Fluent Essays

see attachment Unit IV Assessment 1. Describe two of the four approaches to ethical reasoning. Please include an example of each. Your example could be one that you observed or experienced during your life or an original idea. Your response must be at least 200 words in length. 2. What are frames? How do they work in negotiations? Your response must be at least 200 words in length. Because learning changes everything. ® Negotiation Section 01: Negotiation Fundamentals Chapter 05: Ethics in Negotiation © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Authorized only for instructor use in the classroom. No reproduction or further distribution permitted without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education. © McGraw-Hill Education Ethical Quandaries People in and out of organizations confront decisions about strategies to use to achieve important objectives. These decisions often carry ethical implications. Consider these questions when working through what ethical issues may arise during negotiation. What are ethics and why do they apply to negotiation? What approaches to ethical reasoning are relevant to negotiation? What questions of ethical conduct are likely to arise in negotiation? What motivates unethical behavior, and what are the consequences? 2 © McGraw-Hill Education Ethics and Negotiation Ethics are broadly applied social standards for what is right or wrong in a situation, or a process for setting those standards. The four standards for evaluating strategies and tactics. Choose a course of action on the basis of results I expect to achieve. End-result ethics On the basis of my duty to uphold appropriate rules and principles. Duty ethics is an obligation to adhere to consistent principles. On the basis of norms, values, and strategy of my community. Social contract ethics is based on customs and norms. Choose a course of action on the basis of my personal convictions. Personalistic ethics based on conscience and moral standards. 3 © McGraw-Hill Education Applying Ethical Reasoning to Negotiation Earlier, a person selling an e-bike tells a present buyer there is a second potential buyer, when there is not. If you believe in end-result ethics, you would lie to get the best outcome. If you believe in duty ethics, you might reject a tactic requiring a lie. If you believe in social contract ethics, if others lie, you will too. If you believe in personalistic ethics, your conscience decides. This shows your approach to ethical reasoning affects your ethical judgment, and the behavior you choose. 4 © McGraw-Hill Education Ethics v. Prudence v. Practicality v. Legality Ethical. Appropriate as determined by some standard of moral conduct. Prudent. Wise, based on trying to understand the efficiency of the tactic and the consequences it might have on the relationship with the other. Practical. What a negotiator can actually make happen in a given situation. Legal. What the law defines as acceptable practice. Other criteria include intrinsic and instrumental reasons. Some tactics are seen by all as unethical. 5 © McGraw-Hill Education Exhibit 5.1: Analytical Process for the Resolution of Moral Problems Jump to slide containing descriptive text. Source: Hosmer, LaRue T., The Ethics of Management. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 2003. 6 © McGraw-Hill Education End-Result Ethics Negotiators with noble objectives, feel they can use any tactics. Drawing on consequentialism a view that the moral worth of an action should be judged on the basis of the consequences it produces. Followers of utilitarianism believe the best moral choice maximizes the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Debate about end-result ethics centers on some key questions. How do people define maximum utility, and how is it measured? How do parties trade off between short-term and long-term consequences, when one may damage the other? If unable to create utility for everyone, is it adequate to create it for many, even if some people will not benefit or will even suffer? How do you balance the benefits of a majority with protection of the rights of a minority? 7 © McGraw-Hill Education Duty Ethics Duty ethics emphasizes that individuals should commit to a series of moral standards and use those to make decisions. The term deontology is used to label this school of thought. Deontologists argue utilitarian standards are flawed as outcomes may be too uncertain at the time of the decision. They also propose the ethical merits of an action should be linked more to the intentions of the person than to the outcomes of the act. They believe an action is wrong due to principle, not consequence. Deontology has its critics. Who sets the standards, chooses the principles, and makes the rules? What are the rules that apply in all circumstances? 8 © McGraw-Hill Education Social Contract Ethics Proponents hold that the rightness of an action is determined by the customs and social norms of a community. They argue that societies, organizations, and cultures determine what is ethically appropriate and acceptable for themselves. Then indoctrinate new members as they are socialized into the community. As applied to negotiation, social contract ethics would prescribe appropriate behaviors in terms of what people owe one another. Social contract ethics are not without problems. How do we decide what implicit rules should apply to a given relationship, particularly when the rules are not explicitly spelled out? Who makes these social rules, and how are they evaluated and changed? 