Ethics and Negotiation Essay

? duologue is a pervasive features of line of merchandise life. Success in business typic aloney requires successful dialogues. In a war-ridden and examplely imperfect world, business people be frequently faced with serious honorable challenges. Herboting jealous abut the ethics of others, many feel justified in benignant in less-than-ideal cope to protect their own interests. The most sophisticated clean-living arguments are unlikely to counteract this doings. We believe that this morally defensive behaviour responsible, in large part, for much undesirable deception in talks. design on recent work in the literature of negotiations, we present close to practical guidance on how negotiators might build trust, establish communal interests, and secure credibility for their statements thereby promoting echty.We must make the world honest before we can honestly tell apart to our children that honesty is the shell insurance George Bernard SHAWWhat do we mean by ethics?Eth ics are more often than non applied societal standards for what is serious and persecute in a extra emplacement, or a handle for setting those standards. And ethics grow turn out of a particular philosophies which define the nature of the world in which we raging and prescribe rules for living to puzzleher.Why do people choose wrong behaviour?The first answer that normally occurs to us is that people are corrupt, degenerate, or immoral. In circumstance these answers are to simplistics moreover, they do not service us understand and control our own behaviour, or successfully fix and predict the behaviour of others in a bargaining environment.Here were tercet primary factors motivational factors which protract negotiators to consider using wrong tactic the pursuit of profit, the desire to beat an opponent in a competitive environment, and the need to insure or restore some standard of evaluator that has been violated.Three major categories of estimable conduct were physical exercised to describe the extensive range of irresolutionable negotiating strategies and manoeuvre means/ends, truth-telling, and relativism.The more e is move to abide by certain rules and procedures, the more one believes that following the rules allow for eventually lead to the desired ends. The second group of maneuver, relativistic vs. absolute, forces us to deal with questions of whether there are truly absolute rules and principles of right and wrong, or whether questions of ethics must be answered by each person in his own personalized, subjective view of the world. Many authors have suggested that bluffing, misrepresentation or factual distortion is sometimes incumbent in tell away to efficaciously negotiate such behaviour, however, may well be seen by others as unethical and unfitting.We believe that the negotiation process raises a host of ethical issues, more so than most other interpersonal trans marchs. Much of what has been compose on negotiating behaviour has been strongly normative abut ethics, and prescribed land and donts. We do not believe that this approach facilitates the catch of how negotiators really decide to act unethically. We believe this process can best be understood by a simple decisiveness-making model.We proposed that a negotiator who chooses to implement an unethical tactic usually decides to do so in order to increase his negotiating power. Power is gained by manipulating the perceived base of accurate info (lying), getting better information active n opponents plan, or undermining an opponents ability to achieve his objectives. Using these tactics leads to two kinds of consequences first, actual attainment or non-attainment of these goals he was seeking and second, military rank and criticism of the tactics by the negotiator himself, by his opponent and by observers. negotiants usually feel compelled to justify their follow throughs i.e., they get along they have done something wrong and nee d to establish a peachy reasonWe suggested that the decision to white plague ethical or unethical tactics may be influenced in varying degrees by differences in individual backgrounds, personality, rewards or punishments associated with ethical or unethical actions, and the social and cultural norms that dictate what is leave or inappropriate in a given environment. We have made a yield of assumptions roughly ways to judge and evaluate human conduct in the realm of ethics. We have intentionally avoided taking a strong normative stance, and have not tried to emphasize our own biases about what kinds of conduct are ethical or unethical. Instead, we have proposed several conclusions that can be drawn from research, experience and common sense1 Individuals entrust often disagree as to what kinds of negotiating tactics are ethical or unethical, and in which situations it is appropriate or inappropriate to use them.2 The decision to use an unethical tactic can be probably best be un derstood as a quasirational decision making process in which a diversity of personality and situational variables are likely to claim that decision.3 In deciding to use an unethical tactic, a negotiator is likely to be most heavily influenced by what he believes the consequences provideing be for his choice will it help him accomplish his objectives, and what kind of contribute back is he likely to receive from others?4 Negotiators who have utilize unethical tactics in the past, or might be considering their use in the coming(prenominal), should strongly consider three possible consequences of using unethical tactics a Will they really help achieve objectives?b How will they affect the quality of the relationship with this opponent in the future? c How will they affect their character?Negotiators frequently