Everyone enters into a negotiation with the intent to be honest. But- ay- that is the “rub”. One party’s (“Jane”) definition of “honesty” may be different than the other party’s (“Mary”).

Why? Research has shown that one’s honesty will vary with the environment. As a March 25, 2015 blog post on the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School website explains, “…personal standards for negotiation ethics often vary depending on the context.” (“Negotiation Ethics May Be a Slippery Slope.”). Thus, Jane will try to tell the truth unless and until she believes Mary is lying to her. Then, her own standards of “honesty” will change.

According to this blog post, researchers Simone Moran of Ben-Gurion University and Maurice E. Schweitzer of the University of Pennsylvania found that “…simply envying someone can lead you to be deceitful.” (Id.) To determine this, the researchers conducted the following experiment:

In one study, Moran and Schweitzer asked participants to imagine that they had competed with another person for a promotion and lost. The participants then negotiated either with the person who beat them or with another individual. Those who negotiated with someone whom they imagined had just beaten them were more willing to engage in deception in negotiation [footnote omitted] as measured on a scale developed by Rob Robinson of the University of Hawaii and Roy Lewicki of Ohio State University. The authors attribute this willingness to engage in deception to the envy experienced as a result of losing the competition for the promotion. (Id.)

From this and other experiments, the researchers concluded:

These studies suggest the pliability of negotiation ethics. Many of us may unknowingly adjust our ethical standards based on the negotiation context. In addition, it appears that we can anticipate a decrease in ethics in negotiation [footnote omitted] by others who have recently suffered a defeat. (Id.)

Read original article


Tags: