Question

Distinguish concealment behaviors in negotiations that are ethical among the parties in the negotiation.

Answer 1

Competitive negotiators frequently use tactics which others view as "unethical", in that these tactics either violate standards of truth telling or violate the perceived rules of negotiation. This paper sought to determine how business students viewed a number of marginally ethical negotiating tactics, and to determine the underlying factor structure of these tactics. The factor analysis of these tactics revealed five clear factors which were highly similar across the two samples, and which parallel (to a moderate degree) categories of tactics proposed by earlier theory. Data from one sample also permitted comparisons of the appropriateness of certain tactics across gender, nationality, ethnic origin and perception of one's negotiating style.

A consistent thread running through many of the
ethical and moral scandals of the last decade is a
flagrant disregard for basic standards of honesty.
Lying and cheating seemed to be in vogue, and
examples abound. Scientists falsify their research
results. Major corporations fail to disclose
product defects or chemical spills. Manufacturers
fail to report known defects in their products. A
1989
Newsweek survey of 1093 high school
seniors reports that 36% say they would plagiarize
in order to pass a certification test; 50%
would exaggerate on an insurance damage report;
66% would lie to achieve a business objective;
and 67% would inflate their business expense
reports (October 30, 1989).
Negotiations are an interesting arena in which
to study ethical decision making regarding
honesty. First, negotiation is a pervasive activity
in management contexts. In his study of key
management roles, Mintzberg (1973) reported
that managers spend a significant portion of
their time either negotiating for things that are

important to them, or resolving disputes among
others in the workplace. Second, and more
importantly, those who have written about effective
negotiation strategies have often suggested
that some types of dishonest behavior may be
appropriate or even necessary to be an effective
negotiator (see Lewicki, 1983; Carson, 1993;
Crampton and Dees, 1993; Lewicki, Litterer,
Minton and Saunders, 1994; Lewicki and Stark,
1994 for reviews).
The purpose of the study reported in this
paper was to examine judgments about the perceived
ethical appropriateness of using selected
tactics in managerial negotiations. The paper will
first examine the nature of negotiation and the
challenges, it poses for those who wish to act
ethically. The authors will explain the development
of a questionnaire used to measure the perceived
ethical appropriateness of selected tactics,
and the results we obtained from two large
samples of management students. The implications
of these results will be explored for understanding
how these tactics are perceived in
negotiations, and for future research on the
conditions under which these tactics may be
used.
The negotiation context
Lax and Sebenius (1986) define negotiation as
“a process of potentially opportunistic interaction
by which two or more parties, with some
apparent conflict, seek to do better through
jointly decided action than they could otherwise”
(p. 11). Lewicki, Litterer, Minton and Saunders
(1994) state that a negotiation situation has the
following parameters: a) two or more parties who are interdependent; b) a conflict of interest; c)
the parties are attempting to use one or more
form of influence to obtain a “better” set of
outcomes; and d) the parties expect that there
will be some “give and take”, or concession
making, to resolve their conflict.