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

Abstract

Negotiation is integral to business success, and information is the lifeblood of the negotiation process. When invalid information is dis- IntroductionOne of the fundamental truths of business is that effective negotiation is necessary for survival. Whether it is attracting customers, reducing the cost of raw materials, petitioning for a change in zoning laws, reworking a union management contract, or merging with a competitor, negotiation -the interpersonal decision-making process undertaken whenever we cannot achieve our objectives single-handedly (Thompson 2009) -is a central feature of business operations.The process of engaging others to accomplish personal or professional objectives inevitably requires an exchange of information (expectations, positions, values, interests, options, etc.), which presents one of the major challenges facing negotiators (Butler 1999;Murnighan et al. 1999;Lewicki, Barry, and Saunders 2009). While sharing information can build trust and produce high-quality outcomes, it can also put one at a disadvantage if the other party does not reciprocate (Roth and Murnighan 1982;Brodt 1994;Schweitzer, Hersey, and Bradlow 2006). At the very least, a negotiator would like to be able to discern when a counterpart is not being honest or forthcoming; under such circumstances, he or she could consider an alternative strategy, including aborting the negotiation.Unfortunately,the use of questionable or unethical tactics in negotiations is far from an insignificant or rare occurrence ( The conditions that can decrease a counterpart's unethical tendencies, however, are often more manageable. For example, if a counterpart believes that long-term business opportunities with the other party are possible, he or she will be more likely to enter into the negotiation with a harmonious disposition (Patton and Balakrishnan 2010) and employ soft (problemsolving) rather than hard (competitive) strategies (Van Knippenberg and Steensma 2003). Likewise, explicitly noting linkages to a counterpart's professional network (e.g., contacts with a counterpart's business associates) can inhibit the use of questionable or unethical tactics, as the counterpart might fear that his or her behavior will be communicated to peers and others in the network.According to Roger Volkema and Cheryl Rivers (2012), 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. The relationship of such behaviors to the negotiation process, however, has been even less thoroughly examined than their impact on outcome.In this study, we seek to examine the use and effect of twelve behaviors for neutralizing questionable or unethical negotiating tactics in a two-party property leasing negotiation. As a first step, we examined the incidence and timing of these neutralizing beh...

Selected Determinants of Interpersonal Communication in Negotiation – between Openness and Manipulation

“…Another key tool of active listening is to check whether one has understood the meaning of what one has heard, by paraphrasing statements uttered by the bargainer and asking for details. Ethical behaviour based on open communication leads to a more extensive sharing of valid information, increasing the probability of reaching a better agreement (Fleck et al, 2014). The above-mentioned types of communication behaviour build communication competence based on assertive exchange.…”

“…Numerous studies have shown that unethical behaviour is not a rarity. It has been proved that 28% of negotiators habitually employ misrepresentation, 25% of retailers do not fully communicate the true information about their products, whereas more than 60% of entrepreneurs rely upon building false images of their companies (Fleck et al, 2014). A study conducted in Poland shows that 48% of professional negotiators use manipulation in response to manipulation, 22% use it when there is no other method and only 22% consider it to be unacceptable (Jastrzębska-Smolaga, 2007).…”

“…_ Etiškas elgesys, pagrįstas atvirąja komunikacija, užtikrina ilgesnį dalinimąsi validžia informacija ir didina galimybę pasiekti geresnį susitarimą (Fleck et al, 2014).…”

“…Manipuliacinių technikų naudojimo tendencija gali būti laikoma antrąja komunikacijos dimensija. Yra įrodyta, kad manipuliacines technikas derybininkai naudoja gana dažnai (Fleck et al, 2014). Nors manipuliacinės technikos laikomos neetiškomis, jos vis dar gana plačiai taikomos (Lewicki & Hanke, 2012).…”

Creating and Controlling the Ethical Framework of Mediation

“…The neutralizing techniques explained by them assume an individual action of the negotiator. They involve the identification by the negotiator of the situation in negotiation, starting from the orientation type manifested by each negotiator: goal concern vs. relationship concern, respectively short-term orientation vs. long-term orientation (Fleck, Volkema et al, 2014).…”