第5章　谈判中的道德伦理

EssentialsofNegotiationPart01:FundamentalsofNegotiationChapter05:EthicsinNegotiation©McGraw-HillEducation.Allrightsreserved.Authorizedonlyforinstructoruseintheclassroom.NoreproductionorfurtherdistributionpermittedwithoutthepriorwrittenconsentofMcGraw-HillEducation.ASamplingofEthicalQuandariesYouaresellingyoure-biketoraisemoneyforanupcomingtripoverseas.Isitethicaltosayyouhaveanotheroffer,whenthereisnootheroffer?Togaininsideknowledgeofacompetitor’sbusiness,youhaveaconsultantcallandaskaboutproblemsorthreatsinthecompany.Isthisanethicalwaytolearnaboutthecompetitor’scompany?Whensellingyourlaptop,youdecidenottotellbuyersthecomputercrasheswithoutwarning.Isthisethical?Wouldyoubelikelytodothis?Youbuyanewpairofshoesonsale(noreturns)butyoumakeasceneinthestoreandthemanagerrefundsyourmoney.Isthisethical?Wouldyoubelikelytodothis?EthicsDefinedEthicsarebroadlyappliedsocialstandardsforwhatisrightorwronginaparticularsituation,

oraprocessforsettingthosestandards.Differfrommorals,whichareindividualandpersonalbeliefs.Chooseacourseofactiononthebasisofresults,duty,communitynorms,orpersonalconvictions.End-resultethics–therightnessofanactionisdeterminedbyevaluatingtheprosandconsofitsconsequences.Dutyethics–therightnessofanactionisdeterminedbyanobligationtoadheretoprinciples,laws,andsocialstandardsthatdefinewhatisrightandwrongandwherethelineis.Socialcontractethics–therightnessofanactionisbasedonthecustomsandnormsofaparticularcommunity.Personalisticethics–therightnessoftheactionisbasedonone’sownconscienceandmoralstandards.

ApplyingEthicalReasoningtoNegotiationUsingthesituationfromthestartofthechapterinvolvingsellingane-bikeandthestatementtoaprospectivebuyerabouttheexistanceofanotherpotentialbuyer.Ifyoubelieveinend-resultethics,thenyoumightdowhateverisnecessarytogetthebestpossibleoutcome(includinglie).Ifyoubelieveindutyethics,youmightperceiveanobligationnevertoengageinsubterfugeandmightrejectatacticthatinvolvesanoutrightlie.Insocialcontractethics,youbaseyourtacticsonappropriateconductinyourcommunity;ifotherswouldusedeceptioninasituationlikethis,youwilltoo.Inpersonalisticethics,yourconsciencedecidesifyourneedforcashforyourupcomingtripjustifiesusingdeceptiveordishonesttactics.Ethicsv.Prudencev.Practicalityv.LegalityEthical.Appropriateasdeterminedbysomestandardofmoralconduct.Prudent.Wise,basedontryingtounderstandtheefficiencyofthetacticandtheconsequencesitmighthaveontherelationshipwiththeother.Practical.Whatanegotiatorcanactuallymakehappeninagivensituation.Legal.

