“Ethical Negotiating and Deception Tactics” [18%]

“Ethical Negotiating and  Deception  Tactics” [18%]
[This paper follows the lectures on Ethical Negotiating on Saturday, December
13, 2014 (Session 2)]

Read the article “The Forces Behind Deception in Negotiations” on the next
page, which describes some research underlying the psychological / social reasons that
explains  why a negotiator might choose to deceive the other party. Write a short paper
(3 -5 pages, double-spaced), addressing ALL of the  following points:

1. Knowledge & Comprehension:
Briefly summarize the 4 factors (forces) in your own words (i.e., paraphrasing;
with a few direct quotes if necessary ).  Provide at least one brief example
(personal or professional) for each factor (besides those cited in the article).

2. Application & Analysis :
a. First, write a short case of (international ) business negotiation where at
least one negotiator(s) has employed som e deception tactics (dirty tricks). (You
can  come up  a real case, preferably, or  just  a mock case based on your own
experience.)  In this case, address the following points:
i. What is the background of this negotiation? Who are the
negotiating parties? What are the parties’ declared positions, their
interests and their initial strategies (e.g., win -win; win-lose)? Etc. ( Note.
One negotiator should be Vietnamese /Asian  or with Vietnamese/Asian
culture values.)
ii. What negative tactics are used and by whom?  What are the
intentions of the negotiator when using those tactics? Are those tactics
successful? How does the other party react at the time? A nd a fter the
negotiation session?

b. Secondly,  explain why the negotiator(s) is motivated to behave
unethically, using the research evidence/theory cited in the article on the next
page to analyze the behavior . ( Note: Try to use as many of the 4 forces in your
analysis as possible, but you are not required to use all of them.)

3. Evaluation & Reflection: Evaluat e  your short case using either of Usunier &
Ghauri’s ethical perspectives (i.e.,  cultural universalism; cultural relativism, or moral
pragmatism). What recommendations do you have for each negotiating party?

2 ”

The Forces Behind Deception in Negotiations
By PON Staff on September 26th, 2013
Adapted from “When You’re Tempted to Deceive” by Ann E. Tenbrunsel and Kristina A.
Diekmann for the July 2007 issue of the  Negotiation newsletter. [Source:
http://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/batna/the-forces -behind-deception -in -negotiations/]

Despite your best intentions, one or more of these four forces might lead you to behave
unethically during a negotiation:

1. The Lure of Temptation
Whether or not negotiators lie depends in part on how lucrative the rewards are, Ann E.
Tenbrunsel has found in her research. In one of her studies, participants played the role
of a partner in a two -partner firm that was being dissolved. They were asked to provide
“honest” estimates of the market share of their products to help determine how to divide
the firm’s equity between the two partners.
Some participants were told that if they were awarded the most equity, they would
receive $1; others were told t hey would receive $100 in the same instance. Those
promised only $1 misrepresented their honest estimates 41% of the time; by contrast,
those promised $100 misrepresented their estimates 69% of the time. The higher
reward provided a significant temptation  to lie.
Similarly, the larger the bribe, the more likely we are to take it, Harvey Hegarty of
Indiana University and Henry Sims of the University of Maryland has found.
Returning to our opening story, the more desirable the job, the more likely you are t o lie
about having better offers. It seems our ethical standards are more fluid than we’d like
to believe.

2. Uncertainty’s Attraction
Uncertainty increases the likelihood that we will be unethical, Roy J. Lewicki of Ohio
State University and other researchers have noted. Uncertainty about the material facts
in a negotiation can inspire unethical behavior.
In another study using the two -partner situation described above, Tenbrunsel led
negotiators to be either fairly certain or fairly uncertain about the honest estimate of the
market share of their products. Rather than providing more cautious estimates,
uncertain negotiators actually provided more aggressive, less honest estimates than the
more confident group.
It seems that in a job negotiation, uncert ainty about the possibility of a better offer could
increase the likelihood that you would falsely claim to have other offers.

3. The Power of Powerlessness
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” said historian Lord
Acton, yet studies show that a lack of power is more likely to lead us to behave
Consider that outside alternatives to agreement are a strong source of power in
negotiation (see BATNA, for more details). In their research, Tenbrunsel and David
Messick of Northwestern University found that a lack of outside options increased
negotiator deception. In one study, participants acted as manager negotiating with
3 ”

pote ntial clients. When managers were told they had relatively few other potential
clients, they were more likely to misrepresent information than when they were told they
had plenty of potential clients. No wonder, then, that a job applicant lacking other solid
offers might be tempted to claim that she has many.

