Beyond Frogs and Scorpions: A Risk‐Based Framework for Understanding Negotiating Counterparts' Ethical Motivations

Abstract

Managing the flow of valid information is one of the biggest challenges that negotiators face. The high incidence of questionable or unethical negotiating tactics has been well documented, but ways of dealing with the deceptive practices of a counterpart have received comparatively little attention. In this article, we suggest that, in addition to avoidance and confrontation, negotiators typically attempt to manage the unethical tendencies of their counterparts through twelve neutralizing approaches. These approaches are based on four types of perceived risk that counterparts often consider when deciding whether to use ethically ambiguous negotiation tactics: risks to immediate or short‐term goals/tasks; risks to immediate or short‐term relationship(s); risks to future or long‐term goals/tasks; and, risks to future or long‐term relationships. By applying expectancy theory, resource dependency theory, social identity theory, and social network theory to this framework, we have developed propositions related to these twelve neutralizing approaches. We also discuss the opportunities and challenges related to evaluating these propositions in future research.

Neutralizing Unethical Negotiating Tactics: An Empirical Investigation of Approach Selection and Effectiveness

“…According to Volkema and Rivers (), these two dimensions — goal/task concerns versus relational concerns, and short‐term orientation versus long‐term orientation — form four categories of risk that a negotiation counterpart might consider before using questionable or unethical tactics. These include risks to: immediate or short‐term goal/task achievement (i.e., concerns about failure to reach agreement and unmet goals); immediate or short‐term relationship(s) (i.e., loss of respect, support); future or long‐term goals/task achievement (i.e., loss of future business, potential legal entanglements); and future or long‐term relationships (i.e., impairment of future social/business networks). …”

“…According to Volkema and Rivers (2012), these two dimensionsgoal/task concerns versus relational concerns, and short-term orientation versus long-term orientation -form four categories of risk that a negotiation counterpart might consider before using questionable or unethical tactics. These include risks to: unethical tactic (Robertson and Rymon 2001;Schweitzer, Ordonez, and Douma 2004;Malshe, Al-Khatib, and Sailors 2010).…”

“…According to Roger Volkema and Cheryl Rivers (), individuals communicate prospects for these and other conditions, consciously or subconsciously, to neutralize the tendencies of a counterpart to act unethically. In theory, these neutralizing behaviors can ultimately lead to a greater exchange of valid information, which should increase the likelihood and quality of an agreement.…”

Creating and Controlling the Ethical Framework of Mediation

“…One of the most recent researches identified options for using unethical tactics in about two thirds of the negotiations, from an experiment on simulated business negotiations by email (Volkema and Rivers, 2012).…”

The Influence of Power and Individualism-Collectivism on Negotiation Initiation

“…As these phenomena suggest, there are several factors that can affect the negotiation process generally and initiation specifically, factors which fall into either of two broad and oft-cited categories -individual attributes and situational characteristics (Bazerman et al, 2000;Lewicki, Barry, & Saunders, 2010;Volkema & Rivers, 2012). Of these two categories, the former has been the focus of attention for a number of studies on initiation intentions and behavior, including demographic factors (gender, age) and personality (e.g., Machiavellianism, risk propensity, self-efficacy) (Bodey & Grace, 2007;Thøgersen, Juhl, & Poulsen, 2009;.…”