9 © McGraw-Hill Education Personalistic Ethics A fourth standard of ethics holds that people should simply consult their own conscience. As humans, we develop a personal conscience of right and wrong. As applied to negotiation, personalistic ethics maintain that everyone ought to decide for themselves what is right. Critics have a few arguments. They argue no one is pure and individual conscience is too narrow and limited as a standard to apply to a broader social context. Some critics argue that social institutions have declined in their roles as teachers of character and developers of conscience. In addition, personalistic ethics provides no mechanism for resolving disputes when they lead to conflicting views between individuals. 10 © McGraw-Hill Education Questions of Ethical Conduct in Negotiation? Why do some negotiators use unethical tactics? The first answer immoral may be too simplistic. People regard unsavory behavior as due to personality and attribute their own behavior to factors in the social environment. questionable tactic as unprincipled. In contrast, if the negotiator uses the same tactic themselves, they tend to say they have a good reason for deviating from principles, this one time. 11 © McGraw-Hill Education Ethically Ambiguous Tactics and Truth Ethically ambiguous tactics may or may not be improper, Focus here is on what negotiators say rather than what they actually do. Questions about truth telling are clear, but not the answers. First, how do you define truth? Second, how do you define and classify deviations from the truth? Effective agreements depend on sharing accurate information but negotiators want to disclose little about their positions. The dilemma of trust is that a negotiator who believes everything the other says can be manipulated by dishonesty. The dilemma of honesty is that a negotiator who tells the other party all their requirements will never do better than their walkaway point. 12 © McGraw-Hill Education What Ethically Ambiguous Tactics are There? There are six clear categories of tactics. Traditionally competitive bargaining. Emotional manipulation. Misrepresentation. Inappropriate information gathering. Bluffing. Judgments are subjective for any given tactic, some will see its use as ethically wrong, others will have little or no problem with it. 13 © McGraw-Hill Education Does Tolerance Lead to Use of Such Tactics? Here are some research findings on the link between thinking a tactic is acceptable and actually using that tactic. There is a positive relationship between an attitude toward the use of a specific tactic and the intention to use it. Using unethical tactics early in a negotiation leads to greater frequency of use, and may cause the other party to follow suit. Tactics used by frequency: hiding your bottom line, exaggerating an opening offer, stalling for time and misrepresenting information. Hiding your bottom line improved negotiator performance in role-play. 14 © McGraw-Hill Education Are Ethically Ambiguous Tactics Acceptable to Use? Studies indicate there are tacitly agreed-on rules in negotiation. Some minor forms of untruths may be seen as ethically acceptable and within the rules. In contrast, outright deception is generally seen as outside the rules. The authors offer some caution. Statements are based on large groups of people and do not indicate or Observations are based on what people said they would do, rather than what they actually did. By reporting the results, the authors do not endorse the use of marginally ethical tactics. This is a Western view of negotiation, not true for other cultures 15 © McGraw-Hill Education Deception by Omission versus Commission The use of deceptive tactics can be active or passive. Negotiators use two forms of deception in misrepresenting a common-value issue both parties seek the same outcome. Misrepresentation by omission failing to disclose information that would benefit the other party. Misrepresentation by commission actually lying about the issue. A student role-play involving the sale of a car with a defective transmission revealed the following insight. Students could lie by omission or commission. Far more students were willing to lie by omission. 16 © McGraw-Hill Education Figure 5.2: A Simple Model of Deception in Negotiation Jump to slide containing descriptive text. 17 © McGraw-Hill Education Motives for Using Deceptive Tactics The purpose of ethically ambiguous tactics is to increase the Information is a major source of leverage it has power. This view assumes that the information is accurate and truthful. Using the tactics already discussed, the liar gains advantage. They may use it to achieve their goals. They may use them to avoid being exploited. It could be individual differences of personality or culture. People may be more motivated to appear moral, than to act morally. 