4. Anonymous Victims
Suppose that your job negotiation is with several people – a recruiter, the human
resources manager, the division president, and the director of sales. When negotiating
with this group, you’d be more likely to lie than when negotiating with one person,
research from Charles Naquin of DePaul University suggests.
In one study, participants were presented with an ethical dilemma and were faced with
whether to lie to their opponent. For half the participants, that opponent was an
individual, and for the other half, that opponent was represented by a group of
individuals. Participants with a group of opponents lied to them about the amount in the
pot 73% of the time; those with individ ual opponents lied only 36% of the time.
Probing further, we found that negotiators perceive interactions with groups to be less
personal than interactions with individuals, a perception that they believe justifies
increased unethical behavior when dealin g with groups.
5 ”

“Your Negotiati ng Style(s)” [18%]
[This paper follows the lectures on  “Negotiating Styles” on Sunday Dec 14 (Session

Respond to the negoti ation style survey in PracSol (Fig. 3.3. Personal Assessment
Inventory, pp. 62 & 63) and compute your  own style scores of Dodger, Dreamer,
Haggler, Competitor, & Creative Problem Solver. Write a short paper (3-5 pages,
double-spaced), addressing ALL of the points as follows:
1.   Knowledge & Comprehension: Briefly summarize the 5  negotiating styles  in your
own  words (i.e., paraphrasing; with a few direct quotes).

2.   Application & Analysis :
a.   First, list your negotiation style scores, ranking them from the most
predominant  style (the  highest score) to the least dominant style. When
you compare your negotiation style scores to the average American style
scores  (Fig. 3.5, pp. 64), what does  the comparison  tell you (e.g., how
similar  or  how different are you from Americans)?
American average negotiation style scores: (approximate values; Max = 35)
–   Competing: 31/35 [highest]
–   Creative problem solving: 27/35
–   Dodging: 22/35
–   Haggling: 21/35
–   Dreaming: 7/35 [lowest]

i.   What does this ranking order mean in terms of your style
preference and versatility?  What does that tell you about your
negotiation strengths and weaknesses? (Refer to Fig. 3.1 on pp.
ii.   Have you actually  acted in the way that the textbooks say people
with  your style(s) should act in negotiations (referring to behaviors
of a certain style)? (Please give a specific negotiation example.)
Why or why not? Under what circumstances would your negotiation
style(s) be the most effective?
b.   Secondly, analyze the style of a negotiator that you have met (preferably
someone from a different country/culture) based on how they act in a
certain negotiation setting.  (This negotiator can be somebody from your
own  negotiation  team or from the other par ty ’s  team.)
i.   What do you think his/her style is? Is he/she effective in
negotiation? Why or why not (referring to strengths & weaknesses
of their style)?
ii.   If you encounter that negotiator, how did you act  or how you would

3.   Evaluation & Reflection: Evalua te the extent to which your actual negotiating
style(s) is  consistent with your style in theory (according to the textbooks). If
there are gaps, explain why (e.g., training, culture, habits).

“Planning for Your Negotiation” (18%)

Review the following chapters: PracSol Ch.4, NegoS Ch. 10 and NegoS Ch. 11. Based
on what you learned in these chapters, write a short case of  a  negotiation preparation
that you have involved in, or  may  get involved in in a near future  (3 -5 pages,  double-spaced). Note: The case should be  real  (not fictitious);

you are also encouraged to write
a cross-border or cross -cultural negotiating case if possible .
1.   Case description: What is/was the background of this negotiation (i.e., company
background; negotiating parties’ positions; their interests, etc.)?

2.   Application :
a.   If this case is in the past:
i.   How did you (or your company) prepare and plan for this
negotiation (refer to the 6 steps of prenegotiation in the PracSol
textbook, Ch.4)?
ii.   Now knowing the steps of negotiation planning, what would you
have done differently or you would not change your planning? Why
or why not?
b.   If this case may  occur in the future:
i.   How will you do so (refer to the 6 steps of pre-negotiation  in the
PracSol textbook, Ch.4)?
ii.   What may be your challenges and/or advantages in carrying out
those 6 steps?

3.   Evaluation & Reflection:
a.    Evaluate the extent to which  you think you the  textbook recommendations
can /could  be applied to this case of negotiation  planning.
b.   Reflect on the extent to which you planned for negotiations in the past
(both professional and personal ). What would you do differently (or not)  in
th e future?

term papers to buy
research papers