can do the
following:
1. Ask
probing questions.
2. Phrase
questions in different ways.
3. Force
the other party to lie or back off.
4. Test
the other party.
5. “Call”
the tactic.
6. Ignore
the tactic.
7. Discuss
what you see and offer to help the other party change to more honest behaviors.
8. Respond
in kind.
Summary
In this chapter,
we have discussed factors that negotiators consider when they decide whether
particular tactics are deceptive and unethical. We approached the study of
ethically ambiguous tactics from a decision-making framework, examining the
ethical overtones of the choices that negotiators make.
We began by
drawing on a set of hypothetical scenarios to show how ethical questions are
inherent in the process of negotiation, and then presented four fundamental
approaches to ethical reasoning that might be used to make decisions about what
is ethically appropriate. We proposed
that a negotiator’s decision to use ethically ambiguous (or flatly unethical)
tactics typically grows out of a desire to increase one’s negotiating power by
manipulating the landscape of (presumably accurate) information in the
negotiation. We discussed the different forms that ethically ambiguous tactics
take, and we analyzed the motives for and consequences of engaging in unethical
negotiation behavior. Finally, we addressed how negotiators can respond to
another party that may be using tactics of deception or subterfuge.
In closing, we
suggest that negotiators who are considering the use of deceptive tactics ask themselves
the following questions: 1) will they
really enhance my power and help me achieve my objective?; 2) how will the use
of these tactics affect the quality of my relationship with the other party in
the future?; 3) how will the use of these tactics affect my personal and
professional reputation as a negotiator?
Negotiators
frequently overlook the fact that, although unethical or expedient tactics may
get them what they want in the short run, these same tactics typically lead to
tarnished reputations and diminished effectiveness in the long run.