overlook the fact that while unethical or expedient tactics may get them what they want in the short run, these same tactics typically lead to long-term problems and to d iminished effectiveness.Rules of the gameAn assumption every negotiation situation involves questions of ethics. What are the understood rules of the game?What is fair?What is just?What is legal?What is appropriate and acceptable?What is expected?Is ethical behaviour .What is practical?What is expedient?What is cost-effective?What serves ones interests or a clients interests?What is necessary to win?Like the poker player, a negotiator hopes that his opponent will overestimate the value of his hand. Like the poker player, in a variety of ways he must facilitate his opponents outside assessment. The critical difference between those who are successful negotiators and those who are not lies in this capacity both to mislead and not to be misled.quartette major approaches to ethical reasoning1 End- firmness of purpose ethics (results lens)The rightness of an action is determine by evaluating its consequences. Here the question is what will be the result?2 Duty ethics ( reputation lens )The rightness of an action is determined by ones obligation to adhere to consistent principles, laws and social standards that define what is right and wrong. Here the question is what will others think?3 Social bring down ethics ( relationship lens)The rightness of an action is found o the customs and norms of a particular society or community. The question here is how will this impact others?4 Personalistic ethics (rights lens)The rightness of the action is base on ones own conscience and moral standards the question here is what should I do?So when in an ethical quandary we answer the following questionsWhat will be the result?What will others think?How will this impact others?What should I do?THE IMPORTANCE OF duologue ETHICHSCommonly held assumptions reflect negatively on the ethics of the negotiation tactics of car bargainspeople, lawyers, horse traders, and other people who have a reputation of trying to influence folks into reaching agreements by misrepresenting fa cts. This kind of stereotyping has attach itself to people from different countries, ethic groups, or even as reflected in the expression from the 60s Dont trust anyone over 30.negotiation is about many things one of its central elements is convincing others to accept the true statement or reality of information that will influence their decision. Most negotiators know that it is, indeed, possible to influence people by lying to them. But good negotiators also realize that when other parties find out they have been on the receiving end of lies, the lying negotiators credibility goes down to tubes. on that point is an old expression If you cheat me once, pathos on you. If you cheat me twice, shame on me. People who have been taken in by deceitfully resent it if they are able, they try to get out of deals where theres been misrepresentation.In general, a general negotiator must make domineering misstatement to be held liable fraud. First, when the negotiator makes a partial d isclosure that is or becomes, misleading. Second, where the negotiator acts as a fiduciary. Third, when the negotiator has important information about the transaction not accessible to the other side. Fourth, where required by statue.On the other side we can say that negotiation is not a competitive sport. In competitive sports, the object is to end up win the game, the race, or the event. Negotiators who focus on treating other parties as opponents run the jeopardize of ending up with reluctant counterparties to whatever agreements may be reached. Unless all the parties are fully committed to their agreement, it may well fall apart in those circumstances the negotiation has failed.The ethics of negotiation should be based on several understandingsReluctant partners make undependable partners so treating negotiation partners with respect and honesty simply makes common sense.Negotiators need to recognize up front that the only reason to use negotiation to resolve a conflict, agree on a project, or conclude a sale because other parties may be able to add value an individual or a single company cannot do acting alone.transparence in the negotiation process is more likely to bring about buy-in than hidden agendas or tricky maneuvers.Other parties have feelings.Last understanding is the Golden Rule of treating others as you would wish to be treated has the puke line value of increasing other parties enthusiasm about negotiating with you as well as their enthusiasm about the ultimate agreement.Good negotiation ethics honesty, transparency, respect for others are all genuinely pragmatic approaches to use. A negotiators reputation is not unlike that of a eating house if you have bad meal, you are not likely to return. And a negotiator with whom others dont want to deal is effectively out of business.Negotiator also should understand four major approaches to ethical reasoning end-result ethics, or the principals of act utilitarianism rule ethics, or the princi ple of rule utilitarianism social contract ethics, or the principles of community-based socially acceptable behaviour and personalistic ethics, or the principles of determining what is right buy turning to ones conscience. Each of these approaches may be used by negotiators to evaluate appropriate strategies and tactics.Consequently we can say that negotiation ethics is more important for negotiator thats wherefore negotiator should recognize ethics carefully. Also unethical behaviours are most important to the negotiator. Because when he or she faced with unethical behaviour he or she should find the reasons for unethical behaviour.