In Chapter 11, we addressed lying in the context of communication. Here we return to
the topic of lying but specifically as it relates to negotiation. We think this issue is
important because, for many people, there is no such thing as lying when it comes to
negotiating.
It’s been said that the whole notion of negotiation is built on ethical quicksand: To
succeed, you must deceive. Is this true? Apparently, a lot of people think so. For
instance, one study found that 28 percent of negotiators lied about at least one issue
during negotiations, while another study found that 100 percent of negotiators either
failed to reveal a problem or actively lied about it during negotiations if they were not
directly asked about the issue. Why do you think these numbers are so high? The
research on negotiation provides numerous examples of lying giving the negotiator a
strategic advantage.
We can probably agree that bald-faced lies during negotiation are wrong. At least most
ethicists would probably agree. The universal dilemma surrounds the little lies: The
omissions, evasions, and concealments that are often necessary to best an opponent.
During negotiations, when is a lie a lie? Is exaggerating benefits, downplaying
negatives, ignoring flaws, or saying "I don’t know" when in reality you do considered
lying? Is declaring "this is my final offer and nonnegotiable" (even when you’re
posturing) a lie? Is pretending to bend over backward to make meaningful concessions
lying? Rather than being considered unethical, the use of these "lies" is considered by
many as an indicator that a negotiator is strong, smart, and savvy.
Or consider the issue of colluding, as when two bidders agree not to bid against one
another in a (concealed) effort to keep the bids down. In some cases, such collusion is
illegal, but even when it isn’t illegal, is it ethical?
QUESTION:
1. When are deceptions, evasiveness, or collusion out of bounds?
2. How would you lead a group of people who are different from you?