18 © McGraw-Hill Education Consequences of Unethical Conduct Effectiveness. Evidence points to the effectiveness of deceptive tactics in certain circumstances. Misrepresenting interest on an issue that both parties want can induce concessions that lead to favorable outcomes. Reactions of others. For serious and personal deception, the relationship suffers. Reactions of self. When the other party suffers, a negotiator may feel discomfort. Negotiators in a simulated situation who lied tended to make larger concessions later in the negotiation to compensate. 19 © McGraw-Hill Education Explanations and Justifications Here are some typical rationalizations. The tactic was unavoidable so the negotiator is not responsible. The tactic was harmless according to the deceptive party. The tactic will help to avoid negative consequences for who? The tactic will produce good consequences, or altruistically motivated. They were going to do it anyway, so I will do it first anticipation. anticipation in the past tense. The tactic is fair or appropriate to the situation moral relativism. 20 © McGraw-Hill Education Factors Shaping Predisposition to Deception Demographic factors. Women tend to make more ethically rigorous judgments than men. Female negotiators are lied to more than male negotiators. Both men and women behaved more ethically as they aged. Older parties see bluffing as more acceptable, deception less so. Professional orientation may increase, or decrease, acceptability. There are cultural differences in attitudes toward ambiguous tactics. Personality differences. There are four other dimensions of personality that may predict the likelihood of using ethically ambiguous tactics, discussed next. 21 © McGraw-Hill Education Personality Differences Competitiveness versus cooperativeness. Competitors are more likely to use bluffing, misrepresentation, and other dishonest tactics than cooperators. Pro-social individuals were more honest than selfish individuals. Empathy and perspective taking. Those high in empathy reject lying and misrepresentation. The cognitive trait of perspective-taking neither approves or disapproves. Machiavellianism. This appears to be a predictor of unethical conduct. Locus of control. Those high in internal control are likely to do what is right. 22 © McGraw-Hill Education Moral Development and Personal Values Six stages of moral development, grouped into three levels. A preconventional level where the person is concerned with outcomes that meet their current needs, particularly rewards and punishment. A conventional level where the person defines what is right on the basis of the immediate social situation, peer group, or society norms. A postconventional level where the person defines what is right on the basis of some broader set of universal values and principles. The higher the stage a person achieves, the more complex their moral reasoning and the more ethical their decisions. 23 © McGraw-Hill Education Contextual Influences on Unethical Conduct Past experience, particularly failure, can increase the likelihood of attempting to use unethical tactics. Greater incentives influence the inclination to misrepresent. Negotiators use ambiguous tactics if the other party is perceived to be vulnerable, or powerful as a defense. What the relationship has been like in the past. What the parties would like it to be in the future. Also long-term versus short-term impacts use of ambiguous tactics. A balance of power should lead to more ethical conduct than an imbalance of power. 24 © McGraw-Hill Education Contextual Influence The structure of the negotiation situation may alter the ethics negotiators bring to the table. Advances in technology have affected the way negotiators communicate. Deception is viewed differently when it occurs over email. Acting as an agent for another party often gives moral latitude to do whatever is necessary to maximize results. Negotiators may look to social norms for expected behavior. Norms are informal social rules Group and organizational norms may legitimize inappropriate behavior. Pressure to obey authority is strong, and can undermine integrity. 25 © McGraw-Hill Education Ask probing questions. Phrase questions in different ways. Force the other party to lie or back off. Test the other party. Ignore the tactic. Discuss and help the other party shift to more honest behavior. Respond in kind. 26 Because learning changes everything.® www.mheducation.com End of Chapter 05. © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Authorized only for instructor use in the classroom. No reproduction or further distribution permitted without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education. Because learning changes everything. ® Negotiation Section 02: Negotiation Subprocesses Chapter 06: Perception, Cognition, and Emotion © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Authorized only for instructor use in the classroom. No reproduction or further distribution permitted without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education. © McGraw-Hill Education Perception Defined Perception is the process by which individuals connect to their environment. Negotiators are guided by perceptions of past situations and current attitudes and behaviors. The goal is to perceive and interpret with accuracy what the other party is saying and meaning. - environment so as to respond appropriately. It is impossible to process all the available information. As perceivers, we become selective, tuning out some stimuli. 