Ethical Challenges During Negotiations

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Abstract
Ethics defined, and why they apply to negotiation
Questions of ethical conduct are likely to arise in negotiation
Motivators of unethical behavior and the consequences
How to deal with the other negotiator’s use of deception
References

Abstract

When the concept of negotiations is explored from an ethical point of view, it is meant to improve the success of negotiations not only for us to win against someone else’s loss, but also to come up with situations where everyone wins.

This is because the observation of ethical practices in a negotiation yields a fair and just agreement that often leaves everyone happy and contented with whatever they have achieved from the negotiation (Fells, 2009).

The major reason, however, for the adoption of ethical behavior during negotiations is to ensure that both parties adopt negotiations in future if they are faced with any disagreement, instead of having to drag each other through court battles that often leave the parties more divided and scorned (Lewicki Barry & Saunders, 2006).

This paper seeks to explore the main ethical challenges faced during negotiations and how to overcome them. Negotiators in organizations are routinely confronted with important decisions about the strategies they will use to achieve their objectives and decisions which carry ethical implications and will contribute either to the success or failure of the negotiation.

Ethics defined, and why they apply to negotiation

Ethics is a collection of values, moral principles, industry standards or rules that govern the way people in a certain industry conduct themselves. It establishes a basis of doing what is considered honest, fair or right in a given context (Lewicki, 2004).

Applying ethical reasoning to negotiation

It has been identified that the winning or the losing in a negotiation impacts heavily on one’s reputation in business. It has also been established that reputation builds or breaks business. However, it is possible for a negotiation to end in a win-win situation if both parties apply ethical practices such as honesty, fairness and doing the right thing (Lewicki, Barry & Saunders, 2006).

Therefore, it is imperative that business people protect their reputations by adopting ethical behavior during negotiations since reputation takes years to build, but only a few minutes in a board room to destroy (McLean, 2006).

Ethics versus Prudence, Practicality, and Legality

Traditionally, the term prudence was used in reference to morality of persons. However, it is now often used to refer to the intelligent actions of a person in self-interest. Prudence is greatly a personal process that ends in a solid action and it is usually an acceptance of one’s personal being.

This is often expressed by the person when acting in a self-conscious way where his or her actions are informed by the beliefs that the person holds on what is right and what is wrong (Lewicki, 2004).

The natural character of a person, especially what informs his or her moral goodness is still a mystery as researchers have been struggling to explain if there is such a phenomenon as being born evil or being born righteous though, as history has proved, there are people who, no matter what happens, still portray the same character (Fairholm, 2009).

This has always been in tandem with the need to come up with the recipe for a practical guideline or rather a set of rules that people can adopt to ensure they exhibit outright moral goodness.

Questions of ethical conduct are likely to arise in negotiation

Among the basic questions that are related to negotiations and the adoption of ethical conduct during negotiations, the question of the rightness or wrongness of the action adopted in the negotiation comes up (Fells, 2009). Also, the question of the available laws that apply to the particular subject matter is considered to ascertain whether the act contradicts any of such laws.

The customs and the norms of the community should also be considered an act that goes against such customs and norms is not ethical. Finally, the rightness or wrongness of a particular action can be determined by the conscience of the person while in the process of executing an action, or by the feeling of guiltiness that may come thereafter (Lewicki, Barry & Saunders, 2006).

Ethically ambiguous tactics

These are actions that are adopted by negotiators that are neither wrong nor right during negotiations. The main factors that make them ambiguous include their identification process where they cannot be directly categorized as either ethical or unethical in that particular context (Fells, 2009).

Their use may also make them ambiguous due to the attitude of the persons applying them as well as their nature, for instance in cases of omission of important information or non-disclosure.

Motivators of unethical behavior and the consequences

There is a lot of literature on business that have expansive information on unethical behavior by managers and business executives. However, it is imperative for actors to realize that everyone in the company is susceptible to ethical weaknesses and though some might be ignored, they still impact negatively on the whole organization (Lewicki, 2004).

Power motive

Most people always feel the need to gain power over others either in form of more income or by enjoying more audience from superiors or customers. This often forces people to result to performing some unethical actions that they know are not right (McLean, 2006).

These actions may be contradicting the morality of actors as well as break the organizational rules and regulations (Lewicki, Barry & Saunders, 2006). Though it is often observed that, in the long run, those who commit such actions suffer, they sometimes go unnoticed or are ignored as being aggressive in business, but that should not mean that their actions are justified.

Motivational orientation

At times, unethical behavior may be introduced to an individual either knowingly or unknowingly when joining an organization especially if this behavior is entrenched in an organization such that it may be confused to be the organization’s culture.

Practices such as sabotage or deception while marketing a company’s products so as to improve on sales may be said to be normal corporate aggressiveness and might also be encouraged so that the company can achieve more from their employees (Fells, 2009).

However, it should be noted that these acts are still unethical, and, although people might have some levels of personal restraint in adopting them due to their personal morals, the organization might motivate them to practice them.

