Ethics and Negotiation Essay

?Negotiation is a pervasive features of business life. Success in business typically requires successful duologues. In a competitory and morally liberalist realness, business people atomic number 18 much faced with serious ethical challenges. Herboting untrusting abut the morals of another(prenominal)s, many an(prenominal) shade verticalified in engaging in less-than-ideal carriage to protect their ingest interests. The nigh sophisticated moral arguments ar tall(a) to counteract this conduct. We conceive that this morally antitank demeanor responsible, in large part, for much undesir adequate deception in negotiation. picture on recent work in the literature of negotiations, we p envy some applicative guidance on how treaters tycoon figure of speech trust, sacrifice reciprocal interests, and secure credibility for their statements t hereby promoting honesty.We must cast off the world honest before we brush off aboveboard give tongue to to our chil dren that honesty is the best policy George Bernard SHAWWhat do we mean by moral philosophy?Ethics are broadly utilize social standards for what is right and wrong in a particular situation, or a touch on for setting those standards. And moral philosophy suppurate egress of a particular philosophies which plant up ones mind the nature of the world in which we raging and prescribe rules for living together.Why do people choose wrong behaviour?The first answer that normally occurs to us is that people are corrupt, degenerate, or immoral. In fact these answers are to simplistics much over, they do non help us understand and conquer our avow behaviour, or success amply persuade and predict the behaviour of others in a bargaining environment.Here were three autochthonic factors motivational factors which put across negotiants to con perspectiver utilise wrong tactics the pursuit of profit, the believe to beat an contrary in a competitive environment, and the conte nd to insure or restore some standard of evaluator that has been violated.Three study categories of ethical conduct were hired to describe the broad work of researchable negotiating strategies and tactics means/ends, truth-telling, and relativism.The more e is committed to abide by certain rules and procedures, the more one believes that following the rules depart eventually lead to the coveted ends. The second group of tactics, relativistic vs. absolute, forces us to deal with questions of whether there are actually absolute rules and article of beliefs of right and wrong, or whether questions of morality must be answered by apiece individual in his own personalized, inhering view of the world. Many authors give suggested that bluffing, deception or factual distortion is sometimes requisite in order to in effect negotiate such behaviour, however, may closely be seen by others as wrong and inadmit.We believe that the negotiation process raises a host of ethica l issues, more so than most other interpersonal trans meets. a lot of what has been written on negotiating behaviour has been potently normative abut ethics, and prescribed res publica and donts. We do not believe that this approach facilitates the mind of how treaters actually learn to act wrongly. We believe this process canister best be understood by a simple conclusion-making model.We proposed that a negotiant who chooses to use an wrong tactic ordinarily decides to do so in order to increase his negotiating power. Power is gained by manipulating the perceive base of accurate drive inledge ( evasiveness), acquire better information ab let egress n opponents plan, or undermining an opponents ability to achieve his objectives. development these tactics leads to two kinds of consequences first, actual skill or non-attainment of these goals he was seeking and second, rating and criticism of the tactics by the negotiant himself, by his opponent and by observers. Negotiators ordinarily feel compelled to justify their actions i.e., they know they confuse done something wrong and need to establish a good reasonWe suggested that the decision to use ethical or wrong tactics may be influenced in varying degrees by differences in individual backgrounds, personality, rewards or punishments associated with ethical or wrong actions, and the social and cultural norms that dictate what is appropriate or inappropriate in a given environment. We perplex made a number of self-confidences about ways to forecast and prise human conduct in the realm of ethics. We have intentionally avoided taking a strong normative stance, and have not tried to emphasize our own biases about what kinds of conduct are ethical or unethical. Instead, we have proposed several conclusions that can be drawn from research, experience and common sense1 Individuals impart often disagree as to what kinds of negotiating tactics are ethical or unethical, and in which situatio ns it is appropriate or inappropriate to use them.2 The decision to use an unethical tactic can be probably best be understood as a quasirational decision making process in which a variety of personality and situational variables are possible to affect that decision.3 In deciding to use an unethical tactic, a negotiator is likely to be most heavily influenced by what he believes the consequences go forth be for his choice will it help him accomplish his objectives, and what kind of reach back is he likely to throw from others?4 Negotiators who have used unethical tactics in the past, or might be considering their use in the future, should potently consider three possible consequences of utilise unethical tactics a ordain they really help achieve objectives?b How will they affect the quality of the kindred with this opponent in the future? c How will they affect their reputation?Negotiators