Honesty in Negotiations (Essay Sample)

HONESTY IN NEGOTIATIONS
Author:
Date of Submission:
It is a common ethical belief that honesty should always remain unconditional and any good participant in a given negotiation must resist the temptation to engage in dishonest practices. This should apply even in instances when one is dealing with someone whose honesty remains questionable. According to Chris Provis in Honesty in Negotiation, a warning given to the negotiation partner to the effect that their information appears incomplete is just one scenario of the sort of thing that may be deemed appropriate during negotiation.
When one person is aware that the decision of their negotiation partner may proceed from factors that may influence it unreasonably, then that person has a duty to inform their partner to deal with that decision. These obligations serve to reiterate that people harbor a desire to live in a society of self-directed individuals who endeavor to make reasonable and informed decisions. The author seems to suggest that deception can take part consciously or unconsciously during a negotiation process depending on the virtues exhibited by the negotiating partners. The reason deception may persist in a negotiation in an unconscious way is because the meanings of people’s utterances in some contexts may be construed in a non-standard way. The perception that utterances made during a negotiation may have non-standard meanings arise from the fact that agreement is usually reached through a process of concession exchange.
When deception arises in a conscious way during negotiations, it is mainly because individuals tend to ignore the contemporary advice for them to re-assess and clarify their preferences and desires. In this regard, negotiations provide a similar setting within which people usually feel some tension between self-interest and ethics. In particular, people often face temptations to deceive their partner with the prospects of influencing the outcome in their favor.
The author believes that for deception to take place, the deceived party must be seen to be aware that their partner is concealing some factual information, with or without which, the outcome of the negotiation could take by a significant margin. It is plausible from the author’s assertions that deception is characterized by some form of indirect communication in which information is not provided in a manner that would be expected in a conversation where loyalty and trust are the building blocks. Thus, ambiguity can only be eliminated in a negotiation environment in which individuals remain sensitive to a variety of factors concerning any utterance, such as tone, context, and syntax.
From the author’s perception of deception in negotiation, it is apparent that the core problem about applying a general assumption of deception is that individuals risk harming their innocent partners. The author recognizes that during the evaluation of deception, it is crucial to take account of the person to whom the deception is directed. This is because parties usually differ in their sophistication and understanding.
Even though few people will admit to it, there is little doubt the deception serves an active role in the mediation between two sides and their interaction with the mediator. This is because every person wishes to leave the negotiation platform with a firm belief that they have obtained the best results. It is this desire to get the most favorable outcome that necessitates the need for some form of deceit. Even as the author argues that deception should not be considered a normal concept in any negotiation platform, it is important to note that negotiations are based on some form of information dependence. This means that partners in a negotiation are often forced to rely on the claims and information that is provided by their counterparts in order for them to strike an agreement. The author remains adamant that being truthful should not be viewed as merely a matter of moral character, but as a matter of correct appre...