Deception in Negotiations on the next page, which describes some research underlying the psychological / social reasons that explains why a negotiator might choose to deceive the other party.

œEthical Negotiating and Deception Tactics [18%] [This paper follows the lectures on Ethical Negotiating on Saturday, December 13, 2014 (Session 2)] Read the article œThe Forces Behind Deception in Negotiations on the next page, which describes some research underlying the psychological / social reasons that explains why a negotiator might choose to deceive the other party. Write a short paper (3 -5 pages, double-spaced), addressing ALL of the following points: 1. Knowledge & Comprehension: Briefly summarize the 4 factors (forces) in your own words (i.e., paraphrasing; with a few direct quotes if necessary ). Provide at least one brief example (personal or professional) for each factor (besides those cited in the article). 2. Application & Analysis : a. First, write a short case of (international ) business negotiation where at least one negotiator(s) has employed som e deception tactics (dirty tricks). (You can come up a real case, preferably, or just a mock case based on your own experience.) In this case, address the following points: i. What is the background of this negotiation? Who are the negotiating parties? What are the parties’ declared positions, their interests and their initial strategies (e.g., win -win; win-lose)? Etc. ( Note. One negotiator should be Vietnamese /Asian or with Vietnamese/Asian culture values.) ii. What negative tactics are used and by whom? What are the intentions of the negotiator when using those tactics? Are those tactics successful? How does the other party react at the time? A nd a fter the negotiation session? b. Secondly, explain why the negotiator(s) is motivated to behave unethically, using the research evidence/theory cited in the article on the next page to analyze the behavior . ( Note: Try to use as many of the 4 forces in your analysis as possible, but you are not required to use all of them.) 3. Evaluation & Reflection: Evaluat e your short case using either of Usunier & Ghauri’s ethical perspectives (i.e., cultural universalism; cultural relativism, or moral pragmatism). What recommendations do you have for each negotiating party? 2   The Forces Behind Deception in Negotiations By PON Staff on September 26th, 2013 Adapted from œWhen You’re Tempted to Deceive by Ann E. Tenbrunsel and Kristina A. Diekmann for the July 2007 issue of the Negotiation newsletter. [Source: -behind-deception -in -negotiations/] Despite your best intentions, one or more of these four forces might lead you to behave unethically during a negotiation: 1. The Lure of Temptation Whether or not negotiators lie depends in part on how lucrative the rewards are, Ann E. Tenbrunsel has found in her research. In one of her studies, participants played the role of a partner in a two -partner firm that was being dissolved. They were asked to provide œhonest estimates of the market share of their products to help determine how to divide the firm’s equity between the two partners. Some participants were told that if they were awarded the most equity, they would receive $1; others were told t hey would receive $100 in the same instance. Those promised only $1 misrepresented their honest estimates 41% of the time; by contrast, those promised $100 misrepresented their estimates 69% of the time. The higher reward provided a significant temptation to lie. Similarly, the larger the bribe, the more likely we are to take it, Harvey Hegarty of Indiana University and Henry Sims of the University of Maryland has found. Returning to our opening story, the more desirable the job, the more likely you are t o lie about having better offers. It seems our ethical standards are more fluid than we’d like to believe. 2. Uncertainty’s Attraction Uncertainty increases the likelihood that we will be unethical, Roy J. Lewicki of Ohio State University and other researchers have noted. Uncertainty about the material facts in a negotiation can inspire unethical behavior. In another study using the two -partner situation described above, Tenbrunsel led negotiators to be either fairly certain or fairly uncertain about the honest estimate of the market share of their products. Rather than providing more cautious estimates, uncertain negotiators actually provided more aggressive, less honest estimates than the more confident group. It seems that in a job negotiation, uncert ainty about the possibility of a better offer could increase the likelihood that you would falsely claim to have other offers. 