Chapter 8

A Presentation On Ethics In Negotiation By Members Of Team 2.

This chapter tries to analyse if there are or should be socially acceptable ethical standards for behaviour in negations and the goal is to determine among different criteria the basis for judging a negotiators actions especially when issues of ethics might be involved.

Before delving into the topic, “Ethics In Negotiation”, we think it’s proper to define the key elements in this write-up which are;
i. Ethics, &
ii. Negotiation.

Ethics
Ethics are broadly applied social standards for what is right or wrong in a particular situation, or a process for setting those standards.

Ethics can also be defined as that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

From these definitions we can infer that ethics evolve out of particular philosophies guarded by norms from the environment we live in.

Negotiation .
Negotiation can be referred to as a win-win situation such as those that occur when parties are trying to find a mutually acceptable solution to a complex situation.

It can also be defined as a process of dialogue intended to resolve disputes, to produce an agreement upon courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage or to craft outcomes to satisfy various interest. It is the primary method of alternative dispute resolution.


What Is The Relevance Of Ethics In Negotiation?

The purpose of studying the relevance of ethics in negotiation is to distinguish among different standards the basis for judging negotiators actions in his tactics before and during the negotiation process.
We will be looking at four standards for evaluating strategies and tactics in business negotiation:

i. The End-Result Ethics: this is based on the premise that negotiators do whatever is necessary to get the best possible outcome and self fulfilment (happiness/contentment). The major concern here is the definition of happiness and it’s measurement in attaining satisfaction.
ii. The Duty Ethics: Adherence to consistent principles, laws and social standards that define right from wrong is the central tenet here. The major concern here is the judgement of the uprightness of the rules made by the authorities guiding the institutions
iii. Social Contract Ethics: In this standard, the rightness of an action is determined by the customs and norms of a community.
iv. Personality Ethics: The rightness of an action is determined by one’s conscience. The major challenge here is finding uniformity, as all individuals are unique in their own way.

What Questions Of Ethical Conduct Arise In Negotiation?
In business negotiations, when is lying acceptable? Negotiation is all about meeting one’s interest and when someone else stands in the way, the negotiator faces the core ethical issue of negotiation: when are my needs and wants more important than treating this person in a moral or socially acceptable manner? Whatever choice you make may involve significant costs to yourself, to the other party and to the wider community. Often the “right” thing to do is not clear.

Negotiators use ambiguous tactics in achieving strategic advantage in negotiations. The major types of ambiguous tactics are deception and subterfuge. Deception can be by way of omission or by commission, the latter being the more severe.
Existing law generally provides that the duty of good faith applies only to the performance and enforcement of agreements, not negotiations. The unscrupulous negotiator might take this as a licence to behave unethically during negotiations for as long as such behaviour is not out and out fraudulent. With such negotiators there’s a reputation effect to deal with, one which a negotiator cannot afford to have.

Is it right to use ambiguous tactic? It might be allowed to use certain minor forms of misrepresentation or forms of omission but outright deception and falsification is wrong.

Why do negotiators use deceptive tactics?
1. To gain undue advantage over the other party.
2. To selfishly achieve their objectives to the detriment of the other party

How Can Negotiators Deal With The Other Party’s Use of Deception?
1. Ask probing questions.
2. Force the other party to back off.
3. “Call the tactic”.
4. Discuss what you see and offer to help the other arty change to more honest behaviour.
5. Respond in kind.
6. Ignore the Tactic


In conclusion, negotiators overlook the fact that, although unethical or expedient tactics may give desired results in the short run, these same tactics could damage their reputation in the long run.


Team Opinion:
We conclude that there is a very fine line between ethical and unethical tactics in negotiations though many commonly used negotiation tactics are fraught with ethical concerns. We believe the most effective negotiators are cooperative and cooperative negotiators strive to be ethical.
When negotiators share material information, the opportunity to engage in value-producing trades increases.