Ethics in Negotiation

Prof Andrea Caputo

 – Please rank from 1 (being the lowest) to 5 (being the
Before we highest) to what extant you agree with the following
statements. When I have a conflict at work, I do the
start, let’s following:
assess your
negotiation I give in to the wishes of the other party.
style I concur with the other party.
I try to accommodate the other party.
I adapt to the other parties' goals and interests.

– Write down your score (Yielding)

De Dreu et al. (2001), DUTCH Scale
 – Please rank from 1 (being the lowest) to 5 (being the
Before we highest) to what extant you agree with the following
statements. When I have a conflict at work, I do the
start, let’s following:
assess your
negotiation I try to realize a middle-of-the-road solution.

style I emphasize that we have to find a compromise solution.

I insist we both give in a little.
I strive whenever possible towards a fifty-fifty
compromise.

– Write down your score (Compromising)

De Dreu et al. (2001), DUTCH Scale
 – Please rank from 1 (being the lowest) to 5 (being the
Before we highest) to what extant you agree with the following
statements. When I have a conflict at work, I do the
start, let’s following:
assess your
I push my own point of view.
negotiation
style I search for gains.

I fight for a good outcome for myself.

I do everything to win.

– Write down your score (Forcing)

De Dreu et al. (2001), DUTCH Scale
 – Please rank from 1 (being the lowest) to 5 (being the
Before we highest) to what extant you agree with the following
statements. When I have a conflict at work, I do the
start, let’s following:
assess your
I examine issues until I find a solution that really satisfies me and the
negotiation other party.
style I stand form my own and other's goals and interests.

I examine ideas from both sides to find a mutually optimal solution.

I workout a solution that serves my own as well as other's interests as
good as possible.

– Write down your score (Problem Solving)

De Dreu et al. (2001), DUTCH Scale
 – Please rank from 1 (being the lowest) to 5 (being the
Before we highest) to what extant you agree with the following
statements. When I have a conflict at work, I do the
start, let’s following:
assess your
I avoid a confrontation about our differences.
negotiation
I avoid differences of opinion as much as possible.
style
I try to make differences loom less severe.

I try to avoid a confrontation with the other.

– Write down your score (Avoiding)

De Dreu et al. (2001), DUTCH Scale
How did you score on each style?
Does it reflect how you thought you negotiate?
How you want to be?
 – People in and out of organizations confront decisions about
strategies to use to achieve important objectives.
Ethical – These decisions often carry ethical implications.
Quandaries – Consider these questions when working through what ethical
issues may arise during negotiation.
– What are ethics and why do they apply to negotiation?
– What approaches to ethical reasoning are relevant to negotiation?
– What questions of ethical conduct are likely to arise in negotiation?
– What motivates unethical behavior, and what are the
consequences?
– What shapes a negotiator’s predisposition to use unethical tactics?
– How can negotiators deal with the other party’s use of deception?

8
 – Ethics are broadly applied social standards for what is right or
wrong in a situation, or a process for setting those standards.
Ethics and
– The four standards for evaluating strategies and tactics.
Negotiation – Choose a course of action on the basis of results I expect to achieve.
– End-result ethics evaluates the pros and cons of an action’s
consequences.
– On the basis of my duty to uphold appropriate rules and principles.
– Duty ethics is an obligation to adhere to consistent principles.
– On the basis of norms, values, and strategy of my community.
– Social contract ethics is based on customs and norms.
– Choose a course of action on the basis of my personal convictions.
– Personalistic ethics based on conscience and moral standards.

9
 – if a person selling an e-bike tells a present buyer there is a second
potential buyer, when there is not.
Applying – If you believe in end-result ethics, you would lie to get the best
Ethical outcome.
– If you believe in duty ethics, you might reject a tactic requiring a lie.
Reasoning to – If you believe in social contract ethics, if others lie, you will too.

Negotiation – If you believe in personalistic ethics, your conscience decides.

– This shows your approach to ethical reasoning affects your ethical
judgment, and the behavior you choose.

11
Ethics v. Prudence v. Practicality v. Legality
– Ethical. – Practical.
– Appropriate as determined by some standard of moral – What a negotiator can actually make happen in a
conduct. given situation.

– Prudent. – Legal.
– Wise, based on trying to understand the efficiency of – What the law defines as acceptable practice.
the tactic and the consequences it might have on the
relationship with the other. – Other criteria include intrinsic and instrumental
reasons.
– Some tactics are seen by all as unethical.

12
 – Negotiators with noble objectives, feel they can use any tactics.
End-Result – Drawing on consequentialism – a view that the moral worth of an
action should be judged on the basis of the consequences it
Ethics produces.

– Followers of utilitarianism believe the best moral choice

maximizes the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
– Debate about end-result ethics centers on some key questions.
– How do people define maximum utility, and how is it measured?
– How do parties trade off between short-term and long-term
consequences, when one may damage the other?
– If unable to create utility for everyone, is it adequate to create it for
many, even if some people will not benefit or will even suffer?
– How do you balance the benefits of a majority with protection of the
rights of a minority?

