Week 10 - Confronting the dark side: Deception and ethical dilemmas

Question 1

Ethics

Answer 1

Broadly applied social standards for what is right or what is wrong in a particular situation, or a process for setting those standards

Grow out of particular philosophies which
- Define the nature of the world we live in
- Prescribe rules for living together

Question 2

Four approaches to ethical reasoning

Answer 2

End result ethics: doing whatever is necessary to get the best possible outcome (greatest return on investment)

Duty ethics: Acting on certain obligation to direct conduct (law)

Social contract ethics: The rightness of an action is based on the customs and norms of a particular society or community (cultural norms)

Personalistic ethics: The rightness of the action is based on one’s own conscience and moral standards (what your conscience tells you to do)

Question 3

What questions of ethical conduct arise in negotiation

Answer 3

Using ethically ambiguous tactics: it’s mostly all about the truth (how honest, candid, and disclosing a negotiator should be)

Identifying ethically ambiguous tactics and attitudes toward their use
- What ethically ambiguous tactics are there?
- Is it alright to use ethically ambiguous tactics?

Question 4

Categories of Marginally Ethical Negotiating Tactics

Answer 4

Two—the use of traditional competitive bargaining tactics and emotional manipulation—are viewed as generally appropriate and likely to be used.

The other four are seen as unethical

1. Traditional competitive bargaining (not disclosing walkaway, make an inflated offer)
2. Emotional manipulation (Faking anger, fear, disappointment; faking elation, satisfaction)
3. Misrepresentation (Distorting information or negotiation events in describing them to others)
4. Misrepresentation to opponent’s networks (Corrupting your opponent’s reputation with their peers)
5. Inappropriate information gathering (bribery, infiltration, spying)
6. Bluffing (Insincere threats or promises)

Question 5

What questions of ethical conduct arise in negotiation?

Answer 5

Deception by omission versus commission

Omission - failing to disclose information that would benefit the other

Commission - actually lying about the common-value issue

This finding clearly reinforces the norm of caveat emptor (“Let the buyer beware”), suggesting that it is up to the buyer to ask the right questions and be appropriately skeptical when accepting the other’s sales pitch (omission is more ethical, because the other party must ask questions etc.)

Question 6

Why use deceptive tactics? Motives

Answer 6

• The power motive: increase the negotiator’s power in the bargaining environment
• Other factors: Situational factors and individual factors:
  Some of the factors are situational, and some relate more to the personal characteristics of the person.

Question 7

Why use deceptive tactics? Motives (2)

Answer 7

• An organization’s ethical standards of behaviour are ambiguous
• Concern for present circumstances than future circumstances
• Perception of current situation as a loss frame rather than a gain frame
• Negotiators experience anxiety (deception is lower when they experience optimism)
• Incentives are higher
• Higher level of moral disengagement (they find it easier to justify morally ambiguous choices)

Question 8

Consequences of deceptive tactics - can be positive or negative

Answer 8

Consequences depend on tactic effectiveness: If using the tactic allows negotiators to attain rewarding outcomes that would be unavailable if they had behaved ethically, and if the unethical conduct is not punished by others, the frequency of unethical conduct is likely to increase because the negotiators believe they can get away with it

Depend on how the other person, constituencies, and audiences evaluate the tactic: victim is unlikely to trust the unethical negotiator again, may seek revenge from the negotiator in future dealings, and may also generalize this experience to negotiations with others. Deceptive person is also seen as less truthful and less desirable for future interactions

How the negotiator evaluates the tactic: Under some conditions—such as when the other party has truly suffered—a negotiator may feel some discomfort, stress, guilt, or remorse. OR they may rationalize justify the use of the tactic

Question 9

Those who employ deceptive tactics rationalize with the following reasons:

Answer 9

• The tactic was unavoidable
• The tactic was harmless
• There were going to do it anyway, so I did it first

Question 10

How can negotiators deal with the other party’s use of deception?

Answer 10

• Ask probing questions
• Use contingency contracts: creating terms and conditions that are clearly stated and provide for measurable outcomes
• Force the other party to lie or back off (pose a question that forces them to tell a direct lie)
• “Call” the tactic
• Discuss what you see and offer to help the other party change to more honest behaviours
• Respond in kind

Question 11

How to avoid your temptation to use deception

Answer 11

• Consider the reputation costs
• Prepare to answer difficult questions
• Refuse to answer certain question

“this is a discussion we can have later on, once we have both committed to the deal. I don’t feel comfortable divulging that information at this time”

“as you can undoubtedly understand, we cannot share that information for strategic reasons”

“the answer to your question depends on many other factors that we need to discuss”

Good negotiation skills and sound preparation trump deception every time

Question 12

Summary and key points

Answer 12

In closing, we suggest that negotiators who are considering the use of deceptive tactics ask themselves the following questions:
- will they really enhance my power and help me achieve my objective?
- how will the use of these tactics affect the quality of my relationship with the other party in the future?
- how will the use of these tactics affect my reputation as a negotiator?