Question

Can you think of a time you have used Marginally Ethical or unethical Negotiation tactics? Make sure to identify what kind of Ethical reasoning Applies to the situation or motive.

1.) please Apply concepts of ethical or unethical negotiation tactics with relevant examples from real life when you were into a negotiation. (150-200) words

Answer 1

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

Four ethical standards for making decisions in negotiation:

•End-Result Ethics,

•Duty Ethics,

•Social Contract Ethics, and

Personalistic Ethics

•Many of the ethically questionable incidents in business that upset the public involve people who argue that the ends justify the means—that is, who deem it acceptable to break a rule or violate a procedure in the service of some greater good for the individual, the organization, or even society at large.

•In the negotiation context, when negotiators have noble objectives to attain for themselves or their constituencies, they will argue that they can use whatever strategies they want.

•Duty ethics emphasize that individual ought to commit themselves to a series of moral rules or standards and make decisions based on those principles.

•When addressing means-ends questions in competition and negotiation, observers usually focus the most attention on the question of what strategies and tactics may be seen as appropriate to achieve certain ends.

Clearly, deontology has its critics as well.

•Social contract ethics argue that societies, organizations, and cultures determine what is ethically appropriate and acceptable for themselves and then indoctrinate new members as they are socialized into fabric of the community.

• Social contract ethics focus on what individuals owe to their community and what they can or should expect in return.

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

•Rather than attempting to determine what is ethical based on ends, duties, or the social norms of a community, people should simply consult their own conscience.

•The very nature of human existence leads individuals to develop a personal conscience, an internal sense of what is right and what one ought to do.

•Applied to negotiation, personalistic ethics maintain that everyone ought to decide for themselves what is right based on their conscience.

•Most of the ethics issues in negotiation are concerned with standards of truth telling, i.e. how honest, candid, and disclosing a negotiator should be, mostly on what negotiators say or what they will do than on what they actually do.

•Bluffing, exaggeration, and concealment or manipulation of information are legitimate ways for both individuals and corporations to maximize their self-interest.

Informed by interdependence, negotiation is based on information dependence, ie. the exchange of information regarding the true preferences and priorities of the other party.

there are tacitly agreed-on rules of game in negotiation. In these rules, some minor forms of untruths may be seen as ethically acceptable and within the rules.

The use of deceptive tactics can be active or passive. The researchers discovered that negotiators used two forms of deception in misrepresenting the common-value issue: misrepresentation by omission and misrepresentation by commission.

•Information has power because negotiation is intended to be a rational activity involving the exchange of information and the persuasive use of that information.

•In fact, it has been demonstrated that individuals are more willing to use deceptive tactics when the other party is perceived to be uniformed or unknowledgable about the situation under negotiation; particularly when the stakes are high.

The motivation of a negotiator can clearly affect his or her tendency to use deceptive tactics.

•But the impact of motives may be more complex. Differences in the negotiators’ own motivational orientation—cooperative versus competitive--didn’t cause differences in their view of the appropriateness of using the tactics, but the negotiators’ perception of other’s expected motivation did!

A negotiator who employs an unethical tactic will experience consequences that may be positive or negative, based on three aspects of the situation:

(1) Effectiveness. Clearly, a tactic’s effectiveness will have some impact on whether it is more or less likely to be used in the future.

•(2) Reactions of Others. Depending on whether these parties recognize the tactic and whether they evaluate it as proper or improper to use, the negotiator may receive a grate deal of feedback.

•(3) Reactions of Self. Under some conditions, a negotiator may feel some discomfort, stress, guilt, or remorse.

•The primary purpose of these explanations and justifications is to rationalize, explain, or excuse the behavior,ie to verbalize some good, legitimate reason why this tactic was necessary.

•Rationalizations adapted from Bok and her treatise on lying:

       (1)The tactic was unavoidable.

       (2)The tactic was harmless.

       (3)The tactic will help to avoid negative consequences.

       (4)The tactic will produce good consequences, or the tactic is altruisucally motivated.

      (5)“They had it coming”，or “They deserve it,” or “I’m just getting my due”.

      (6)“They were going to do it anyway, so I will do it first”

      (7)“He started it”.

      (8)The tactic is fair or appropriate to the situation.

•Factors that negotiators consider when they decide whether particular tactics are deceptive and unethical are discussed.

•To deal with inherent ethical questions in the process of negotiation, four fundamental approaches to ethical reasoning are presented and how each might be used to make decisions about what is ethically appropriate is showed.

•The motives for and consequences of engaging in unethical negotiation behavior is analyzed.