3. The Power of Powerlessness œPower tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, said historian Lord Acton, yet studies show that a lack of power is more likely to lead us to behave unethically. Consider that outside alternatives to agreement are a strong source of power in negotiation (see BATNA, for more details). In their research, Tenbrunsel and David Messick of Northwestern University found that a lack of outside options increased negotiator deception. In one study, participants acted as manager negotiating with 3   pote ntial clients. When managers were told they had relatively few other potential clients, they were more likely to misrepresent information than when they were told they had plenty of potential clients. No wonder, then, that a job applicant lacking other solid offers might be tempted to claim that she has many. 4. Anonymous Victims Suppose that your job negotiation is with several people “ a recruiter, the human resources manager, the division president, and the director of sales. When negotiating with this group, you’d be more likely to lie than when negotiating with one person, research from Charles Naquin of DePaul University suggests. In one study, participants were presented with an ethical dilemma and were faced with whether to lie to their opponent. For half the participants, that opponent was an individual, and for the other half, that opponent was represented by a group of individuals. Participants with a group of opponents lied to them about the amount in the pot 73% of the time; those with individ ual opponents lied only 36% of the time. Probing further, we found that negotiators perceive interactions with groups to be less personal than interactions with individuals, a perception that they believe justifies increased unethical behavior when dealin g with groups. 5   œYour Negotiati ng Style(s) [18%] [This paper follows the lectures on œNegotiating Styles on Sunday Dec 14 (Session #3)] Respond to the negoti ation style survey in PracSol (Fig. 3.3. Personal Assessment Inventory, pp. 62 & 63) and compute your own style scores of Dodger, Dreamer, Haggler, Competitor, & Creative Problem Solver. Write a short paper (3-5 pages, double-spaced), addressing ALL of the points as follows: 1. Knowledge & Comprehension: Briefly summarize the 5 negotiating styles in your own words (i.e., paraphrasing; with a few direct quotes). 2. Application & Analysis : a. First, list your negotiation style scores, ranking them from the most predominant style (the highest score) to the least dominant style. When you compare your negotiation style scores to the average American style scores (Fig. 3.5, pp. 64), what does the comparison tell you (e.g., how similar or how different are you from Americans)? American average negotiation style scores: (approximate values; Max = 35) “ Competing: 31/35 [highest] “ Creative problem solving: 27/35 “ Dodging: 22/35 “ Haggling: 21/35 “ Dreaming: 7/35 [lowest] i. What does this ranking order mean in terms of your style preference and versatility? What does that tell you about your negotiation strengths and weaknesses? (Refer to Fig. 3.1 on pp. 57-58). ii. Have you actually acted in the way that the textbooks say people with your style(s) should act in negotiations (referring to behaviors of a certain style)? (Please give a specific negotiation example.) Why or why not? Under what circumstances would your negotiation style(s) be the most effective? b. Secondly, analyze the style of a negotiator that you have met (preferably someone from a different country/culture) based on how they act in a certain negotiation setting. (This negotiator can be somebody from your own negotiation team or from the other par ty ‘s team.) i. What do you think his/her style is? Is he/she effective in negotiation? Why or why not (referring to strengths & weaknesses of their style)? ii. If you encounter that negotiator, how did you act or how you would act? 3. Evaluation & Reflection: Evalua te the extent to which your actual negotiating style(s) is consistent with your style in theory (according to the textbooks). If there are gaps, explain why (e.g., training, culture, habits). Negotiating)Style)(Fig)3.3.)Personal)Assessment)Inventory)8)PracSol)pp.62863) Scoring)Keys œPlanning for Your Negotiation (18%) Review the following chapters: PracSol Ch.4, NegoS Ch. 10 and NegoS Ch. 11. Based on what you learned in these chapters, write a short case of a negotiation preparation that you have involved in, or may get involved in in a near future (3 -5 pages, double-spaced). Note: The case should be real (not fictitious); you are also encouraged to write a cross-border or cross -cultural negotiating case if possible . 1. Case description: What is/was the background of this negotiation (i.e., company background; negotiating parties’ positions; their interests, etc.)? 2. Application : a. If this case is in the past: i. How did you (or your company) prepare and plan for this negotiation (refer to the 6 steps of prenegotiation in the PracSol textbook, Ch.4)? ii. Now knowing the steps of negotiation planning, what would you have done differently or you would not change your planning? Why or why not? b. If this case may occur in the future: i. How will you do so (refer to the 6 steps of pre-negotiation in the PracSol textbook, Ch.4)? ii. What may be your challenges and/or advantages in carrying out those 6 steps? 3. Evaluation & Reflection: a. Evaluate the extent to which you think you the textbook recommendations can /could be applied to this case of negotiation planning. b. Reflect on the extent to which you planned for negotiations in the past (both professional and personal ). What would you do differently (or not) in th e future?