9-1

McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved

CHAPTER NINE
Ethics In Negotiation
9-2
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
What Do We Mean by Ethics and
Why Do They Matter in Negotiation?
Ethics:
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
9-3
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
Resolving Moral Problems
9-4
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
Four Approaches
to Ethical Reasoning
End-result ethics
The rightness of an action is determined by
evaluating its consequences
Duty ethics
The rightness of an action is determined by ones
obligation to adhere to consistent principles, laws
and social standards that define what is right and
wrong


9-5
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
Four Approaches
to Ethical Reasoning
Social contract ethics
The rightness of an action is based on the customs
and norms of a particular society or community
Personalistic ethics
The rightness of the action is based on ones own
conscience and moral standards

9-6
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
Questions of Ethical Conduct
that Arise in Negotiation
Using ethically ambiguous tactics: Its
(mostly) all about the truth
Identifying ethically ambiguous tactics and
attitudes toward their use
What ethically ambiguous tactics are there?
Does tolerance for ethically ambiguous tactics lead
to their actual use?
Is it okay to use ethically ambiguous tactics?
9-7
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
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
The decision to use ethically ambiguous tactics: A
model
9-8
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
Categories of Marginally Ethical
Negotiating Tactics
9-9
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
Why Use Deceptive Tactics?
Motives and Consequences
The power motive
The purpose of using ethically ambiguous negotiating
tactics is to increase the negotiators power in the
bargaining environment
Other motives to behave unethically
Negotiators are more likely to see ethically ambiguous
tactics as appropriate if they anticipate that the others
expected motivation would be more competitive
9-10
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
Model of Ethical Decision Making
9-11
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
The Consequences of
Unethical Conduct
A negotiator who employs an unethical tactic will
experience positive or negative consequences. The
consequences are based on:
Effectiveness whether the tactic is effective
Reactions of others how the other person, constituencies, and
audiences evaluate the tactic
Reactions of self how the negotiator evaluates the tactic,
feels about using the tactic
9-12
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
Explanations and Justifications
The primary purpose of explanations and
justifications is:
To rationalize, explain, or excuse the
behavior
To verbalize some good, legitimate
reason why this tactic was necessary
9-13
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
Rationalizations for
Unethical Conduct
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 Im
just getting my due
9-14
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
Rationalizations for
Unethical Conduct
They were going to do it anyway, so I will do it
first
He started it
The tactic is fair or appropriate to the situation

9-15
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
A More Complex Model of Ethical
Decision Making
9-16
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
What Factors Shape a Negotiators
Predisposition to Use Unethical Tactics?
Demographic factors
Sex
Women tend to make more ethically rigorous judgments than
men
Age and experience
Both men and women behave more ethically as they age
Individuals with more general work experience, and with
direct work experience, are less likely to use unethical
negotiating tactics
9-17
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
What Factors Shape a Negotiators
Predisposition to Use Unethical Tactics?
Demographic factors (cont.)
Nationality and culture
Significant differences are found across different
nationalities and cultural backgrounds
Professional orientation
People in different professions differ on judgments of
perceived appropriateness
9-18
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
What Factors Shape a Negotiators
Predisposition to Use Unethical Tactics?
Personality differences
Competitiveness versus cooperativeness
Machiavellianism
Some individuals are more willing and able con
artists
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

9-19
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
What Factors Shape a Negotiators
Predisposition to Use Unethical Tactics?
Personality differences (cont.)
Locus of control
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
9-20
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
What Factors Shape a Negotiators
Predisposition to Use Unethical Tactics?
Moral development and personal values
Preconventional level (Stages 1 and 2)
Individual is concerned with concrete outcomes
that meet his or her own immediate needs,
particularly external rewards and punishments
Conventional level (Stages 3 and 4)
Individual defines what is right on the basis of
what immediate social situation and peer group
endorses or what society in general seems to want

9-21
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
What Factors Shape a Negotiators
Predisposition to Use Unethical Tactics?
Moral development and personal values (cont.)
Principled level (Stages 5 and 6)
Individual defines what is right on the basis of some
broader set of universal values and principles
The higher the stage people achieve:
More complex their moral reasoning should be
More ethical their decisions should be
9-22
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
What Factors Shape a Negotiators
Predisposition to Use Unethical Tactics?
Contextual influences on unethical conduct
Past experience
Role of incentives
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


9-23
McGraw-Hill/Irwin 2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
How Can Negotiators Deal With the
Other Partys Use of Deception?
Ask probing questions
Force the other party to lie or back off
Call the tactic
Discuss what you see and offer to help the
other party change to more honest behaviors
Respond in kind
Ignore the tactic