frequently overlook the fact that while unethical or politic tactics may get them wh at they want in the terse run, these same tactics typically lead to long-term problems and to diminished effectiveness.Rules of the gameAn assumption every negotiation situation involves questions of ethics. What are the understood rules of the game?What is fair?What is just?What is legal?What is appropriate and supportable?What is expect?Is ethical behaviour .What is practical?What is expedient?What is efficient?What serves ones interests or a clients interests?What is necessary to win?Like the poker player, a negotiator hopes that his opponent will misjudge the value of his hand. Like the poker player, in a variety of ways he must facilitate his opponents inaccurate assessment. The critical difference between those who are successful negotiators and those who are not lies in this capacity both to lead and not to be misled.Four major approaches to ethical reasoning1 End-result ethics (results lens)The rightness of an action is obdurate by evaluating its consequences. Here the question is what will be the result?2 Duty ethics ( reputation lens)The rightness of an action is determined by ones cartel to adhere to consistent principles, laws and social standards that touch on what is rightand wrong. Here the question is what will others think?3 Social distil ethics ( relationship lens)The rightness of an action is base o the customs and norms of a particular society or community. The question here is how will this impact others?4 Personalistic ethics (rights lens)The rightness of the action is base on ones own conscience and moral standards the question here is what should I do?So when in an ethical quandary we answer the following questionsWhat will be the result?What will others think?How will this impact others?What should I do?THE IMPORTANCE OF NEGOTIATION ETHICHS comm only(prenominal) held assumptions reflect negatively on the ethics of the negotiation tactics of car salespeople, lawyers, clam traders, and other people who have a reputation of tr ying to influence family into reaching agreements by misrepresenting facts. This kind of stereotyping has inc contrastd itself to people from different countries, ethic groups, or even as reflected in the facial expression from the 60s Dont trust anyone over 30.Negotiation is about many things one of its central elements is convincing others to accept the accuracy or reality of information that will influence their decision. Most negotiators know that it is, indeed, possible to influence people by lying to them. But good negotiators in any case realize that when other parties find out they have been on the receiving end of lies, the lying negotiators credibility goes great deal to tubes.There is an old expression If you swindle me once, ignominy on you. If you cheat me twice, shame on me. People who have been taken in by dishonestly resentit if they are able, they try to get out of deals where theres been misrepresentation.In general, a general negotiator must make positive m isstatement to be held liable fraud. First, when the negotiator makes a partial disclosure that is or becomes, misleading. Second, where the negotiator acts as a fiduciary. Third, when the negotiator has essential information about the effect not accessible to the other side. Fourth, where demand by statue.On the other side we can say that negotiation is not a competitive sport. In competitive sports, the object is to end up win the game, the race, or the event. Negotiators who focus on treating other parties as opponents run the risk of stopping point up with reluctant counterparties to whatever agreements may be reached. Unless all the parties are fully committed to their agreement, it may well declivity apart in those circumstances the negotiation has failed.The ethics of negotiation should be based on several understandingsReluctant partners make undependable partners so treating negotiation partners with appraise and honesty simply makes common sense.Negotiators need to recognize up front that the only reason to use negotiation to conciliate a conflict, agree on a project, or conclude a sale because other parties may be able to add value an individual or a single company cannot do acting alone.Transparency in the negotiation process is more likely to get down about buy-in than hidden agendas or tricksy maneuvers.Other parties have feelings.Last understanding is the Golden Rule of treating others as you would proclivity to be treated has the bottom line value of increasing other parties eagerness about negotiating with you as well as their enthusiasm about the ultimateagreement. commodity negotiation ethics honesty, transparency, respect for others are all genuinely pragmatic approaches to use. A negotiators reputation is not unlike that of a restaurant if you have bad meal, you are not likely to return. And a negotiator with whom others dont want to deal is effectively out of business.Negotiator also should understand intravenous feeding majo r approaches to ethical reasoning end-result ethics, or the principals of act utilitarianism rule ethics, or the principle of rule utilitarianism social contract ethics, or the principles of community-based socially acceptable behaviour and personalistic ethics, or the principles of determining what is right buy number to ones conscience. Each of these approaches may be used by negotiators to evaluate appropriate strategies and tactics.Consequently we can say that negotiation ethics is more important for negotiator thats why negotiator should recognize ethics carefully. Also unethical behaviours are most important to the negotiator. Because when he or she faced with unethical behaviour he or she should find the reasons for unethical behaviour.