Ethics are broadly applied social standards for what is right or wrong in a particular situation, or a process for setting those standards for what is right or wrong in a particular situation, or a process for setting those standards. They differ from morals, which are individual and personal beliefs about what is right and wrong. Ethics proceed from particular philosophies, which purport to (a) define the nature of the world in which we live, and (b) prescribe rules for living together.
Explanations and justifications are self-serving rationalizations for one’s own conduct. First, they allow the negotiator to convince others—particularly the victim—that conduct that would ordinarily be wrong in a given situation is acceptable. The adequacy of these explanations to others has a strong effect on mitigating the impact of deceptive behavior to themselves as well. We propose that the more frequently negotiators engage in this self-serving justification process, the more judgments about ethical standards and values will become biased, leading to a lessened ability to make accurate judgments about the truth. Moreover, although the tactics were initially used to gain power in a negotiation, the negotiators will be seen as having low credibility or integrity, and will be treated as people who will act exploitatively if the opportunity arises. Negotiators with these characteristics will probably be unsuccessful over time unless they are skillful at continually staying ahead of the negative reputation generated by their conduct.
The primary factors that negotiators consider when they decide whether particular tactics are deceptive and unethical—we believe that negotiation process raises several critical ethical issues. Much of what has been written on negotiating behavior has been strongly normative about ethics and has prescribed “shoulds” and “should nots”. We do not believe that this approach facilitates the understanding of how negotiators actually make decisions about when and where to use specific tactics. To understand this process better, we have approached the study of tactic choice from a decision-making framework, examining the ethical overtones of these choices. We also briefly discussed the ways in which negotiators can respond to another party who may be using deceptive tactics.
We began by considering several negotiation cases, show how ethical questions can be critical to the selection of particular strategic and tactical options.
We proposed that negotiators who choose to use an unethical tactic usually decide to do so to increase their negotiating power. Power is gained by manipulating the perceived base of accurate information in the negotiation, getting better information about the other party’s plan, or undermining the other party’s ability to achieve his or her objectives. We then presented a simple model of ethical decision making.
Research on negotiators ethics and on various aspects of this model leads us to the following conclusions:
While individual negotiators may disagree as to which negotiating tactics are ethical and which are unethical, the research reported here suggests that there is much more convergence than might have been expected.
The decision to use a deceptive tactic can probably best be understood through a decision making model. It is clear that many individual differences and situational variables are also likely to affect that decision.
In deciding to use a deceptive tactic, a negotiator is likely to be more heavily influenced by (a) his or her own motivations, (b) expectations of what the other negotiator and the other party.
Negotiators who have considered the use of deceptive tactics in the past or who are considering their use should ask themselves these questions:
(a) Will they really enhance my power and help me achieve my objective?
(b) How will the use of these tactics affect the quality of my relationship with the other party in the future?
(c) How will the use of these tactics affect my reputation as a negotiator?
Negotiators frequently overlook the fact that, although unethical or expedient tactics my get them what they want in the short run, these same tactics typically lead to diminished effectiveness
