AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightThen we will examine some aspects of the attribution process enabling participants to make causal explanations about unethical practices in order to uncover new hypotheses for experimental research.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
As a purely human activity used in order to solve conflicts or in a more positive way, to build projects, negotiation is a complex interaction involving participants with different visions of what is or should be a proper one. While in practice negotiation is always a mix of cooperation and competition, these two elements correspond to different approaches of the relationship and also different orientations in term of strategy, techniques, tactics and arguments employed by the negotiators with related effects and in the end leading to different outcomes. The levels of honesty, trust and therefore cooperation are influenced by many factors like the uncertainty of the situation, the objectives, stakes and interests, the level of power, the negotiator's personality and also by the orientation given from the very beginning of the relationship. Negotiation poses ethical problems on the simple fact that each party tries to get the other party to do something in its own interest; The use of a specific tactic depends on each negotiator's perception of the ethical appropriateness of it. Most of the negotiators have a tendency to complain about the unethical aspects of the tactics used by their counterparts while, at the same time, they are mostly unaware of the sources of influence of their own vision of negotiation and practices. The legitimacy of the use of deception, lies or even threats during the process has been widely discussed and remains the source of many debates. These choices can sometimes be in opposition with the negotiator's initial representation of what should be the interaction, based on his own values, beliefs that are usually expressed in society. Are people always acting in negotiation like they do in a non conflicting situation? Could the willingness to succeed justify any means? What are the reasons or the causes of their behavior in this specific situation? In other words can unethical practices always be attributed to personal characteristics (internal causes) or also be justified by the requirements of the situation (external causes)? While reason explanations refer to intentional behaviour, causes explanations refer to unintentional behaviour. But how could negotiators be unintentionally unethical in their practices? Drawing on concepts from several disciplines, our first intention in this paper is to clarify the sources of influence leading negotiators to unethical practices in opposition sometimes with their vision of the relationship. Then we will examine some aspects of the attribution process enabling participants to make causal explanations about unethical practices in order to uncover new hypotheses for experimental research.