Ch5

Question 1

what are ethics in engotiaton based out of

Answer 1

1) definitng the nature of the world we live in

2) prescribe rules for living together

Question 2

End result ethics (utilitarianism)

Answer 2

-> rightness of an action is determined by considering consequences
JEREMY BENTHAM/STUART MILL!

one must ocnisder all likely consequences, actions are more right if they promote more happiness

rightness of action= consequences

Question 3

Duty ethics/kantain

Answer 3

A course of action on the basis of your duty to uphold appropriate
rules and principles
* Laws and principles (e.g. it is wrong to lie)
* Adjust actions to fit moral laws

Question 4

social contract ethics/rousseau

Answer 4

A course of action on the basis of the norms, values and strategies of
your organization or community
* Morality determines laws and standards

Question 5

personalistic ethics

Answer 5

choose a course of action on the basis of your personal
convictions/conscience

Question 6

you migh tdo whatever necessary to get best outcome possible (even lying)

Answer 6

END RESULT ETHICS

Question 7

you base tactical choices on your view of aprpopriate considtc for social behaviour in ur community

Answer 7

social contract ehtics

Question 8

you might percieve obligation never to engage in lying and reject this in engtions

Answer 8

duty ethics

Question 9

you consult ur conscience and decide what actions are good or bad

Answer 9

personalistic ethics

Question 10

ETHICS vs PRUDENCE vs PRACTICALITY vs LEGALITY

Answer 10

ethics: appropriate behaviour thats ethical

prudence: what is wise to do

paacticaily: what is feaisble

legality: what is legal

Question 10

why are poeple unethical in engotiations

Answer 10

people regard others unethical behaviour to their disposition/ersonality

but own? is because of social environment

Question 10

ethically ambiguous tacticsq

Answer 10

negotiating is a game: truth is not expected (Carr)

1. traditional competitive bargaining
2. emo manipulaliton
3. misrepresentation
4. misrepresentation to opponets netwroks: corrupting opponents reputation with THEIR peers
5. inaporpriate info gathering
6. bluffing

Question 11

Shell says no: There are conditions under which you are legally bound to share truthful information. For instance, you are obligated to disclose in these situations:

                        If you make a partial disclosure that would be misleading.
                    
                    
                        If the parties stand in fiduciary relationship to one another.
                    
                    
                        If the nondisclosing party has “superior information” that is “vital.”
                    
                    
                        In cases involving certain specialized transactions, such as insurance contracts.

Question 12

deception by omission vs comission

Answer 12

Comission: ACTIVE, lying

omission: passive, fail to mention, bUYer beware (onus is on buyer to ask questions and be smart0

more ppl comfy lying by omission

Question 13

decepiton by paltering

Answer 13

it is a truth, but not the whole truth!

Misleading with truthful statements

Question 14

The Decision to Use Ethically Ambiguous Tactics: A Model

            We conclude this section with a relatively simple model that helps explain how a negotiator decides whether to employ one or more deceptive tactics (see Figure 5.2). The model casts a negotiator in a situation where there is a need to decide which tactics to use to influence the other party. The individual identifies possible influence tactics that could be effective in a given situation, some of which might be deceptive, inappropriate, or otherwise marginally ethical. Once these tactics are identified, the individual may decide to actually use one or more of them. The selection and use of a given tactic are likely to be influenced by the negotiator’s own motivations and their judgment of the tactic’s appropriateness. Once the tactic is employed, the negotiator will assess consequences on three standards:


    whether the tactic worked (produced the desired result),


    how the negotiator feels about themself after using the tactic, and


    how the individual may be judged by the other party or by neutral observers.

Question 15

what motivates people to use deception

Answer 15

1. the power motive: increase negotiators power in bargaining environment
2. perception of ocunterpart: negotiators more likely to use these tactics if they anticipate others expected motivations to be more competitive

Question 16

consequences of unethical conduct

Answer 16

POS or NEG based on 1. wether tactic is effective 2. how other person evaluates the tactic 3. how negotiator evaluates the tactic

Question 17

Effectiveness of a tactic

Answer 17

a tactics effectiveness will have some impact on whether it is used in the future and how much economic benefit it created

Question 18

reactions of others

Answer 18

Reactions to Discovery: If a target discovers deception, they often feel angry and foolish, leading to a loss of trust in the deceiving party. This emotional reaction is intensified when the relationship is close or when the stakes are high.

Relationship Damage: Deception can lead to the termination of relationships, often initiated by the deceived party. Serious breaches of trust, particularly those involving personal or consequential issues, have a more destructive impact.

Reputation and Credibility: Engaging in deception damages a negotiator’s reputation, making it difficult to restore trust. While subsequent honesty can mitigate damage if deception did not involve lying, apologies are generally ineffective if deception is involved.

Contextual Forgiveness: There is a noted exception where if the deceiver holds less power, the deceived party may view the deception as more understandable and be more forgiving.

Long-Term Risks: While deceptive tactics may yield short-term gains, they often lead to long-term adversarial relationships characterized by distrust and potential retaliation.

Question 19

reactions of self

Answer 19

negotiatior may feel discomfort streess guitl or remorse if the other party has truly suffered!

Question 20

how do people explain and justify unethical actions

Answer 20

1. tactic was unabodiable
2. tactic was harmless
3. tactis will help avoid negative conseqnece
4. tactic Will produce good consequences! came from a good motivation
5. they had it coming
6. I did it before they could
7. they started it
8. tactic is fair and approaite for the stiutauton

Question 21

hwo to detect deception? VERBAL TACTICS

Answer 21

1. intimidation: bully them into being honest
2. futility portrail: say the turh will come out someday
3. discomfort and relief
4. bluffin
5. gentle prods
6. minimzaitns
7. contraction
   8: altered info
   9/ a chink in the defense
8. self disclosure
   etc etc
   etc

Question 22

sumary of strategies to deal w deceoption

Answer 22

Here’s a condensed summary of strategies for dealing with potential deception in negotiations:

Rephrase Questions: Sellers often evade direct truths by answering questions that are vaguely phrased. To get more accurate information, ask specific questions that require detailed answers. For example, instead of asking if a heating system works, inquire about the last inspection and its results.

Force Direct Responses: If you suspect deception, frame questions that necessitate a clear yes or no answer. This can compel the other party to either lie outright or retract their misleading statements, as many people are uncomfortable lying directly.

Test Trustworthiness: Ask questions to which you already know the answer. If the response is evasive, it may indicate that the other party is untrustworthy. Documenting the negotiation can help maintain accountability.

Call Out Deception: Tactfully indicate that you suspect bluffing or dishonesty. However, be cautious, as incorrectly accusing someone of lying can harm the negotiation process.

ignroe the tactic

respond in kind

discuss what u see and help them change

CONTINGENCY CONTRACTS!!!

Question 23

Pros of agents

Answer 23

= may have specifal knowledge/ expertise/ influence (lobbyist/consutlant)
= unbiased by sentiment and emotion
= help to maintian confientiality
= add tacitcal fleibility

Question 24

cons of agents

Answer 24

= interest of agent not always aligned with lcients
= may care more about the paper and not long term costs
= cost money
= more to manage
= loss of control
= may create cultural challenges b/w u and ur agent