Ethics in negations

Gaspar, J. P., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2013). The emotion deception model: A review of deception in negotiation and the role of emotion in deception. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 6(3), 160-179.
Gunia, B. C., Brett, J. M., Nandkeolyar, A. K., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Paying a price: Culture, trust, and negotiation consequences. Journal of applied psychology, 96(4), 774.
Koning, L., Steinel, W., van Beest, I., & van Dijk, E. (2011). Power and deception in ultimatum bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115(1), 35-42.

Preview document (3 of 5 pages)

Running head: ETHICS IN NEGOTIATIONS
Ethics in Negotiations
Name
Course
Tutor
Date
ETHICS IN NEGOTIATIONS 2
Ethics in Negotiations
A negotiation refers to that particular instance where two or more individuals exchange
ideas with the aim of changing the current nature of their relationship. In a negotiation, all parties
involved should end up benefiting from the relationship. Therefore when only one party benefits,
it is no longer a fair negotiation. It is important to understand the meaning of ethics in order to
undertake any sort of negotiations. Ethics are described as the moral principles which are
followed to guide people’s behavior. An average person finds themselves in situations where
they have to make negotiations for things on a daily basis. The way these negotiations end is
determined by the ethical backgrounds of the individuals involved.
The case scenario laid out, in this case, puts me in a position where I find myself lying in
a negotiation in order to make a sale of my audio system. During negotiations, for one reason or
another, everybody lies. The reasons why a person may lie during a negotiation involves, to hide
a certain weakness, to hide from confrontation by the truth, to avoid embarrassment from a
bigger lie, to enhance the value by which they are perceived, to protect the other person
emotionally and to entice the other person to move from one position of negotiation to another
(Gaspar, 2013). People lie depending on what exactly they are trying to achieve. In my case, I
lied about having a second offer in order to make the sale the audio system fast. The result of this
lie was an increase in the expected amount from 500 dollars to 550 dollars. In the rules of
negotiations, both parties should leave with the notion that they got the best deal. I feel like this
is the case of my negotiation since the buyer of my audio system left thinking that he had the
best deal, regardless of my lie.
There are negotiations that cannot be done without a bit of lying or simply omitting of
some information. The element of deception is inevitable in such negotiations. The forms of
ETHICS IN NEGOTIATIONS 3
deceptions involve answering questions in misleading ways, dodging some questions or even
outright lying. These negotiations usually go well as long as the deceived party is made to
believe they got the best possible deal. If such negotiations were to go any other way, then one
party would totally not benefit. This implies that deception during negotiations is not always a
negative thing. However, it should not be used to exploit naïve negotiators. In my case scenario,
the buyer is deceived by making him think that the audio system is on a high demand and it will
be sold to another person if he doesn’t by it immediately. Upon this realization, the buyer even
offers to add 50 more dollars on top of the proposed price. I don’t think that there is any
exploitation of one party in this negotiation since the final buying price is actually proposed by
the buyer himself.
The main purpose of lying about the audio system was not to add the value but to
encourage the buyer to buy it immediately. This means that I did not expect to increase the price
of the audio system from this lie. I would consider this as a case of a misinterpretation situation
since there is no intention of deceiving the buyer to increase the price of the audio system. For a
case to be classified as fraud, the individual who makes the misinterpretation must be in a
position where they know that they are doing so (Koning, 2011). This is exactly the opposite of
my situation with the audio system buyer. There are practical as well as ethical limits to lying
during negotiations. These limits should not be passed as they may lead to severe consequences
that threaten the reputation of a negotiator. I didn't think the lie about the audio system, in my
case, passes the limits of lying during negotiations. However, my decision to lie comes with
consequences that would have been otherwise avoided.
The consequences of lying or deception during a negotiation usually lead to mistrust
between the involved parties as well as conflict. At some point, it may even reach criminal