Page 261 - DMGT519_Conflict Management and Negotiation Skills

Unit 12: Ethics in Negotiation

consequences – reward and punishments that arise from using a tactic or not using it – should Notes
not only motivate a negotiator’s present behaviour but also affect his or her predisposition to
use similar strategies in similar circumstances in the future. (For the moment, we will ignore the
consequences of these tactics on the reputation and trustworthiness, an impact that most deceptive
negotiators unfortunately ignore in the short-term).
Reactions of Others

A second set of consequences may arise from judgements and evaluations by the person who
was the “target” of the tactic, by constituencies or by audiences that can observe the tactic.
Depending on whether these parties recognize the tactic and whether they evaluate it as proper
or improper to use, the negotiator may receive a great deal of feedback. If the target person is
unaware that a deceptive tactic was used, he or she may show no reaction other than
disappointment at having lost the negotiation. However, if the target discovers that deception
has occurred, he or she is likely to react strongly. People who discover that they have been
deceived or exploited are typically angry. In addition to perhaps having “lost” the negotiation,
they feel foolish for having allowed themselves to be manipulated or deceived by a clever ploy.
As a result of both the loss and embarrassment, victims are inclined to seek retaliation and
revenge. The victim is unlikely to trust the unethical negotiator again, may seek revenge from
the negotiator in future dealings and may also generalize this experience to negotiations with
others. A strong experience of being exploited may thus sour a victim’s perception of negotiation
contexts in the future (Bies and Moag, 1986; Werth and Flannery, 1986).

Reactions of Self

We are unaware of systematic research exploring the third set of consequences: the negotiator’s
own reactions to the use of unethical tactics. Under some conditions – such as when the other
party has truly suffered – a negotiator may feel some discomfort, stress, guilt, or remorse. Of
course, the actor who sees no problem in using the tactic may be likely to use it again and may
even begin to ponder how to use it more effectively. On one hand, while the use of these tactics
may have strong consequences for the negotiator’s reputation and trustworthiness, parties
seldom appear to take these outcomes into consideration in the short-term. On the other hand,
and particularly if the tactic has worked, the negotiator may be able to rationalize and justify the
use of the tactic.

12.8.1 Explanations and Justifications

When a negotiator has used an ethically ambiguous tactic that may elicit a reaction – as we
described above – the negotiator must prepare to defend the tactic’s use to himself (e.g., “I see
myself as a person of integrity, and yet I have decided to do something that might be viewed as
unethical”), to the victim, or to constituencies and audience who may express their concerns. The
primary purpose of these explanations and justifications is to rationalize, explain, or excuse the
behaviour – to verbalise some good, legitimate reason why this tactic was necessary. There is an
increasing stream of research on those who employ unethical tactics and the explanations and
justifications they use to rationalize them. Most of the following rationalizations have been
adopted from Bok (1978) and her excellent treatise on lying:

1. The tactic was unavoidable.
2. The tactic was harmless.
3. The tactic will help to avoid negative consequences.
4. The tactic will produce good consequences.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 255