Whatthelawdefinesasacceptablepractice.Figure5.1:AnalyticalProcessfortheResolutionofMoralProblemsThismodelpresentsahelpfulwaytothinkaboutwhatitmeanstocomprehendandanalyzeanethicaldilemma.Accessthetextalternativeforthisimage.Source:LaRueT.Hosmer,TheEthicsofManagement,4thed.(NewYork:McGraw-Hill/Irwin,2003).EthicalConductinNegotiationWhydosomenegotiatorsuseunethicaltactics?Thefirstanswer–immoral–maybetoosimplistic.Peopleregardotherpeople’sunsavorybehaviorasduetopersonalityandattributetheirownbehaviortofactorsinthesocialenvironment.Anegotiatormightconsideranopponent’suseofanethicallyquestionabletacticasunprincipled.Incontrast,ifthenegotiatorusesthesametacticthemselves,theytendtosaytheyhaveagoodreasonfordeviatingfromprinciples,thisonetime.Thefollowingsectiondiscussesnegotiationtacticsthatbringissuesofethicalityintoplay.EthicallyAmbiguousTacticsandTruthEthicallyambiguoustacticsmayormaynotbeimproper,dependingonanindividual’sethicalreasoningandcircumstances.Questionsabouttruthtellingareclear,butnottheanswers.Howdoyoudefinetruth?Howdoyoudefinedeviationsfromthetruth?Effectiveagreementsdependonsharingaccurateinformationbutnegotiatorswanttodiscloselittleabouttheirpositions.Thedilemmaoftrustisthatanegotiatorwhobelieveseverythingtheothersayscanbemanipulatedbydishonesty.Thedilemmaofhonestyisthatanegotiatorwhotellstheotherpartyalltheirrequirementswillneverdobetterthantheirwalkawaypoint.Table5.2:CategoriesofMarginallyEthicalNegotiatingTacticsCategoryExampleTraditionalcompetitivebargainingNotdisclosingyourwalkaway;makinganinflatedopeningofferEmotionalmanipulationFakinganger,fear,disappointment;fakingelation,satisfactionMisrepresentationDistortinginformationornegotiationeventsindescribingthemtoothersMisrepresentationtoopponent’snetworksCorruptingyouropponent’sreputationwiththeirpeersInappropriateinformationgatheringBribery,infiltration,spying,etc.BluffingInsincerethreatsorpromisesSources:AdaptedfromRobertJ.Robinson,RoyJ.Lewicki,andEileenM.Donahue,“ExtendingandTestingaFiveFactorModelofEthicalandUnethicalBargainingTactics:TheSINSScale,”JournalofOrganizationalBehavior21(2000),pp.649–64;andIngridS.Fulmer,BruceBarry,andD.AdamLong,“LyingandSmiling:InformationalandEmotionalDeceptioninnegotiation,”JournalofBusinessEthics88(2009),pp.691–709.IsItAcceptabletoUseEthicallyAmbiguousTactics?Therearetacitlyagreed-onrulesofthegameinnegotiation.Someminorformsofuntruthsmaybeseenasethicallyacceptableandwithintherules.Incontrast,outrightdeceptionisgenerallyseenasoutsidetherules.Theauthorsoffersomecaution.Statementsarebasedonlargegroupsofpeopleanddonotindicateorpredictanyindividualnegotiator’suseofsuchtactics.Observationsarebasedonwhatpeoplesaidtheywoulddo,ratherthanwhattheyactuallydid.Byreportingtheresults,theauthorsdonotendorsetheuseofmarginallyethicaltactics.ThisisaWesternviewofnegotiation,nottrueforothercultures–“letthebuyerbeware”atalltimes.DeceptionbyOmissionversusCommissionTheuseofdeceptivetacticscanbeactiveorpassive.Forexample,misrepresentingyourinterestonacommon-valueissueinordertoobtainafutureconcessionfromtheotherparty.Negotiatorsusetwoformsofdeceptioninmisrepresentingthecommon-valueissue:Misrepresentationbyomission–failingtodiscloseinformationthatwouldbenefittheotherparty.Misrepresentationbycommission–actuallylyingabouttheissue.Astudentrole-playstudyinvolvingthesaleofacarwithadefectivetransmissionrevealedthefollowinginsight.Studentscouldliebyomissionorcommission.Farmorestudentswerewillingtoliebyomission.Figure5.2:ASimpleModelofDeceptioninNegotiationAccessthetextalternativeforthisimage.MotivesforUsingDeceptiveTacticsNegotiatorsuseethicallyambiguoustacticstoincreasetheirpower.Whoeverhasbetterinformation“wins”thenegotiation.Thisviewassumesthattheinformationisaccurateandtruthful.Questioningtheother’struthfulnessmayinsultthemandinvestigatingtheirtruthfulnessconsumestimeandenergy.Ifdeceptionisawaytogainpower,thenarenegotiatorsinapositionofweaknessmorelikelytobetemptedtoengageindeception?Anegotiator’smotivationaffectstheirtendencytousedeception.Theymayuseittoachievetheirgoals.Theymayuseittoavoidbeingexploited.Individualdifferencesofpersonalityorcultureaffectitsuse.Negotiatorsrationalizedeceptioninanticipationoftheother’sconduct.ConsequencesofUnethicalConductEffectiveness.Deceptivetacticsareeffectiveincertaincircumstances.Consequencesoccurwhetherthetacticworkedornot.Reactionsofothers.“Targets”aretypicallyangryandnowmistrustyou.Theymayseekrevenge.Forseriousandpersonaldeception,therelationshipsuffers.Damagetoyourreputationcanbedifficulttorepair.Reactionsofself.Whentheotherpartysuffers,anegotiatormayfeeldiscomfort.Negotiatorswhohavenoproblemusingdeceptivetacticsmayusethemagainandponderhowtousethemmoreeffectively.ExplanationsandJustificationsHerearesometypicalexamples.Thetacticwasunavoidable–sothenegotiatorisnotresponsible.Thetacticwasharmless–accordingtothedeceptiveparty.Thetacticwillhelptoavoidnegativeconsequences–forwho?Thetacticwillproducegoodconsequences,oraltruisticallymotivated.“Theyhaditcoming,”or“Theydeserveit,”or“I’mgettingmydue.”Theyweregoingtodoitanyway,soIwilldoitfirst–anticipation.“Hestartedit”–anticipationinthepasttense.Thetacticisfairorappropriatetothesituation–ethicalrelativism.Explanationsallowthenegotiatortoconvinceothers–particularlythevictim–thatconductisacceptable.Theyalsohelprationalizethebehaviortothemselves.DealingwiththeOther’sUseofDeceptionAskprobingquestions

