Thanks for checking back in! This week's blog post revolves around the Three Schools of Bargaining Ethics (as if you couldn't have guessed that by the title) from the NEGOTIATION Readings, Exercises and Cases 6th edition book that my class is using. This text presents three different schools of bargaining ethics and they all differ at some degree from one to the other. I will be discussing what these schools of thought are and I will be examining which school of thought, if any, that I fit best into.
1. The “It’s a Game” Poker School
The overarching concept with the Poker School of ethics is sitting right within the name itself. "It's a Game", but with certain rules. Conduct within these rules is ethical and vice versa. This school of ethics was founded in the 1960s by Albert Z. Carr, who was a former consultant for President Harry Truman. Within this school, it is argued that bargaining and poker are NOT one in the same. An integral part of this school of ethics is that "deception is essential to effectively play in both arenas".
Long story short, a good deal of shrouding the truth is involved with the Poker School of Ethics. Here's how the authors portray it:
Someone opens, and then people take turns proposing terms to each other. Arguments supporting your preferred terms are allowed. You can play or pass in each round. The goal is to get the other side to agree to terms that are as close as possible to your last proposal.
Are both sides bluffing? Maybe, maybe not.....but who knows because it's all a game! The authors then argue three potential problems with the Poker School.
A). "First, the Poker School presumes that everyone treats bargaining as a game. Unfortunately, it is an empirical fact that people disagree on this. For a start, neither the idealists nor the pragmatists (more on these next) think bargaining is a game. This problem does not deter the Poker School, which holds that the rules permit its members to play even when the other party disagrees about this premise."
B). "Second, everyone is supposed to know the rules cold. But this is impossible, given that legal rules are applied differently in different industries and regions of the world."
C). "Finally, the law is far from certain even within a single jurisdiction. So you often need a sharp lawyer to help you decide what to do."
2. The "Do the Right Thing Even If It Hurts" Idealist School
The Idealist school backs one of the 10 Commandments that states, "Thou shall not bear false witness". Hence, you should not lie. Idealists do not rule out deception entirely in a negotiation. Say for example that someone assumes you have something that you don't, but they never directly ask you about it. You are not expected to clarify the fact that they assume to be true. Idealists are allowed to decline to answer questions though, but they are usually uncomfortable moments.
The Idealist School counteracts the Poker School entirely in thinking that negotiations are a "game". To Idealists, negotiations are NOT games. Negotiations are thought of as a serious, consequential act of communication. All are responsible for their actions, with possible consequences to follow.
The BIG problem with the Idealist School is sort of obvious. Anyone who strictly follows this school and all of its practices and standards can make it difficult to proceed in a discussion. Idealists also provide the grounds to be exploited by members who do not follow the same school of ethics.
I like to think of these Idealists as Pinocchio. They cannot tell a lie, but they can still deceive in a way.
3. The "What Goes Around Comes Around" Pragmatist School
This school has some original pieces to it, but it does draw some aspects from the Idealist and Poker Schools. Deception is a necessary piece of the Pragmatist School, but it does not prefer to use misleading and overt lies if there is a practical alternative. Uniquely, Pragmatists are concerned with any potential effects on present and future relationships. Credibility is also a key aspect because both are concerned with their working relationships and protecting their reputations in a market or community.
Pragmatists will lie a bit more often than idealists will. To enlighten this topic with an example from the book, a pragmatist will use lying and deception in a specific way. For example:
A pragmatic car salesman considers it highly unethical to lie about anything large or small relating to the mechanical condition of a used car he is selling. But this same salesman might not have a problem saying “My manager won’t let me sell this car for less than $10,000” even though he knows the manager would sell the car for $9,500.
Again, long story short, Pragmatists are looser with the truth than Idealists, but consequences are in mind and reputations are at stake. Pragmatists do use a "so-called blocking technique". Which is basically stating "I don't know" to a question that you clearly know the answer to, but stating the answer won't move the negotiation in your favor. Idealists in this situation would either decline to answer the question, or try to change the topic.
Now, where do I fit in these three schools of bargaining ethics?
Well, there is what I would like to think and there is what I truly am.
What I would LIKE to think is that I'm some tough as nails negotiator who doesn't give a damn and thinks of the whole thing as a game. I don't care about my reputation or lying or anything. I can rebuild if I need to, but I don't care.
That's NOT the reality of the situation.
What I think that I am is more on the side of a Pragmatist. I'm not afraid to use the blocking technique and state "I don't know" rather than avoid the question altogether like an Idealist. I somewhat think of the negotiation as a back-and-forth game, but I value reputations and credibility. I begin with the end game in mind. What I mean by this is that I am forward-thinking in terms of future business relationships. If I know that this is a one time negotiation and I will never see this person in any desired market, then I think that I stick to my guns more as in the Poker School. Most of the time, I value the relationship that I have or that I could form with the other negotiator, so I am looser with the truth, but do not flat out lie. That's not who I am. I like to think that I do not set myself up for great exploitation. But I still have a lot of work to do as a negotiator.
Thanks for reading!
I appreciate you sticking through and reading my blog post. Hopefully I provided some sort of assistance in your personal insight into the world of negotiations!
Until next week!
No comments:
Post a Comment