2 © McGraw-Hill Education Perceptual Distortion In negotiation, a perceiver may create a preconceived notion about the other party. This may lead to biases and errors in perception and communication. Here, we discuss four major perceptual errors: stereotyping, halo effects, selective perception, and projection. Stereotyping and halo effects are distortion by generalization small bits of information are used to draw conclusions about individuals. Selective perception and projection involve anticipating certain attributes and qualities in another person. The perceiver filters and distorts information to arrive at a predictable and consistent view of the other person. 3 © McGraw-Hill Education Stereotyping One individual assigns attributes to another solely on the basis of membership in a social or demographic category. A person is assigned to a group, such as age old or young. A broad range of other characteristics of that group are assigned. Conclusion is from generalization of qualities accurate or not. Once formed, stereotypes are highly resistant to change. People are more likely to resort to stereotyping due to time pressure, cognitive stress, and mood. Also when conflicts involve values, ideologies, and direct competition. 4 © McGraw-Hill Education Halo Effects These occur when a person generalizes a variety of attributes based on knowledge of one attribute. May be positive or negative. Occurs when there is little experience with a person, the person is well known, or the qualities have moral implications. Halo effects and stereotyping are common hazards in negotiation. Negotiators form rapid impressions based on limited information. They tend to maintain these judgments as they get to know each other. 5 © McGraw-Hill Education Selective Perception A perceiver singles out information that supports a prior belief and filters out information that does not confirm the belief. This perpetuates stereotyping or halo effects. If an initial smile leads the other to believe a person is honest, they may downplay any statements showing crafty intent. If the negotiator perceives the same smile as a smirk, the negotiator may downplay offers to establish an honest relationship. behavior is perceived and interpreted. 6 © McGraw-Hill Education Projection Occurs when people assign to others the characteristics or feelings they possess themselves. -concept. manner they would if positions were reversed. People respond differently to similar situations so projecting your feelings onto the other negotiator may be incorrect. Projection may lead a negotiator to overestimate how much the other party knows about their preferences. 7 © McGraw-Hill Education Framing A frame is the subjective mechanism people use to evaluate and make sense out of situations. Frames define a person, event, or process and separate it from the complex world around it. Due to differences, people frame things differently. Frames can change due to perspective, or they can change over time. In negotiation, disputes are open to interpretation and the frame will likely affect perceptions and reactions. Frames reflect objectives, expectations, presentation, and evaluation. Frames are inevitable, often occurring without intention. 8 © McGraw-Hill Education Types of Frames Substantive. What the conflict is about. Outcome. A predisposition to achieving a specific result or outcome. Common in distributive negotiations. Aspiration. A predisposition to satisfy a broad set of interests and needs. Likely in integrative negotiation. Process. How the dispute is resolved. Identity. How parties define who they are. Characterization. How a person defines others. Loss or gain. How a person defines risk or reward of a particular outcome. Loss is the cost, value is the gain. 9 © McGraw-Hill Education How Frames Work in Negotiation Research is difficult to conduct, but linguistic analysis of negotiation transcripts provides some insight. Negotiators can use more than one frame. Mismatches in frames between parties are sources of conflict. Parties negotiate differently depending on the frame. Specific frames may be likely used for certain types of issues. Particular frames may lead to particular types of agreements. Parties are likely to assume a frame due to factors such as differences in values, personality, power, background and social context. 10 © McGraw-Hill Education Another Approach to Frames: Interests, Rights, and Power This views parties in conflict as using one of three frames. Interests. Rights. - who has legitimacy, who is correct, or what is fair. Power. Usually imposes costs economic pressure, expertise, authority, etc. People have a choice of how to approach a negotiation in terms of interests, rights, and power. The same negotiation, framed differently, will lead to different outcomes. 11 © McGraw-Hill Education The Frame Changes as the Negotiation Evolves It is important to consider patterns of change (transformation) that occurs as parties communicate with each other. Naming occurs when parties label and characterize a problem. Blaming is next, the parties determine who or what was the cause. Claiming occurs when the person with the problem takes action. Factors affecting how conversations and frames are shaped. Negotiators tend to argue for stock issues. Each party tries to make the best possible case for their position. Frames may define shifts in a negotiation diagnosis, formula, detail. Multiple agenda items shape the issue development. 