torevealagreatdealofinformation.Rephrasequestionstouncoveranswerswhichskirtthetruth.Forcetheotherpartytolietoyourfaceorbackoff.Testtheotherpartybyaskingaquestionyoualreadyknowtheanswerto,andnotetheresponse.“Call”thetactic,andindicateyourdispleasure.Ignorethetacticforarelativelyminoraspect.Discussandhelptheotherpartyshifttomorehonestbehavior.Respondinginkindwillescalatetheconflict.EndofMainContent©McGraw-HillEducation.Allrightsreserved.Authorizedonlyforinstructoruseintheclassroom.NoreproductionorfurtherdistributionpermittedwithoutthepriorwrittenconsentofMcGraw-HillEducation.AccessibilityContent:TextAlternativesforImagesFigure5.1:AnalyticalProcessfortheResolutionofMoralProblems–TextAlternativeThefirststepisdevelopingacompleteunderstandingofthemoralproblemathand.Thismeansgraspingthevarioussubjectivemoralstandardsinplayamonginvolvedparties,includingindividualvaluesandbeliefsaswellassocialnorms.Italsomeansrecognizingthemixofpotentialharms,benefits,andrightsthatareinvolvedinthesituation.Withtheproblemfullydefined,thepathtoaconvincingsolutionstravelsthroughthethreemodesofanalysisshownontherightsideofthefigure.Adeterminationofeconomicoutcomesofpotentialcoursesofaction.Aconsiderationoflegalrequirementsthatbearonthesituation.Anassessmentoftheethicalobligationstootherinvolvedpartiesregardingwhatis“right”and“just”and“fair.”Theresultfromthisprocessistoproposeaconvincingmoralsolution.Returntoslidecontainingoriginalimage.Figure5.2:ASimpleModelofDeceptioninNegotiation–Text