Ethical_Challenges_for_Negotiators

这是一篇主题谈判者的伦理挑战的essay，谈判中，每一方都期望能获益更多，损失更小。在这样一种期望下，很容易做出不道德的事，谈判者应该意识到不道德会导致什么后果

"Ethical Challenges for Negotiators" In every single negotiation, parties’ expectation is to gain benefit from other parties without losing or losing as least as possible. But how can negotiators implement that expectation' Some may choose the cushy way which is considered to be unethical but they should be aware of the consequence that unethical negotiators may be no longer an effective one anymore. The dictionary definition of ethics is “a system of moral principles or values; the rules of standards governing the conduct of the members of a profession; accepted principles of right or wrong.”[1] Ethical issue can be related to negotiation’s tactics because some tactics, especially those involving deception is strongly concerned as unethical behavior. Though, a lot of negotiators still use deception tactic as a tool to complete their goals. Besides, some negotiators think that to garble some information, even an important one, just one of the tactics without caring that it is considered to be unethical which may lead to unfavorable effect latterly. Except from negotiation tactics, ethics is also relevant to negotiation in the way that being an ethical negotiator can build trust to other parties. Some may think that trust is not an essential part to complete goals in negotiations. But in the long run, trust precisely plays a vital role, especially in business or commerce. It is obvious that parties must be willing to make an agreement with people who can be relied on. If a party found out that the other party has derogated or concealed some information, it is abundantly possible that no more negotiation will occur between those two anymore. This is because agreement cannot be made with suspicion and one notice of being mistrustful can long lasting than you ever thought of. Nonetheless, many of negotiators still prefer unethical tactics like deception because they emphasize the effective outcome of negotiations, while other negotiators are devoted in being ethical negotiators even though this can make them gain less benefit. Therefore, how we can estimate what style of negotiators we are is based on “Three Schools of Bargaining Ethics” which will help us decide how much we concerned about ethics in negotiations. G. Richard Shell[2] suggests that “Three Schools of Bargaining Ethics” are • The “It’s a game” Poker school • The “Do the right thing even if it hurts” Idealist School • The “What goes around comes around” Pragmatist School The Poker School compares negotiations with poker game which players can “bluff” others to be misled. Similar to the game, Rules are needed to guide what parties (negotiators) can do in negotiations and the rules in the Poker School is to obey the law. Although some performance is considered to be unethical, but as long as it is legal, it will be acceptable in the Poker School’s point of view. The Poker School thinks that deception is just a tactic to an effective negotiation and emphasizes on benefits from negotiations more than relationship between parties or being an ethical negotiator. The Idealist School believes that negotiations are the same as social life. What lie is acceptable in normal social encounters; it is also acceptable in negotiations. In other words, Idealists do not totally deny to deception but they limit how to use deception hinging on if that deception is harmful to other parties or not. Nevertheless, Idealists prefer to be honest in negotiations because they adhere in philosophy and religion. For example, Immanuel Kant said that we should all follow the ethical rules that we would wish others to follow.[3] So, ethical negotiators will gain advantages from others who give them trust as well. The Pragmatist School is intermediary between the Poker School and the Idealist School. The Pragmatist School does care about relationship and reputation. Thus, Pragmatists will not let any deception affect their relationship among parties and reputation in community. Instead, they have a practical alternative to achieve in negotiations. For example, Pragmatists will not lie about the quality of product they are selling but they will not hesitate to lie about the bottom line in order to make sure that they will not lose anything in this negotiation. Besides, Pragmatist will choose to say “I don’t know” instead of lying because this will protect both reputation and accomplishment in negotiations. To analyze about ethics in negotiation, not only the style of ethics concerning we have to find out but the consequences of unethical conduct is also an essential part. Some negotiators may take advantages from loophole of law because existing law generally provides that the duty of good faith applies only to the performance and enforcement of agreements, not negotiations.[4] However, these negotiators may not recognize that there is still an effect from being unethical which is called “reputation effect”. The “reputation effect” makes negotiators fear and refuse to act in unethical behavior. It is obvious that parties who take part in negotiations must be willing to negotiate with someone whom they trust. Trusting relationship can create numerous agreements while unethical behavior may formulate only one. A counterpart, who found that the other parties use deception or fraud in negotiations to achieve or win, will be no longer continue doing business with that party and this can lead to the end of business career. There is an old expression: “If you cheat me once, shame on you. If you cheat me twice, shame on me”[5] This can distinctly represent how significant of being ethical or honesty. One of the conspicuous examples that being unethical can lead to no more negotiations is the game “Win as Much as You Can”. In this game, players will have chances to negotiate with others in order to gain points. If every players is consistent in what they are agreed, the points can be distributed to each player equally. But, if one player starts to use deception tactics in order to gain points to win, no more trust will be lasting. An agreement cannot be effective anymore because players do not believe that everybody will follow the agreement. Moreover, other players may want to gain points to win so they decided to use this unethical tactics as well. Consequently, players will no longer care about relationship that every players should gain the same point (win-win) but they do care about how to gain as many points as possible (win-lose) and trust will not exist in this game anymore. We can obviously see that it is not worthy to use unethical tactics because it can abuse trust which affect further negotiations. Thus, good negotiators should excellently prepare themselves in every negotiation in order to achieve win – win outcome. However, it is undeniable that unethical tactics can lead to effectiveness as expectation, but the weakness is it is not work in long-term commercial relationships. Thus, instead of being unethical, there is another option to be an effective negotiator. For example, negotiators must research the other parties. To know what style of the other parties are may help to prepare how to negotiate to reach effective agreements. Besides, to be an effective negotiator, you must be willing to say “no”. Negotiation is the method to reach joint decision so if you realized that you will gain nothing from this, saying “no” may be the best way to remain your benefit or even be the most effective agreement maintaining win – win solutions. According to what mentioned above, ethics is one of essential parts of negotiations. Ethics can lead to trust and trust can lead to effective relationship with effective agreements. In other words, ethics is a foundation of win – win outcomes. Being an ethical negotiator may not make a huge benefit from the beginning but it is worthy to do so because to keep the relationship and maintain good reputation creates long – lasting benefits. Thus, it does not overstate that effective negotiators are actually ethical ones. ----------------------- [1] Peter B. Stark and Jane Flaherty. “Ethical Negotiations: 10 Tips to Ensure Win-Win Outcomes.” The Negotiator Magazine (2003), available at http://www.negotiatormagazine.com/showarticle.php'file=article106&page=1 (last visit June 1, 2009). [2] G. Richard Shell, “Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable people.” In Bargaining With The Devil Without Losing Your Soul: Ethics in Negotiation, 215-222. New York: Penguin Group Inc, 2000 [3] Ibid. [4] Burr, Anne M. “Ethics in negotiation: Does getting to yes require candor'”. Dispute Resolution Journal. FindArticles.com, available at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3923/is_200105/ai_n8940569/'tag=content;col1 (last visit June 1, 2009). [5] Steven P. Cohen. “Negotiation Ethics: A Matter of Common Sense.” The Negotiator Magazine (2004), available at http://www.negotiatormagazine.com/article217_1.html (last visit June 1, 2009).

51Due网站原创范文除特殊说明外一切图文著作权归51Due所有；未经51Due官方授权谢绝任何用途转载或刊发于媒体。如发生侵犯著作权现象，51Due保留一切法律追诉权。