12 © McGraw-Hill Education Reframing Reframing is the process of changing the thrust, tone, and focus of a conversation, shaping issues in several ways. Arguments attacking the significance of a problem or solution feasibility. Management and interaction of issues on the negotiation agenda. Reframing is a dynamic process occurring in a conversation as parties look for ways to reconcile perspectives. It may be done intentionally, or emerge from the conversation. Either way, the parties often propose a new approach to a problem. 13 © McGraw-Hill Education Prescriptive Advice Frames shape what the parties define as the key issues and how they talk about them. Ensure your preferred frames are acknowledged by others. Both parties have frames. Reframing for a match does not guarantee cooperation. Frames are controllable, to some degree. You may shift the conversation toward the frame you prefer. Conversations transform frames in unpredictable ways. Track the shifts and understand where they may lead. Certain frames are more likely to lead to certain outcomes. Recognition allows reframing to pursue constructive outcomes. 14 © McGraw-Hill Education Cognitive Biases in Negotiation We have examined how information is perceived, filtered, distorted, and framed. In this section, we examine how negotiators use information to make decisions during the negotiation. Systematic errors while processing information, collectively labeled cognitive biases, are many. Here, we will discuss a dozen cognitive biases of particular interest to negotiator performance. 15 © McGraw-Hill Education Irrational Escalation of Commitment decisions that stick with a failing course of action. Repeated decision making in the face of negative feedback, uncertainty of goal attainment, and choice of continuing. Due in part to biases in individual perception and judgment. Desire for consistency and saving face prevents change. Overconfidence is another factor that can drive escalation. Most likely with a public decision rather than one made in private. One way to combat these tendencies is to have an advisor serve as a reality check. 16 © McGraw-Hill Education Mythical Fixed-Pie Beliefs Many negotiators believe negotiations involve a fixed pie. They assume integrative settlements are not possible and so do not search for them. Tendency to see a fixed pie varies depending on how people view the nature of a given conflict situation. Time constraints or cultural values may vary fixed-pie beliefs. We previously looked at minimizing fixed-pie belief through procedures for inventing options now, two more approaches. By focusing on underlying interests, you are more likely to see that your fixed-pie perceptions is misguided. Also, hold negotiators accountable for the way they negotiate. 17 © McGraw-Hill Education Anchoring and Adjustment This is related to the effect of the standard (or anchor) against which further adjustments are made during negotiation. Anchors can become a trap if the choice of an anchor is based on faulty or incomplete information and becomes misleading in itself. Once defined, both parties tend to treat anchors as a valid benchmark by which to adjust other judgments. Goals in negotiation can serve as anchors. May be visible or invisible, conscious or unconscious. Preparation, and the use of a reality check, helps prevent errors of anchoring and adjustment. 18 © McGraw-Hill Education Issue Framing and Risk Frames lead people to seek, avoid, or be neutral about risk. The tendency to seek or avoid risk may be based on the reference point against which offers/concessions are judged. The number you use to evaluate negotiation progress and success. Keep two things in mind about the effect of frames on risk. Negotiators are not usually indifferent to risk. But, they should not trust their intuitions regarding it. Risk-averse negotiators are apt to accept any viable offer while risk-seekers will wait for a better offer. Remedies include awareness, information, analysis, and reality checks. 19 © McGraw-Hill Education Availability of Information Be concerned with the potential bias caused by the availability of information or how easy it is to retrieve. How easily it can be recalled and used to inform or evaluate a process. This also affects negotiation through the use of established search patterns. Without proper planning, a negotiator may become overwhelmed by this bias and lose the benefits of thorough analysis. The remedy is clear. Do not assume the first information is complete or the best. 20 © McGraw-Hill Education When negotiation ends quickly, a negotiator may feel discomfort about a win that comes too easily. This may stem from counterfactual throught processes which The easier it is to imagine a better alternative, the less satisfied the negotiator will be. This can also affect future negotiating behavior. The best remedy is to prevent it from occurring. Advance planning helps a negotiator avoid making an offer that is unexpectedly accepted. 