13
 – Duty ethics emphasizes that individuals should commit to a series
of moral standards and use those to make decisions.
Duty Ethics – The term deontology is used to label this school of thought.
– Deontologists argue utilitarian standards are flawed as outcomes
may be too uncertain at the time of the decision.
– They also propose the ethical merits of an action should be linked
more to the intentions of the person than to the outcomes of the
act.
– They believe an action is wrong due to principle, not consequence.

– Deontology has its critics.

– Who sets the standards, chooses the principles, and makes the
rules?
– What are the rules that apply in all circumstances?

14
 – Proponents hold that the rightness of an action is determined by
the customs and social norms of a community.
Social Contract – They argue that societies, organizations, and cultures determine
Ethics what is ethically appropriate and acceptable for themselves.
– Then indoctrinate new members as they are socialized into the
community.

– As applied to negotiation, social contract ethics would prescribe

appropriate behaviors in terms of what people owe one another.
– Social contract ethics are not without problems.
– How do we decide what implicit rules should apply to a given
relationship, particularly when the rules are not explicitly spelled
out?
– Who makes these social rules, and how are they evaluated and
changed?

15
 – A fourth standard of ethics holds that people should simply
consult their own conscience.
Personalistic – As humans, we develop a personal conscience of right and wrong.
Ethics – As applied to negotiation, personalistic ethics maintain that
everyone ought to decide for themselves what is right.
– Critics have a few arguments.
– They argue no one is pure and individual conscience is too narrow
and limited as a standard to apply to a broader social context.
– Some critics argue that social institutions have declined in their roles
as teachers of character and developers of conscience.
– In addition, personalistic ethics provides no mechanism for resolving
disputes when they lead to conflicting views between individuals.

16
 – The “It’s a game” Poker School
Three Schools – Negotiation as a game with certain rules, defined by the law
and perfectly known.
of Bargaining – bluffing and deception are integral to the ”game”
Ethics – The ”Do the right thing even if it hurts” Idealist School
– negotiation is part of social life, same ethics applies in life and
in negotiation
– Kantian view

– The “What goes around, comes around” Pragmatist

school
– includes elements of both
– sees deception as necessary
– concern for the consequences, prudential rather than idealistic

17
 – Ethically ambiguous tactics may or may not be improper,
depending on an individual’s ethical reasoning and circumstances.
Ethically – Focus here is on what negotiators say rather than what they actually
Ambiguous do.

– Questions about truth telling are clear, but not the answers.
Tactics and – First, how do you define truth?
Truth – Second, how do you define and classify deviations from the truth?
– Effective agreements depend on sharing accurate information but
negotiators want to disclose little about their positions.
– The dilemma of trust is that a negotiator who believes everything
the other says can be manipulated by dishonesty.
– The dilemma of honesty is that a negotiator who tells the other
party all their requirements will never do better than their walkaway
point.

18
 – There are six clear categories of tactics.
What Ethically –
–
Traditionally competitive bargaining.
Emotional manipulation.
Ambiguous – Misrepresentation.

Tactics are –
–
Misrepresentation to opponent’s networks.
Inappropriate information gathering.
There? – Bluffing.

– Judgments are subjective – for any given tactic, some will see its
use as ethically wrong, others will have little or no problem with it.

19
 – Here are some research findings on the link between
Does Tolerance thinking a tactic is acceptable and actually using that
tactic.
Lead to Use of – There is a positive relationship between an attitude toward
Such Tactics? the use of a specific tactic and the intention to use it.
– Using unethical tactics early in a negotiation leads to greater
frequency of use, and may cause the other party to follow
suit.
– Tactics used by frequency: hiding your bottom line,
exaggerating an opening offer, stalling for time and
misrepresenting information.
– Hiding your bottom line improved negotiator performance in
role-play.

20
 – Studies indicate there are tacitly agreed-on rules in negotiation.
Are Ethically – Some minor forms of untruths may be seen as ethically acceptable
and within the rules.
Ambiguous – In contrast, outright deception is generally seen as outside the rules.

Tactics – The authors offer some caution.

– Statements are based on large groups of people and do not indicate
Acceptable to or predict any individual negotiator’s use of such tactics.
– Observations are based on what people said they would do, rather
Use? than what they actually did.
– By reporting the results, the authors do not endorse the use of
marginally ethical tactics.
– This is a Western view of negotiation, not true for other cultures –
“let the buyer beware” at all times.

21
 – The use of deceptive tactics can be active or passive.
Deception by – Negotiators use two forms of deception in misrepresenting a
common-value issue – both parties seek the same outcome.
Omission – Misrepresentation by omission – failing to disclose information that
versus would benefit the other party.
– Misrepresentation by commission – actually lying about the issue.
Commission – A student role-play involving the sale of a car with a defective
transmission revealed the following insight.
– Students could lie by omission or commission.
– Far more students were willing to lie by omission.

22
Figure 5.2: A Simple Model of Deception in Negotiation

23
 – The purpose of ethically ambiguous tactics is to increase the
negotiator’s power in the bargaining environment.
Motives for – Information is a major source of leverage – it has power.
Using – This view assumes that the information is accurate and truthful.
Deceptive – Using the tactics already discussed, the liar gains advantage.

– A negotiator’s motivation affects their tendency to use deception.

Tactics – They may use it to achieve their goals.
– They may use them to avoid being exploited.
– It could be individual differences of personality or culture.
– People may be more motivated to appear moral, than to act morally.
– An individual’s approach to ethics comes into play as well.

24
 – Effectiveness.
Consequences – Evidence points to the effectiveness of deceptive tactics in certain
circumstances.
of Unethical – Misrepresenting interest on an issue that both parties want can
induce concessions that lead to favorable outcomes.
Conduct – Reactions of others.
– “Targets” who discover the deception are typically angry.
– For serious and personal deception, the relationship suffers.

– Reactions of self.
– When the other party suffers, a negotiator may feel discomfort.
– Negotiators in a simulated situation who lied tended to make larger
concessions later in the negotiation to compensate.

25
 – Here are some typical rationalizations.
Explanations –
–
The tactic was unavoidable – so the negotiator is not responsible.
The tactic was harmless – according to the deceptive party.
and – The tactic will help to avoid negative consequences – for who?

Justifications –
–
The tactic will produce good consequences, or altruistically motivated.
“They had it coming,” or “They deserve it,” or “I’m getting my due.”
– They were going to do it anyway, so I will do it first – anticipation.
– “He started it” – anticipation in the past tense.
– The tactic is fair or appropriate to the situation – moral relativism.

26
 – Demographic factors.
Factors –
–
Women tend to make more ethically rigorous judgments than men.
Female negotiators are lied to more than male negotiators.
Shaping – Both men and women behaved more ethically as they aged.

Predisposition –
–
Older parties see bluffing as more acceptable, deception less so.
Professional orientation may increase, or decrease, acceptability.
to Deception – There are cultural differences in attitudes toward ambiguous tactics.

– Personality differences.
– Your “straightforwardness” leads to greater concern for the other
party.
– There are four other dimensions of personality that may predict the
likelihood of using ethically ambiguous tactics, discussed next.

27
 – Competitiveness versus cooperativeness.
Personality – Competitors are more likely to use bluffing, misrepresentation, and
other dishonest tactics than cooperators.
Differences – Pro-social individuals were more honest than selfish individuals.

– Empathy and perspective taking.

– Those high in empathy reject lying and misrepresentation.
– The cognitive trait of perspective-taking neither approves or
disapproves.

– Machiavellianism.
– This appears to be a predictor of unethical conduct.

– Locus of control.
– Those high in internal control are likely to do what is right.

28
 – Please scan the code or go to the link and take the
Let’s take Mach-IV test for Machiavellianism, record your score
and compare with the score of your negotiation style.
another test

Mach-IV
Christie & Geis (1970)

https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/MACH-IV/
 – Six stages of moral development, grouped into three levels.
Moral – A preconventional level where the person is concerned with
outcomes that meet their current needs, particularly rewards and
Development punishment.
– A conventional level where the person defines what is right on the
and Personal basis of the immediate social situation, peer group, or society
norms.
Values – A postconventional level where the person defines what is right on
the basis of some broader set of universal values and principles.
– The higher the stage a person achieves, the more complex their
Theory of Moral moral reasoning and the more ethical their decisions.
Development
(Kohlberg, 1984)

30
 – Past experience, particularly failure, can increase the likelihood of
attempting to use unethical tactics.
Contextual
– Greater incentives influence the inclination to misrepresent.
Influences on – Negotiators use ambiguous tactics if the other party is perceived
Unethical to be vulnerable, or powerful – as a defense.

Conduct – Two aspects of the negotiator’s relationship affects tendency.

– What the relationship has been like in the past.
– What the parties would like it to be in the future.
– Also long-term versus short-term impacts use of ambiguous tactics.

– A balance of power should lead to more ethical conduct than an

imbalance of power.

31
Negotiation ethics and culture (Rivers & Lytle, 2007)
Ethics in Negotiation: Noam Ebner with Dr. Cheryl Rivers
 – The structure of the negotiation situation may alter the ethics
negotiators bring to the table.
Contextual
– Advances in technology have affected the way negotiators
Influence communicate.
– Deception is viewed differently when it occurs over email.

– Acting as an agent for another party often gives moral latitude to

do whatever is necessary to maximize results.
– Negotiators may look to social norms for expected behavior.
– Norms are informal social rules – the dos and don’ts.
– Group and organizational norms may legitimize inappropriate
behavior.
– Pressure to obey authority is strong, and can undermine integrity.

34
 – Ask probing questions.
Dealing with – Phrase questions in different ways.
the Other’s – Force the other party to lie or back off.
– Test the other party.
Use of
– “Call” the tactic.
Deception – Ignore the tactic.
– Discuss and help the other party shift to more honest behavior.
– Respond in kind.

35