Assessment of Ethical NegotiationAccording to Friedman and Shapiro (1995) “there are reasons to engage both in deception and honesty in negotiations, and there are enormous risks associated with either a purely honest or purely deceptive strategy. ” Assess this statement, relating your answer to various perspectives on what is ‘ethical’ in negotiation. AbstractNegotiation is very important in business transactions. One can either negotiate honestly or deceptively. The outcome of either will determine business sustainability. Honest strategy in negotiation will allow for the development of trust, transparency and respect in the negotiation process and its participants.
It will help bridge business sustainability in the long run since it help develops long term relationship. On the other hand, deceptive strategy in negotiation can bring so many risks to business sustainability. Applying it in business negotiation would lead to adverse effect in the reputation of the company using it. Such effect in reputation could bring long term damage to relationships of the company with investors, suppliers and customers putting at risk its position in the market. IntroductionNegotiation is a crucial element in any business transactions or communications.
Steven Cohen (2002) defined negotiation as a “mechanism for reaching an agreement” (p. 2) between or among parties. It is a process to make decisions. Cramton and Dees (1993) defined negotiation as a process of communication towards an agreement in order to implement an “exchange, distribution of benefits, burdens, roles, or responsibilities” (p. 2). Lewicki and Hiam (2007) consider it the ultimate practice that “allows you to move in and out of business situation with confidence and success” (p. 2). Businesses that negotiate effectively become successful than the others. Successful negotiations results to mutual commitment of the involved parties to fulfil the agreement they have reached (Cohen 2002).
Fairness is crucial in successful negotiations. However, successful negotiation also uses deceptive strategy. It is a reality the either honest or deceptive strategies are used n the negotiation process. First, we need to define deception to benchmark the discussion of this paper. Cramton and Dees (1993) defined deception as “ any deliberate act or omission by one party taken with the intention of creating or adding support to false belief in another party” (p. 3).
Lying, “bluffing, exaggeration, posturing, stage-setting, and outright misrepresentation” (p. 1) are forms of deception strategies that businesses used today. Consequently, honesty in this context is defined as an actuation without any trace of deceptive strategies. The core issue is the outcome of choosing either honest or deceptive strategies. Friedman and Shapiro (1995) rationalise that there are reasons and risks involved in choosing deceptive or honest strategies in negotiations. This essay will look into the reasons and risks involved in using deceptive and honest strategies in negotiations and evaluate its impact in business organisations or persons utilizing such strategies.
Honest Strategy in NegotiationNegotiation involves effective influence on the negotiating party. Thus, the element of liking (Cialdini & Wissler 2002) is one of the core principles why a negotiation is taking place. Ideally, liking a person or even an organisation should develop a sense of honesty in communication so as not to jeopardise one’s influence on the person he or she liked. A person who feels he is taken advantage by a person he is negotiating may just leave the negotiation process not fulfilling an agreement or not sealing a deal at all.