1 / 12

Negotiation Assigned Reading

Negotiation Assigned Reading. Teresa E. Simpson BUSI 5320 Negotiation: Leadership, ADR and Organizational Change Spring 2009. Truth-Telling. Standards of truth-telling help to define what communication is ethical or unethical

rayya
Télécharger la présentation

Negotiation Assigned Reading

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NegotiationAssigned Reading Teresa E. Simpson BUSI 5320 Negotiation: Leadership, ADR and Organizational Change Spring 2009

  2. Truth-Telling • Standards of truth-telling help to define what communication is ethical or unethical • The attention here is more on what we say (and how we say it) than what we do.

  3. Truth-Telling Cont. • Questions of major concern to negotiators as they decide what they can and cannot say and still remain ethical are as follows: • How do we define truth? • How do we define and classify any deviation away from the truth? • Are all deviations “lies,” no matter how small or minor they are? • Should a person tell the truth all the time, or are there times when not telling the truth is acceptable (or even necessary) form of conduct?

  4. Truth Telling Cont. • Business Journals for years have addressed the ethical question and have argued in the Harvard Business Review that strategy in business in analogous to strategy in a game of poker. • *Information dependence – the exchange of information to learn the true preferences and priorities of the other negotiator • 1.negotiators must resolve the dilemma of trust – that is, they must infer the other’s true intentions or preferences knowing the other may be attempting to inflate, magnify, or justify those preferences. • 2. negotiators must also resolve the dilemma of their own honesty and openness, that is, how frank and candid to be about their own true preferences and priorities. • Each must be able to convince the other of his integrity while not at the same time endangering his bargaining position.

  5. Key Terms Truth-Telling 1.Misrepresentation of one’s position to another party – the negotiator lies about the preferred settlement point or resistance point. Bluffing – the negotiators state that they will commit some action that they don’t actually intend to fulfill. Falsification- is the introduction of factually erroneous information into a negotiation. Deception – the negotiator constructs a collection of true or untrue arguments that leads the other party to the wrong conclusion. Selective disclosure or misrepresentation to constituencies – the negotiator does not accurately tell her constituency what has transpired in the negotiation, does not tell the other party the true wishes, desires, or position of her constituency, or both

  6. Explanations & Justifications • …the primary motivation to use a deceptive tactic is to gain a temporary power advantage. • Those who employ unethical tactics are prone to use a number of explanations and justifications.

  7. Be Aware of: The tactic was unavoidable – the negotiator was not in full control of her actions, and hence should not be held responsible. The tactic was harmless – what the negotiator did was really trivial and not significant The tactic will help to avoid negative consequences – When using the justification, we are arguing that the ends justify the means. The tactic will produce good consequences, or the tactic is a altruistically motivated – again, the end justifies the means, but in a positive sense.

  8. Be Aware of: “They had it coming,” or “they deserve it,” or “I’m just getting my due” – all these justifications are variations on the theme of using lying and deception against an individual who may have taken advantage of us in the past, “the system,” or some generalized source of authority. The tactic is fair or appropriate to the situation – this approach uses situational relativism as the rationale and justification

  9. Lawyers, Ethics, and Negotiation Lawyers negotiate continually. Their involvement may raise particular ethical issues because of their duty to represent the interests of their clients to the best of their abilities. Their role as officers of the court influence the negotiating strategies and tactics they should use.

  10. Lawyers, Ethics & Negotiation *The process of the negotiation is the key to it’s success A problem-solving orientation toward negotiation may lead not only to better solutions, but to a process which could be more creative and enjoyable than destructive and antagonistic

  11. Negotiation and the Law • Negotiation must take place within the framework established by the law. • Fraud and Misrepresentation • False or misleading representations of facts fall into two categories: • 1. Fraudulent misrepresentation covers deliberate lies and distortions made dishonestly. • 2. Intention to mislead the persons involved in negotiation is irrelevant as long as the author of the representation did not believe it to be true.

  12. Duty to Divulge Information • One of the more perplexing dilemmas for a negotiator is the extent to which he or she should reveal information to the other party or parties • *the duty to negotiate in good faith, the common law says that there is no general duty to disclosure when negotiating agreements. • *the protection of confidences. In the modern world the exchange of confidential information is both necessary and expected.

More Related