People Use Different Forms Of Tactics To Negotiate A Deal And ✓ Solved

People use different forms of tactics to negotiate a deal and one of the most commonly used are the deceptive tactics. Negotiators can go to an extent where they end up deceiving others whether or not it is ethically correct. Among the tactics for deception, there are different ways one can use this during negotiation with some of these tactics being more acceptable than others. Some of the most frequently used deceptive tactics are bluffing, misrepresentation, deception, and falsification.

Bluffing is making a promise or agreement with someone with no intention of committing to it. For example, a traveling salesperson explaining the customer service clause of a service or product to a customer with the sole objective that the customer will buy the product or service but the salesperson has no intention of following up with the customer and provide satisfactory customer service. This might be a win over the short term as the salesperson was able to sell his product but in the long run, a dissatisfied customer is not beneficial as customers will never buy another product from this salesperson.

Misrepresentation is essentially hiding or not revealing the true information to the other party, which if revealed could lead to a fallout in the agreement. One classic example of misrepresentation is selling or buying items on the Facebook marketplace. You being a seller could be misrepresenting the product you are selling, calling a used item as brand new just to get rid of it. Deception is usually encountered in scenarios where false statements are fed to a person leading them to an incorrect conclusion at their end. For example, a mother telling her kid that if he/she does not go to bed on time a monster will come and devour them. Another popular means of deception is falsification, which is feeding lies or falsified information to the other person with the assumption that the information is complete and true to its core. All these above tactics are used in general as well as in a business environment which may help the negotiator win a deal in the short term but when you look at the long term results, they are detrimental.

Once the customer or the other party finds out that they have been deceived, they lose their faith and start questioning your integrity. Your reputation is marred and you are no longer a trustworthy person to do a business deal with again. They will be cautious in the future when it comes to making a future deal. Although one may argue that over the short term deceptive tactics help them win business, when it comes to the long term benefits, it is not considered a healthy practice.

The act of using deception during negotiations comes in various forms, and such forms are used more often than one may imagine. Often times one may think that such forms of deception during negotiations are only utilized during high-level discussions such as corporate or political discussions, however, deception tactics are used locally by individuals in various areas, such as shopping, personal discussions and conflict resolutions, and at the workplace.

Depending on the level of negotiations, one may be inclined to stretch the truth or avoid disclosing certain information in order to present their argument as more favorable. However, doing so may have serious implications to a vast number of people, especially if the negotiators are representing groups of people. Questions on ethics may arise depending on the situations in which deceptive tactics are used to win negotiations, and in some situations may have lasting effects on people, companies, and societies.

Positive short-term effects can be achieved if negotiators apply deceptive tactics cautiously and in ways that mitigate the avenues of detection. These are done when negotiators attempt to get an edge over their competition in order to win a deal or an offer for business, and some tactics can include omission of specific details or even emotional manipulation. However, the greater number of omissions, inconsistencies in the arguments and details, and just plain misinformation can result in the loss of trust with the negotiator which can have lasting consequences.

Parties which may have fallen for the traps of deceptive tactics may incur potential significant sunk financial costs which may be unrecoverable and damaging to individuals or businesses. The broken trust between these parties may become unrepairable and irreversible, and the damage can be long-lasting, especially so for large corporations facing public scrutiny or political parties losing significant public support.

Paper For Above Instructions

Negotiation is an integral part of everyday human interaction, particularly in a business context where it often influences outcomes significantly. Different forms of tactics are employed during negotiations, with deceptive tactics being a particular focus of scrutiny. While some may argue that such tactics yield short-term gains, the long-term implications could be detrimental to relationships and reputations.

Deceptive tactics in negotiation can manifest as bluffing, misrepresentation, deception, and falsification. Each tactic carries its own ethical considerations and impacts on trustworthiness. Bluffing, for instance, can result in a temporary win for one party, but it undermines the foundational trust necessary for future dealings (Zhang, 2015). If a salesperson misleads a consumer regarding customer service offers, the immediate sale may not compensate for the long-term damage to the salesperson’s reputation once the deception is discovered.

Similarly, misrepresentation has far-ranging consequences. A seller on a marketplace who falsely advertises an item as new may achieve a quick sale, but this misrepresentation ultimately leads to dissatisfaction. The seller risks losing future business not just from the unhappy customer but also from referrals and reviews that tarnish their reputation (Hudson, n.d.). Deception also poses ethical dilemmas, particularly when the affected individuals or groups are vast. While some negotiators may argue that deception is a strategic maneuver, the erosion of trust can have profound implications; once a negotiator's integrity is questioned, the potential for future negotiations deteriorates (Olekalns & Adair, 2013).

The ethical ramifications of deceptive tactics play a critical role in ongoing negotiations. While some negotiators might achieve immediate benefits, this approach often triggers a cycle of cynicism. When negotiating on behalf of companies or organizations, ethical lapses that are revealed can result in catastrophic losses, both financially and in public perception (Program on Negotiation, 2020). In a world where information is rapidly disseminated, a single negative incident can spiral, leading to irrevocable trust issues. Corporations engaging in deceptive practices may suffer not only from public backlash but also from internal fallout and a lack of team cohesion following such events (Buchanan & Badham, 2020).

Understanding the long-term repercussions of using deceptive tactics in negotiations is paramount. Ethical considerations should come first, especially in environments where stakeholder trust is crucial. Investments in building genuine relationships with other parties create opportunities for repeat business and long-lasting partnerships. Negotiators should prioritize transparency and honesty to cultivate a strong reputation and effective communication channels. Working collaboratively rather than adversarially can enhance outcomes for all parties involved.

Further, educating individuals on negotiation tactics can foster an understanding of how deception damages relationships. Workshops and seminars can emphasize the importance of ethics in negotiation and the potential negative outcomes of deceitful practices. Such educational efforts can bridge gaps in perception regarding negotiation tactics and enable participants to engage in more thoughtful, principled negotiations.

In conclusion, the use of deceptive tactics in negotiations may not ultimately serve the negotiator's interests in the long term. While these methods can yield short-term benefits, they invariably undermine trust and damage relationships. Individuals and organizations that prioritize honest negotiation practices will cultivate lasting relationships and ensure a sustainable approach to business interactions.

References

• Buchanan, D., & Badham, R. (2020). Power, politics, and organizational change. SAGE Publications Limited.
• Zhang, J. D., Liu, L. A., & Liu, W. (2015). Trust and deception in negotiation: Culturally divergent effects. Management and Organization Review, 11(1).
• Hudson, M. (n.d.). Dealing With Deception In Negotiations. ENS International.
• Olekalns, M., & Adair, W. L. (2013). What are the consequences of broken trust for negotiators? In M. Olekalns, & W. L. Adair, Handbook of Research on Negotiation (p. 560). Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Program on Negotiation. (2020, February 25). Negotiation Ethics: Dealing with Deception at the Bargaining Table. Retrieved from Program on Negotiation.