21 © McGraw-Hill Education Overconfidence This is the tendency to believe your ability to be correct is greater than is actually true with a double-edged effect. It can solidify the degree to which negotiators support positions or options that are incorrect or inappropriate. Negotiators may discount the validity of the judgments of others, shutting out other information needed for integrative solutions. Overconfidence can lead to escalation of commitment. Do not suppress confidence or optimism, avoid overconfidence. 22 © McGraw-Hill Education The Law of Small Numbers People tend to draw conclusions from small sample sizes. In negotiation, this applies to the way negotiators learn and extrapolate from their own experience. This often leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Styles and strategies that worked in the past may not in the future. the incorrect belief a streak of events is due to momentum and will continue. - 23 © McGraw-Hill Education Self-Serving Biases either to the person or the situation. Tending to overestimate the causal role of personal factors and underestimate the causal role of situational factors. Known as the fundamental attribution error. The actor-observer effect worsens the bias as people attribute their Self-serving bias may distort evaluation of information. The false-consensus effect overestimates the support a position has. The base-rate fallacy ignores relevant information for non-relevant. Assuming our own beliefs are based on credible information and opposing beliefs are based on misinformation. 24 © McGraw-Hill Education Endowment Effect This is the tendency to overvalue something you own or believe you possess. This is likely tied to loss aversion the owner frames the sale of an item as a loss and assigns a higher value than a buyer does. In negotiation, this can lead to inflated estimations of value that interfere with reaching a good deal. Seen as an inflated personal attachment to the status quo. A similar process occurs when an accepted offer is liked To reduce dissonance, add subjective value to the outcome. 25 © McGraw-Hill Education simplify their thinking about complex processes. Usually leads to a distributive strategy. a capacity the risk of impasse is reduced. The chances of achieving integrative outcomes through logrolling increases. -seated. It can be avoided only if negotiators focus on forming an accurate 26 © McGraw-Hill Education Reactive Devaluation simply because the other party made them. This leads negotiations to: Minimize the magnitude of a concession made by a disliked other. Reduce their willingness to respond with a concession of equal size. Or seek even more from the other party once a concession is made. Reactive devaluation may be minimized by the following. Maintain an objective view of the process, or have someone else do so. Use a third party to mediate or filter concession-making processes. 27 © McGraw-Hill Education Managing Misperceptions and Cognitive Biases These typically arise out of conscious awareness as negotiators gather and process information. The result can be overreliance on faulty assumptions and data. The first level of managing distortions is awareness. Reframing is a potentially effective remedy. Telling people about biases do not make them go away. One avenue involves the intervention of outside parties. During mediation, negotiators were less susceptible to judgment biases and perceived the process as more value-creating and fair. 28 © McGraw-Hill Education Mood, Emotion, and Negotiation In research, negotiators are portrayed as rational beings calculating, calm, and in control. Overlooking the role played by emotions in the negotiation process. The distinction between mood and emotion is based on: Specificity. Intensity. Duration. Mood states are more diffuse, less intense, and more enduring than emotion states. Which are more intense and directed at specific targets. 29 © McGraw-Hill Education Selected Research Findings Negotiation creates both positive and negative emotions. stem from dejection or agitation. Positive emotions may have positive outcomes for negotiations. More flexibility and concession making and less hostility. Aspects of the negotiation process can lead to positive emotions fair proceedings and favorable social comparisons. Negative emotions may have negative negotiation outcomes. Not all negative emotions have the same effect. 30 © McGraw-Hill Education Research Continued Aspects of the negotiation process can lead to negative emotions. They may stem from a competitive mind-set. Positive feelings may have negative consequences and negative feelings may create positive outcomes. Negative emotion can sometimes benefit the negotiator. Emotions can be used strategically as negotiation gambits. Negotiators may manipulate emotion to get the other side to adopt certain beliefs or take certain action. There are ethical implications to using contrived emotion. 31 Because learning changes everything.® www.mheducation.com End of Chapter 06. © 2019 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. Authorized only for instructor use in the classroom. No reproduction or further distribution permitted without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.