Consequences of Unethical Conduct

Consequences that may occur after the use of unethical tactics in negotiations can only be known depending on how successful the negotiation is. In cases where the negotiation may be a success, more of than not the person may not suffer any consequences unless the action makes him or her legally liable in future (McLean, 2006).

In other case, the loss of the business being negotiated is one of the consequences which is then combined by loss of business credibility, resources employed in the negotiation and legal liabilities at times (Fairholm, 2009).

How to deal with the other negotiator’s use of deception

As we have seen in the above explanation, unethical conduct always impacts negatively on both the victim and the person who encourages the conduct. One of the most common unethical conducts is deception when negotiating in businesses. This has both long-term and short-term negative effects on the company being deceived.

The main motivation of this unethical behavior is often to gain an advantage over another person by withholding crucial information or giving distorted information (McLean, 2006). However, this can be avoided if business people adopt some negotiation skills that will limit or even totally avoid deception during negotiations (Lewicki, 2004).

Ask probing questions

It is important for the negotiations to include probing questions that give more insights into the issue under consideration. Any information volunteered should be followed by a question that will test its validity as well as test that the other party is bluffing. It should be more like an interview where in-depth understanding of whatever is being presented is required (Lewicki, Barry & Saunders, 2006).

It is often advised that such questions should be structured in a way that the possible answer is something that you have great knowledge about and which one cannot be convinced otherwise. Since, those that lie during negotiations do so on the assumption that their co-negotiators probably do not have any background knowledge on the subject matter (Fells, 2009).

Phrase Questions in different ways

It is advised that expected questions that are of universal knowledge be phrased in such a way that the respondent will have to come up with a totally different answer than the commonly accepted one. This is because most people usually prepare before negotiation by weighing all the possible questions that may be asked as well as all the possible answers that may be suited to the situation (Fairholm, 2009).

This gives them the opportunity to come up with lies and misrepresentations of the subject matter in case they are asked any of the more obvious questions. The rephrasing of such questions ensures that the other person does not apply any of these previously prepared answers (Fells, 2009).

Test the other Party

Tests are often advantageous in weighing the validity of information provided by the other party during a negotiation since any deceptive person will more often than not contradict themselves if tested while having previously provided deceptive information (McLean, 2006).

These tests should be done with the anticipation that whatever has already been established may not be true, hence, it should be tailored towards obtaining more information on the same to ascertain its validity.

“Call” the Tactic

“Calling” the tactic always gives one an edge over the other party by making sure you are on the lead in the negotiations, hence, you structure the negotiation as it suits you. This puts the other party in a position where they have to do and say whatever you dictate (Lewicki, 2004). However, this can be detrimental if the other party doesn’t follow your lead and chooses to ignore you and take an aggressive stand.

This should, however, not lead you into panicking since you can still salvage the situation by applying to test any bold move they make (Fairholm, 2009). This also implies that if you choose to adopt this in your negotiation, you should be widely informed since the same tests may be used against you, which may expose one’s vulnerability, and then you will be subsequently deceived depending on the severity of your weakness.

Ignore the Tactic

As we have already discussed above, the other party may choose to totally ignore one’s boldness in the negotiation and choose to steer it to a totally different direction (Fells, 2009).

The same should be applied if the other party comes ready to lead the negotiation since it is observed that often, those who come ready to lead the negotiations usually prepare beforehand. This gives them a chance to seep in their pre-organized lies into the conversation and it can only be avoided if one chooses to ignore their tactic to lead (McLean, 2006).

Discuss What You See and Attempt to Influence Other Party to Shift to Honest Behavior

Though it may not be a common practice, there are often certain measures that may be used to ensure that both parties maintain utmost good faith and disclosure of information during a negotiation (Lewicki, Barry & Saunders, 2006).

For instance the swearing in front of a lawyer binds the person to anything he or she says and if the information is in the future discovered to have been deceptive, then the person should suffer the full legal liability that comes with any losses that may have been incurred due to the deception (Fairholm, 2009).

Respond in kind

In cases where the deception may be known, but it cannot be challenged due to lack of proof, then it is advisable that you come up with a similar deception that will put you at an advantage against the other party so that you do not suffer losses due to such a lie (Lewicki, 2004).

However, this should be exercised with restraint and it is not a viable alternative unless it is extremely necessary because there might be legal and financial implications to be suffered if the truth is known and evidence is found (Fells, 2009).

References

Fairholm, G., W. (2009). Organizational power politics: tactics in organizational leadership. New York: ABC-CLIO.

Fells, R. (2009). Effective negotiation: from research to results. London: Cambridge University Press.

Lewicki, R., J. Barry, B. and Saunders, D., M. (2006). Negotiation: readings, exercises, and cases. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Lewicki, R., J. (2004). Essentials of negotiation. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

McLean, G., F. (2006). Normative ethics and objective reason. New York: CRVP.

Click Here To Order Now!