Ethically Questionable Negotiating: The Interactive Effects of Trust, Competitiveness, and Situation Favorability on Ethical Decision Making

Sobral, Filipe; Islam, Gazi

doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1520-2

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 92 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To begin, Kohlberg assumes that the essence of morality is found in cognitive reasoning, mirroring Greek and Kantian thought. While such an assumption fit his purposes, we must move beyond this to understand ethical decision making more holistically (Sobral and Islam 2013). We know that the ability to reason does not always lead humans to act morally.…”

Section: Implications Of Kohlberg For Todaymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, many business and management scholars are heavily influenced by long-held assumptions reflected in the work of Lawrence Kohlberg (1969Kohlberg ( , 1971a, one of the most prominent theorists of ethical decision making (Hannah et al 2011;Treviño 1986;Treviño et al 2006;Weber 2017;Zhong 2011). Like Sobral and Islam (2013), we call upon researchers to move beyond these assumptions. We will review a selection of research that explores alternate ideas and leaves past assumptions behind, leading to unique outcomes, which are of value to the field of management.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Moral Development in Business Ethics: An Examination and Critique

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The field of behavioral ethics has seen considerable growth over the last few decades. One of the most significant concerns facing this interdisciplinary field of research is the moral judgment-action gap. The moral judgment-action gap is the inconsistency people display when they know what is right but do what they know is wrong. Much of the research in the field of behavioral ethics is based on (or in response to) early work in moral psychology and American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg's foundational cognitive model of moral development. However, Kohlberg's model of moral development lacks a compelling explanation for the judgment-action gap. Yet, it continues to influence theory, research, teaching, and practice in business ethics today. As such, this paper presents a critical review and analysis of the pertinent literature. This paper also reviews modern theories of ethical decision making in business ethics. Gaps in our current understanding and directions for future research in behavioral business ethics are presented. By providing this important theoretical background information, targeted critical analysis, and directions for future research, this paper assists management scholars as they begin to seek a more unified approach, develop newer models of ethical decision making, and conduct business ethics research that examines the moral judgment-action gap.

show abstract

Section: Implications Of Kohlberg For Todaymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral Development in Business Ethics: An Examination and Critique

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bounded judgement of the ethicality of DITF Although there is a great deal of research on ethical judgement (Bazerman and Banaji, 2004;Haidt, 2001;Shalvi et al, 2015;Tenbrunsel and Smith-Crowe, 2008), few studies have examined how people judge the ethicality of negotiation strategies (Lewicki and Robinson, 1998;Sobral and Islam, 2013). There is a question as to whether requesters and targets differ in their judgments of the ethicality of DITF.…”

Section: Ijcma 292mentioning

confidence: 99%

Think twice before using door-in-the-face tactics in repeated negotiation

Wong

Howard

2018

IJCMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the detrimental effects of the door-in-the-face (DITF) tactic in repeated negotiation. A more complete understanding of its negative consequences is essential to make an informed decision about its use. Design/methodology/approach This paper is the product of two between-subjects scenario-based negotiation experiments involving university students in Hong Kong (Study 1) and professionals in the UK with negotiation experience (Study 2). Findings Both the studies herein showed that detecting opponents using this tactic reduced the degree to which negotiators found their counterparts trustworthy. It also increased the likelihood of negotiators switching to an alternative partner in a collaborative project. This relationship is mediated by perceived trustworthiness. Negotiators who had detected opponents’ use of DITF made higher offers and obtained better outcomes in a subsequent negotiation. These findings indicate that negotiators who benefitted from DITF considered its use ethical, while those who suffered because of its use by others found it unethical. Practical implications Before using DITF, users should be wary of the likelihood they and their counterpart will negotiate again and/or will collaborate in a future project. Originality/value This paper presents a new perspective from which the use of DITF may backfire in a subsequent negotiation, in terms of both objective and subjective outcomes. This is, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, the first paper to address how user and victim judge the ethicality of DITF tactics. The findings offer a building block for future research on other compliance techniques in repeated negotiations.

show abstract

“…Potential predictors of unethical negotiation behavior are usually categorized into individual (or demographic) factors, and cultural factors in numbers of studies (Al-Khatib et al, 2008;Banai et al, 2014;Sobral & Islam, 2013;Volkema, 2004). In addition to individual and cultural factors, business ethics research has suggested that organizational factors are important predictors of an individual's ethical decision-making (O'Fallon & Butterfield, 2005;Olekalns, Horan, & Smith, 2014;Reb, Narayanan, & Ho, 2013).…”

Section: Unethical Purchasing Negotiationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Mindfulness in Unethical Purchasing Negotiation

Ho¹,

Lin²

2017

Pressacademia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-Negotiation occurs all the time in purchasing practices of businesses, and is inevitable for purchasing professionals when encountering purchasing conflict. Ethical negotiation is considered the vital requirement in maintaining long-term and close buyer-supplier relationships. This study aims to explore the relationship between mindfulness and unethical negotiation. Methodology-This study will take purchasing professionals in Taiwan as research subjects to investigate the relationship between mindfulness and unethical negotiation. Findings-Research findings reveal that there is a significant negative relationship between mindfulness and unethical negotiation. Purchasing professionals with different mindfulness are expected to exhibit different purchasing negotiation behaviors. Conclusion-Mindfulness refers to self-awareness of one's present experience including his/her own thoughts and what is happening in the environment. While the process of negotiation contains a series of judgment and decision-making, mindfulness may possibly influence purchasing professionals' unethical negotiation.

show abstract

Ethically Questionable Negotiating: The Interactive Effects of Trust, Competitiveness, and Situation Favorability on Ethical Decision Making

Cited by 13 publications

References 92 publications

Moral Development in Business Ethics: An Examination and Critique

Moral Development in Business Ethics: An Examination and Critique

Think twice before using door-in-the-face tactics in repeated negotiation

The Role of Mindfulness in Unethical Purchasing Negotiation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About