1. Bullard/Villard Houses
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved

2. ©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
Informational Issues
A good negotiator will have:
Thought in advance about information she does not want to disclose
Decided how to deal with requests for that information
This preparation helps to:
Avoid disclosing inadvertently
Avoid lies when put on the spot
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved

3. Example for Buyer’s Rep
“I am not authorized to answer that question but tell me what you are concerned about and I’ll see if I can address your concerns.”
Negotiator protects his/her integrity by focusing on the questioner’s interests
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved

4. Questions of Ethical Conduct that Arise in Negotiation
Deception by omission versus commission
Omission – failing to disclose information that would benefit the other
Commission – actually lying about an issue
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved

5. Why Use Deceptive Tactics? Motives and Consequences
The power motive
The purpose of using ethically ambiguous negotiating tactics is to increase the negotiator’s power in the bargaining environment
Other motives to behave unethically
Negotiators are more likely to see ethically ambiguous tactics as appropriate if they anticipate that the other’s expected motivation would be more competitive
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved

6. Rationalizations for Unethical Conduct
“They were going to do it anyway, so I will do it first”
“He started it”
The tactic is fair or appropriate to the situation
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved

7. When is it legal to lie in negotiation?
Fraud: Act of commission
a knowing misrepresentation of a material fact on which the victim reasonably relies and which causes damage
misrepresentation: an affirmative statement
Material fact:
Demands and reservation points are not material (so you can bluff here)
However, lying about alternatives or other offers or other buyers may be
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved

8. ©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
Reliance & Causation
The receiver must prove that he or she relied on the information and as a result harm was caused
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved

9. ©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
Acts of Omission
Will silence protect you from legal liability?
Not if;
You make a partial disclosure that would be misleading
The nondisclosing party has ‘superior information’ that is ‘vital’
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved

10. ©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
What Factors Shape a Negotiator’s Predisposition to Use Unethical Tactics?
Personality differences
Competitiveness versus cooperativeness
Machiavellianism
Some individuals are more willing and able con artists
Are more likely to lie when they need to
Better able to lie without feeling anxious about it
More persuasive and effective in their lies
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved

11. ©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved
What Factors Shape a Negotiator’s Predisposition to Use Unethical Tactics?
Personality differences (cont.)
Locus of control
The degree to which individuals believe that the outcomes they obtain are largely a result of their own ability and effort (internal control) versus fate or chance (external control)
Individuals who are high in internal control are more likely to do what they think is right
McGraw-Hill/Irwin
©2006 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., All Rights Reserved