Unethical Behavior During Negotiations

Unethical Behavior During Negotiations: How to Avoid it, How to Engage With It One of the challenges of negotiating is that what constitutes ethical behavior can be quite relative and differ between the worldview of the negotiating partners. For example, many people consider bluffing to be a form of lying (even though it is an acceptable practice in many venues such as poker).

For others, bluffing is a natural aspect of the negotiation process, an ethical form of deception which "must be regarded as a strategy in a game where business ethics must not be confused with private life ethics" (Alavoine n.d. 4).

This separation between personal and negotiation roles often depends on the cultural context of the negotiators: in some cultures, bluffing is integrated into the process of negotiation; in others, extreme forms of bluffing are frowned upon, and when there is a difference in the worldview between the two parties, problems inevitably result.

Some people also make a differentiation between factual bluffing (for example, saying that I will do something if I do not get my way -- even though I really will not or saying that I have more than I actually do) and emotional bluffing (such as deliberately acting outraged by a particular suggestion). The idea of factual bluffing is occasionally considered 'less ethical' than emotional bluffing (Alavoine n.d. 4).

Ideally, the best way to deal with bluffing is to 'call' the bluff and demonstrate to the opposing party that you know he/she is bluffing. Another common negotiating technique that is used is that of threats. Responding to threats involves considering three different factors: decision-making, communication and commitment. Decision-making threats involve weighing probabilities between the expectations of and consequences of using force. Communication-based threats involve deciding whether the threat is truly serious and plausible.

Commitment involves the credibility of the other side's willingness to follow through on such a threat (Alavoine n.d. 5). Threats that are not credible or extended with a genuine commitment can be politely ignored. Credible threats can be met head-on but it should always be remembered that responding to threats tends to raise the level of emotional intensity of the negotiation. Even though an unsubstantiated threat is ignored, this must be done in a manner to ensure that the other party can save face.

"If we give our counterpart an out, by challenging the problem gambit as an issue in itself, without making it personal, we will have a better opportunity to negate the tactic. In other words, we give them the chance to save face" (The unethical side of negotiation, n.d., Negotiations.com). In general, it is considered unwise in all instances to mirror the unethical behavior of one's negotiation partner, but this is particularly true in regards to outright lying.

"Always remember the purpose and the objectives, of why we entered into these talks in the first place. We are seeking to achieve a better deal for our company or constituents. This is our only purpose. If they persist by playing.