Unit IV Ass Nego

breal

UnitIV_Chapter5Presentation.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >Unit IV Ass Nego

Because learning changes everything. ®

Negotiation

Section 01: Negotiation Fundamentals

Chapter 05: Ethics in Negotiation

© 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Authorized only for instructor use in the classroom. No reproduction or further distribution permitted without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

Ethical Quandaries

People in and out of organizations confront decisions about strategies to use to achieve important objectives.

These decisions often carry ethical implications.

Consider these questions when working through what ethical issues may arise during negotiation.

What are ethics and why do they apply to negotiation?

What approaches to ethical reasoning are relevant to negotiation?

What questions of ethical conduct are likely to arise in negotiation?

What motivates unethical behavior, and what are the consequences?

Ethics and Negotiation

Ethics are broadly applied social standards for what is right or wrong in a situation, or a process for setting those standards.

The four standards for evaluating strategies and tactics.

Choose a course of action on the basis of results I expect to achieve.

End-result ethics

On the basis of my duty to uphold appropriate rules and principles.

Duty ethics is an obligation to adhere to consistent principles.

On the basis of norms, values, and strategy of my community.

Social contract ethics is based on customs and norms.

Choose a course of action on the basis of my personal convictions.

Personalistic ethics based on conscience and moral standards.

Applying Ethical Reasoning to Negotiation

Earlier, a person selling an e-bike tells a present buyer there is a second potential buyer, when there is not.

If you believe in end-result ethics, you would lie to get the best outcome.

If you believe in duty ethics, you might reject a tactic requiring a lie.

If you believe in social contract ethics, if others lie, you will too.

If you believe in personalistic ethics, your conscience decides.

This shows your approach to ethical reasoning affects your ethical judgment, and the behavior you choose.

Ethics v. Prudence v. Practicality v. Legality

Ethical.

Appropriate as determined by some standard of moral conduct.

Prudent.

Wise, based on trying to understand the efficiency of the tactic and the consequences it might have on the relationship with the other.

Practical.

What a negotiator can actually make happen in a given situation.

Legal.

What the law defines as acceptable practice.

Other criteria include intrinsic and instrumental reasons.

Some tactics are seen by all as unethical.

Exhibit 5.1: Analytical Process for the Resolution of Moral Problems

Jump to slide containing descriptive text.

Source: Hosmer, LaRue T., The Ethics of Management. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2003. 6

End-Result Ethics

Negotiators with noble objectives, feel they can use any tactics.

Drawing on consequentialism a view that the moral worth of an action should be judged on the basis of the consequences it produces.

Followers of utilitarianism believe the best moral choice maximizes the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

Debate about end-result ethics centers on some key questions.

How do people define maximum utility, and how is it measured?

How do parties trade off between short-term and long-term consequences, when one may damage the other?

If unable to create utility for everyone, is it adequate to create it for many, even if some people will not benefit or will even suffer?

How do you balance the benefits of a majority with protection of the rights of a minority?

Duty Ethics

Duty ethics emphasizes that individuals should commit to a series of moral standards and use those to make decisions.

The term deontology is used to label this school of thought.

Deontologists argue utilitarian standards are flawed as outcomes may be too uncertain at the time of the decision.

They also propose the ethical merits of an action should be linked more to the intentions of the person than to the outcomes of the act.

They believe an action is wrong due to principle, not consequence.

Deontology has its critics.

Who sets the standards, chooses the principles, and makes the rules?

What are the rules that apply in all circumstances?

Social Contract Ethics

Proponents hold that the rightness of an action is determined by the customs and social norms of a community.

They argue that societies, organizations, and cultures determine what is ethically appropriate and acceptable for themselves.

Then indoctrinate new members as they are socialized into the community.

As applied to negotiation, social contract ethics would prescribe appropriate behaviors in terms of what people owe one another.

Social contract ethics are not without problems.

How do we decide what implicit rules should apply to a given relationship, particularly when the rules are not explicitly spelled out?

Who makes these social rules, and how are they evaluated and changed?

Personalistic Ethics

A fourth standard of ethics holds that people should simply consult their own conscience.

As humans, we develop a personal conscience of right and wrong.

As applied to negotiation, personalistic ethics maintain that everyone ought to decide for themselves what is right.

Critics have a few arguments.

They argue no one is pure and individual conscience is too narrow and limited as a standard to apply to a broader social context.

Some critics argue that social institutions have declined in their roles as teachers of character and developers of conscience.

In addition, personalistic ethics provides no mechanism for resolving disputes when they lead to conflicting views between individuals.

Questions of Ethical Conduct in Negotiation?

Why do some negotiators use unethical tactics?

The first answer immoral may be too simplistic.

People regard unsavory behavior as due to personality and attribute their own behavior to factors in the social environment.

questionable tactic as unprincipled.

In contrast, if the negotiator uses the same tactic themselves, they tend to say they have a good reason for deviating from principles, this one time.

Ethically Ambiguous Tactics and Truth

Ethically ambiguous tactics may or may not be improper,

Focus here is on what negotiators say rather than what they actually do.

Questions about truth telling are clear, but not the answers.

First, how do you define truth?

Second, how do you define and classify deviations from the truth?

Effective agreements depend on sharing accurate information but negotiators want to disclose little about their positions.

The dilemma of trust is that a negotiator who believes everything the other says can be manipulated by dishonesty.

The dilemma of honesty is that a negotiator who tells the other party all their requirements will never do better than their walkaway point.

What Ethically Ambiguous Tactics are There?

There are six clear categories of tactics.

Traditionally competitive bargaining.

