Which of the following is an inappropriate and unethical bargaining tactic?
|
Posted February 18th, 2016 by PON Staff & filed under BATNA. Show
If you’re thinking about buying a house, one of your first moves may be to choose a real estate agent who can advise you through the process. If you want a big-name publisher to buy your book, you probably will try to sign on an experienced literary agent as your counselor and advocate. Less formally, … Read  Some negotiators seem to believe that hard-bargaining tactics are the key to success. They resort to threats, extreme demands, and even unethical behavior to try to get the upper hand in a negotiation. In fact, negotiators who fall back on hard-bargaining strategies in negotiation are typically betraying a lack of understanding about the gains that can be achieved in most business negotiations. When negotiators resort to hard-bargaining tactics, they convey that they view negotiation as a win-lose enterprise. A small percentage of business negotiations that concern only one issue, such as price, can indeed be viewed as win-lose negotiations, or distributive negotiations. Claim your FREE copy: BATNA BasicsDiscover how to unleash your power at the bargaining table in this free special report, BATNA Basics: Boost Your Power at the Bargaining Table, from Harvard Law School. 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. This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution. Access optionsBuy single articleInstant access to the full article PDF. 39,95 € Price includes VAT (Singapore) Rent this article via DeepDyve. Learn more about Institutional subscriptions Anton, R. J.: 1990, ‘Drawing the Line: An Exploratory Test of Ethical Behavior in Negotiation’, The International Journal of Conflict Management 1(3), 265–280. Google Scholar Ash, P.: 1991, The Construct of Employee Theft Proneness (SRA/London House, Park Ridge, IL). Google Scholar Bies, R.: 1989, ‘Managing Conflict Before It Happens: The Role of Accounts’, in M. A. Rahim (ed.), Managing Conflict: An Interdisciplinary Approach (Praeger, New York), pp. 83–91. Google Scholar Bok, S. L.: 1978, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life(Pantheon, New York). Google Scholar Brown, B. R.: 1968, ‘The Effects of Need to Maintain Face on Interpersonal Bargaining’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 4, 107–122. Google Scholar Carson, T.: 1993, ‘Second Thoughts about Bluffing’, Business Ethics Quarterly 3(4). Chertkoff, J. M. and S. L. Baird: 1971, ‘Applicability of the Big Lie Technique and the Last Clear Chance Doctrine in Bargaining’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 20, 298–303. Google Scholar Cohen, H.: 1980, You Can Negotiate Anything(Lyle Stuart, Secaucus, NJ). Google Scholar Crampton, Peter C. and J. Gregory Dees: 1993,’ Promoting Honesty in Negotiation’, Business Ethics Quarterly 3(4). Forsyth, D.: 1980, ‘A Taxonomy of Ethical Ideologies’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39, 175–184. Google Scholar French, J. R. P. and B. Raven: 1959, ‘The Bases of Social Power’, in D. Cartwright (ed.), Studies in Social Power(Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI). Google Scholar Guttman, L.: 1954, ‘Some Necessary Conditions for Common Factor Analysis’, Psychometrika 19, 149–161. Google Scholar “Hey Ma, Get Me A Lawyer!”, Newsweek, October 30, l989, p. 10. Hollinger, R. C. and J. P. Clark: 1983, Theft by Employees(D.C. Heath, Lexington, MA). Karrass, C.: 1974, Give and Take(Thomas Y. Crowell, New York). Lax, D. A. and J. K. Sebenius: 1986, The Manager as Negotiator(Free Press, New York). Google Scholar Lewicki, R. J.: 1983, ‘Lying and Deception: A Behavioral Model’, in M. H. Bazerman and R. J. Lewicki (eds.), Negotiating in Organizations(Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA). Google Scholar Lewicki, R. J., J. Litterer, J. Minton and D. Saunders: 1994, Negotiation. Second Edition (Richard D. Irwin, Burr Ridge, IL). Google Scholar Lewicki, R. J. and G. Spencer: 1991, Ethical relativism and negotiating tactics: Factors affecting their perceived ethicality. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Miami, August 1991. Google Scholar Lewicki, R. J. and N. Stark: 1996, ‘What's Ethically Appropriate in Negotiations: An Examination of Negotiation Ethics’, Social Justice Research 9(1), 69–95. Google Scholar Lewicki, R. J., T. Poland, J. Minton and B. H. Sheppard: 1997, ‘Deviance as Dishonesty: A Typology of Workplace Dishonesty and Key Contributing Factors’, in R. J. Lewicki, R. Bies and B. H. Sheppard (eds.), Research on Negotiation in Organizations 7, in preparation. Mintzberg, H.: 1973, The Nature of Managerial Work (Harper and Row, New York). Google Scholar Murphy, K. R.: 1993, Honesty in the Workplace(Brooks Cole, Pacific Grove, CA). Google Scholar Pfeffer, J.: 1993, Managing with Power(Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA). Google Scholar Robinson, R., J., R. J. Lewicki and E. Donohue: 1996, Extending and testing a five factor model of ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: Introducing the SINS scale. Paper presented to the International Association of Conflict Managment, Ithaca, NY. Google Scholar Rummel, R. J.: 1970, Applied Factor Analysis (Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL). Google Scholar Staw, B.: 1979, ‘Rationality and Justification in Organizational Life’, in B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior 2, 45–80. Stevens, J.: 1992, Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences. Second Edition (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J.). Google Scholar Trevino, L. K., K. D. Butterfield and D. L. McCabe: 1996, ‘The Ethical Context in Organizations: Influences on Employee Attitudes and Behavior’, Business Ethics Quarterly, in press. Watson, C.: 1994, ‘Gender Differences in Negotiating Behavior and Outcomes: Fact or Artifact?’, in A. Taylor and J. Beinstein-Miller (eds.), Conflict and Gender(Hampton Press, Inc., Cresskill, NJ), pp. 191–210. Google Scholar Download references Authors
Rights and permissionsReprints and Permissions About this articleCite this articleLewicki, R.J., Robinson, R.J. Ethical and Unethical Bargaining Tactics: An Empirical Study. Journal of Business Ethics 17, 665–682 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005719122519 Which tactic is seen as inappropriate and unethical in negotiation?Outright deception and falsification are generally seen as outside the rules. Several categories of tactics that are generally seen as potentially inappropriate and unethical in negotiation, including: Misrepresentation - Deception by omission versus commission.
Which of the following is considered to be an ethical bargaining tactic?Gaining information about the opponent by asking associates and contacts is an ethical bargaining tactic. Which of the following sets of negotiators is least likely to follow the relational norm during negotiations?
What are ethical tactics negotiation?Ethics in negotiation can involve expectations of fairness, equity, and honesty but, sometimes, despite your best intentions, circumstances might lead you to behave unethically. Whether we are aware of it or not, we make a series of “micro-decisions” during our time at the bargaining table.
What are the three types of bargaining issues?There are three main classification of bargaining topics: mandatory, permissive, and illegal. Wages, health and safety, management rights, work conditions, and benefits fall into the mandatory category. Permissive topics are those that are not required but may be brought up during the process.
|
