Bluffing, Deception and Ethics of Negotiation

“Everyone involved in decision making must behave in ways that build and maintain the trust and support of the work force” (Kochan and Osterman, 1994, p. 46). Negotiation requires a strong background of ethics and morality. Although both characteristics are generally different, they both require the same sense of knowing what is right and what is wrong. Often in business negotiations, ethics are lost due to the thirst of positively completing a deal in your favor. Because of this, there can be bluffing and overall deception provided by either side in order to receive what they want.

According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, ethics is defined as, “a set of moral principles: a theory or system of moral values” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, ethics). Chris Provis explains in the Journal of Business Ethics, “ethical behavior involves commitment to principle rather than self-interest.”

In negotiation, trust plays a significant role in the completion of negotiation. Trust is only relevant to those who share a common belief or commitment to the same ethical norms (Luhmann, 1988).

Carrying out a negotiation is near impossible if there is no mutual trust between negotiating parties. However, confidence in the opponent to act in the best possible way is hard and often rare. Both sides are fighting for the best possible alternative to the current terms. In order to ensure trust, there are numerous principles one could study in order to maintain a consistent level of ethicality.

Ethics of Negotiation

Harvard Law School has five basic principles of negotiation ethics. These principles can help negotiators make sure they are acting within ethical and moral standards.

Get quality help now

Prof. Finch

Verified

Proficient in: Deception

4.7 (346)

“ This writer never make an mistake for me always deliver long before due date. Am telling you man this writer is absolutely the best. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

In order for someone to treat you the way you want to be treated, you must reciprocate the same actions onto your opponent. Would you want your opponent to treat you harshly or unreasonably? In a study conducted by Axelrod in 1984, a strategy known as “tit for tat,” an iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma game, proved that people without a presence of central authority are more likely to adopt said strategy. Due to his findings, Axelrod was able to conclude that cooperative reciprocity is “nice” and “forgiving.” This means that people using this type of bargaining strategy do not seek to negotiate harshly or unethically because it forces them to reach a resolution by encouraging responses that are cooperative to both parties (Axelrod, 1984).

Another important part of ethics is to make sure your actions will not look negative to the public. The opinion of the public can sway the terms of the negotiation severely. For example, The Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education experienced bad publicity due to a faculty strike. During the strike, students were not able to attend classes for three days or more in some cases. Students were not only supporting their teachers by providing food and beverages while the faculty stood at each corner of the towns, but also participated in the strike. This created bad publicity for the system’s Board of Governors. It showed the media, which in turn showed the public that this is not helping students reach their goal of becoming educated people. The strike in 2016 was a necessary move for faculty to reach their goal in maintaining a certain quality of education for students perusing a higher education.

An easy way to ensure ethical decision-making in negotiation is to ask yourself if this were something one would want their spouse, best friend, or children to know what they are doing and how you are resolving negotiations. In the same regard, would one advise their close friends and family to act in the same unethical way? This means that if one probably wouldn’t advise anyone else to act unethically, then they too should not act with the same level of unethicality. Furthermore, if one would decide to act unethically in negotiation, they should consider the type of legacy they are leaving for themselves. This point circles back to the portion of ethics regarding publicity. Doing the right thing often means that one understands and accepts whatever cost comes with ethical decisions. “Ethical behavior will promote trust and unethical behavior will inhibit it” (Provis, 2000)

Deception and Bluffing

Bluffing and other tactics involving deception can be perceived as more or less ethical depending on whom you are asking. In business, bluffing is not only expected but also necessary to succeed (Carr, 1968). Seasoned negotiators know how to twist and withhold certain information or terms in order to alter the way an opponent will perceive a prospective deal. “Experienced labor negotiators expect that opponents will hide information and try to build up false perceptions about their limits and determination” (Friedman and Shapiro, 1995, p. 248). Deception and bluffing could be used a lot more often than one may think. Those who are good at using these tactics are often successful with their negotiations (Thompson, 1990, p. 88).

However, if two negotiators had the same caliber of deception tactics, they could sway the entire negotiation to become clouded and overall messy.

On the contrary, the reason seasoned negotiators are more successful is not only because they are using deception or bluffing, but from the fact that they are able to come up with and present very different ideas or suggestions that the opponent likes (Thompson, 1990, p. 88). This statement proves that deception and bluffing are not as common as one may think it to be no matter how necessary some may think it is to be successful.

How Can You Use Deception and Bluffing Ethically?

Carr explains that,” games like poker, where bluffing and deception are sanctioned by the rules of the game.” Provis explains that, “ even though each party may really be trying to deceive the other, each also knows that the other party is trying to do the same” (Provis, 2000). These specific tactics can be seen as ‘genuine efforts’ to lead the opponents in a different direction. Provis explains that because of this analogy, the tactic of deception cannot necessarily be considered unethical but more like inflated claims.

Because of this evidence, it blurs the lines of an ethical negotiation. Meaning that with all of the possible tactics that one can use to be successful in a negotiation, such as bluffing an deception, are they still acting ethically? Accepted practices seem to be at the discretion of whom you are talking too. In terms of successful negotiation, it depends whether or not one considers it to be more ethical for both parties or if one was able to achieve the best deal possible for their party.

Conclusion

Deception, bluffing and other tactics are often found in collective bargaining negotiations. Both negotiating parties have the ability to use deceptive tactics by declining to give any or all information regarding a specific topic of negotiation. In relation to trust, cooperative tactics are the best way to ensure a positive best alternative for both negotiation parties. Many would argue that deceptive bluffing is a form of lying and not acting in good faith. However, others would argue that deceptive bluffing is a genuine effort towards leading the opposing group in a different, unsought of way. Despite most views, deception can actually be a useful tool in negotiation strategies. In order to maintain ethicality, there are numerous principles one can follow. These principles not only allows one to become more ethical, but also can drive negotiations towards the best interest of not only their negotiating party but also for the opponents side as well. Using deception or bluffing can help you be successful when negotiating however, one must make sure that they are using these tactics to not only better the situation for their own party but also for the opposing party.