Emotional manipulation.

Misrepresentation.

Inappropriate information gathering.

Bluffing.

Judgments are subjective for any given tactic, some will see its use as ethically wrong, others will have little or no problem with it.

Does Tolerance Lead to Use of Such Tactics?

Here are some research findings on the link between thinking a tactic is acceptable and actually using that tactic.

There is a positive relationship between an attitude toward the use of a specific tactic and the intention to use it.

Using unethical tactics early in a negotiation leads to greater frequency of use, and may cause the other party to follow suit.

Tactics used by frequency: hiding your bottom line, exaggerating an opening offer, stalling for time and misrepresenting information.

Hiding your bottom line improved negotiator performance in role-play.

Are Ethically Ambiguous Tactics Acceptable to Use?

Studies indicate there are tacitly agreed-on rules in negotiation.

Some minor forms of untruths may be seen as ethically acceptable and within the rules.

In contrast, outright deception is generally seen as outside the rules.

The authors offer some caution.

Statements are based on large groups of people and do not indicate or

Observations are based on what people said they would do, rather than what they actually did.

By reporting the results, the authors do not endorse the use of marginally ethical tactics.

This is a Western view of negotiation, not true for other cultures

Deception by Omission versus Commission

The use of deceptive tactics can be active or passive.

Negotiators use two forms of deception in misrepresenting a common-value issue both parties seek the same outcome.

Misrepresentation by omission failing to disclose information that would benefit the other party.

Misrepresentation by commission actually lying about the issue.

A student role-play involving the sale of a car with a defective transmission revealed the following insight.

Students could lie by omission or commission.

Far more students were willing to lie by omission.

Figure 5.2: A Simple Model of Deception in Negotiation

Jump to slide containing descriptive text.

Motives for Using Deceptive Tactics

The purpose of ethically ambiguous tactics is to increase the

Information is a major source of leverage it has power.

This view assumes that the information is accurate and truthful.

Using the tactics already discussed, the liar gains advantage.

They may use it to achieve their goals.

They may use them to avoid being exploited.

It could be individual differences of personality or culture.

People may be more motivated to appear moral, than to act morally.

Consequences of Unethical Conduct

Effectiveness.

Evidence points to the effectiveness of deceptive tactics in certain circumstances.

Misrepresenting interest on an issue that both parties want can induce concessions that lead to favorable outcomes.

Reactions of others.

For serious and personal deception, the relationship suffers.

Reactions of self.

When the other party suffers, a negotiator may feel discomfort.

Negotiators in a simulated situation who lied tended to make larger concessions later in the negotiation to compensate.

Explanations and Justifications

Here are some typical rationalizations.

The tactic was unavoidable so the negotiator is not responsible.

The tactic was harmless according to the deceptive party.

The tactic will help to avoid negative consequences for who?

The tactic will produce good consequences, or altruistically motivated.

They were going to do it anyway, so I will do it first anticipation.

anticipation in the past tense.

The tactic is fair or appropriate to the situation moral relativism.

Factors Shaping Predisposition to Deception

Demographic factors.

Women tend to make more ethically rigorous judgments than men.

Female negotiators are lied to more than male negotiators.

Both men and women behaved more ethically as they aged.

Older parties see bluffing as more acceptable, deception less so.

Professional orientation may increase, or decrease, acceptability.

There are cultural differences in attitudes toward ambiguous tactics.

Personality differences.

There are four other dimensions of personality that may predict the likelihood of using ethically ambiguous tactics, discussed next.

Personality Differences

Competitiveness versus cooperativeness.

Competitors are more likely to use bluffing, misrepresentation, and other dishonest tactics than cooperators.

Pro-social individuals were more honest than selfish individuals.

Empathy and perspective taking.

Those high in empathy reject lying and misrepresentation.

The cognitive trait of perspective-taking neither approves or disapproves.

Machiavellianism.

This appears to be a predictor of unethical conduct.

Locus of control.

Those high in internal control are likely to do what is right.

Moral Development and Personal Values

Six stages of moral development, grouped into three levels.

A preconventional level where the person is concerned with outcomes that meet their current needs, particularly rewards and punishment.

A conventional level where the person defines what is right on the basis of the immediate social situation, peer group, or society norms.

A postconventional level where the person defines what is right on the basis of some broader set of universal values and principles.

The higher the stage a person achieves, the more complex their moral reasoning and the more ethical their decisions.

Contextual Influences on Unethical Conduct

Past experience, particularly failure, can increase the likelihood of attempting to use unethical tactics.

Greater incentives influence the inclination to misrepresent.

Negotiators use ambiguous tactics if the other party is perceived to be vulnerable, or powerful as a defense.

What the relationship has been like in the past.

What the parties would like it to be in the future.

Also long-term versus short-term impacts use of ambiguous tactics.

A balance of power should lead to more ethical conduct than an imbalance of power.

Contextual Influence

The structure of the negotiation situation may alter the ethics negotiators bring to the table.

Advances in technology have affected the way negotiators communicate.

Deception is viewed differently when it occurs over email.

Acting as an agent for another party often gives moral latitude to do whatever is necessary to maximize results.

Negotiators may look to social norms for expected behavior.

Norms are informal social rules

Group and organizational norms may legitimize inappropriate behavior.

Pressure to obey authority is strong, and can undermine integrity.

Ask probing questions.

Phrase questions in different ways.

Force the other party to lie or back off.

Test the other party.

Ignore the tactic.

Discuss and help the other party shift to more honest behavior.

Respond in kind.

Because learning changes everything.®

www.mheducation.com

End of Chapter 05.