Tải bản đầy đủ

Negotiations 6e mcgraw hill chapter 9

McGraw -Hill/Irw in

Copy right © 2010 by The McGraw -Hill Companies, Inc. A ll rights

Ethics in Negotiation

What Do We Mean by Ethics and
Why Do They Matter in Negotiation?
Ethics: p.254
• Are broadly applied social standards for what is right
or wrong in a particular situation, or a process for
setting those standards
• Grow out of particular philosophies which
– Define the nature of the world in which we live
– Prescribe rules for living together


Four Approaches
to Ethical Reasoning
• End-result ethics p. 257
– The rightness of an action is determined by evaluating
its consequences

• Duty ethics p. 260
– 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


Four Approaches
to Ethical Reasoning
• Social contract ethics p. 262
– The rightness of an action is based on the customs and
norms of a particular society or community

• Personalistic ethics p. 263
– The rightness of the action is based on one’s own
conscience and moral standards


Questions of Ethical Conduct
that Arise in Negotiation
• Using ethically ambiguous tactics: It’s (mostly) all
about the truth p. 265
• What does Carr say about not telling the truth in


Inappropriate Tactics
• Think about it—all of these are considered

inappropriate tactics:

Misrepresentation to an opponents network
Inappropriate information collection

Questions of Ethical Conduct
that Arise in Negotiation
• Deception by omission versus commission
– Omission – failing to disclose information that would
benefit the other
– Commission – actually lying about the common-value
issue p. 270
– Many people are more willing to lie by omission than


Ethics – Deceptive Tactics
• Individuals are more willing to use deceptive tactic
when the other party is perceived to be uniformed
or unknowledgeable about the situation under
negotiations------Especially when the stakes are

Why Use Deceptive Tactics?
Motives and Consequences
• The power motive p. 273 – & Box 9.2
– The purpose of using ethically ambiguous negotiating
tactics is to increase the negotiator’s power in the
bargaining environment

• Other motives to behave unethically p. 273
– Negotiators are more likely to see ethically ambiguous
tactics as appropriate if they anticipate that the other’s
expected motivation would be more competitive


The Consequences of
Unethical Conduct p. 274
A negotiator who employs an unethical tactic will
experience positive or negative consequences. The
consequences are based on:
• Effectiveness – whether the tactic is effective p. 274
• Reactions of others – how the other person,
constituencies, and audiences evaluate the tactic p.
• Reactions of self – how the negotiator evaluates the
tactic, feels about using the tactic p. 276

Explanations and Justifications
p. 276
The primary purpose of explanations and
justifications is:

– To rationalize, explain, or excuse the
– To verbalize some good, legitimate
reason why this tactic was necessary


Rationalizations for
Unethical Conduct p. 276-77

The tactic was unavoidable
The tactic was harmless
The tactic will help to avoid negative consequences
The tactic will produce good consequences, or the
tactic is altruistically motivated
• “They had it coming,” or “They deserve it,” or “I’m
just getting my due”


Rationalizations for
Unethical Conduct 277-78
• “They were going to do it anyway, so I will do it
• “He started it”
• The tactic is fair or appropriate to the situation


What Factors Shape a Negotiator’s
Predisposition to Use Unethical Tactics?
• Demographic factors p. 279
– Sex p. 281
• Women tend to make more ethically rigorous
judgments than men
– Age and experience p. 281
• Both men and women behave more ethically as they
• Individuals with more general work experience, and
with direct work experience, are less likely to use
unethical negotiating tactics

What Factors Shape a Negotiator’s
Predisposition to Use Unethical Tactics?
• Demographic factors (cont.)
– Professional orientation p. 281
• People in different professions differ on judgments
of perceived appropriateness
– Nationality and culture p. 282 (very interesting)
• Significant differences are found across different
nationalities and cultural backgrounds


• Not in book—class discussion
– Those that are committed to a religion are less likely to
be unethical than those younger or uncommitted to a
religious commitment.

What Factors Shape a Negotiator’s
Predisposition to Use Unethical Tactics?
• Personality differences p. 283
– Competitiveness versus cooperativeness p. 283
– Machiavellianism p. 284
• Some individuals are more willing and able con
• Are more likely to lie when they need to
• Better able to lie without feeling anxious about it
• More persuasive and effective in their lies

What Factors Shape a Negotiator’s
Predisposition to Use Unethical Tactics?
• Personality differences (cont.)
– Locus of control p. 284
• The degree to which individuals believe that the
outcomes they obtain are largely a result of their
own ability and effort (internal control) versus fate
or chance (external control)
• Individuals who are high in internal control are
more likely to do what they think is right


What Factors Shape a Negotiator’s
Predisposition to Use Unethical Tactics?
P. 285

• Contextual influences on unethical conduct

Past experience
Role of incentives
Characteristics of the other party
Relationship between the negotiator and the other party
Relative power between the negotiators
Mode of communication
Acting as an agent versus representing your own views
Group and organizational norms and pressures

How Can Negotiators Deal With the
Other Party’s Use of Deception?
• Ask probing questions

Phrase questions in different ways
Force the other party to lie or back off
Test the other party
“Call” the tactic
Ignore the tactic
Discuss what you see and offer to help the other party
change to more honest behaviors
• Respond in kind

Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về

Tải bản đầy đủ ngay