I
would imagine that most of us dislike being deceived. I would also imagine that
most of us would claim to not intentionally seeking out to deceive others.
However, the truth is that all of us have done it and continue to do it on a
regular basis. Bear in mind that there are ways that you can deceive others
without lying. The truth can sometimes be twisted and turned and presented in
such a way as to elicit a certain response that may be in our best interest but
not in the best interest of others. That aside, there are times when we still
intentionally deceive others. Is it moral or ethical? Earlier today I was
playing with my dog and I had his favorite squeaky toy. I would squeak it and
hide it under a pillow so he couldn’t see it but would run around looking for
it. I was intentionally deceptive and there was nothing morally or ethically
wrong with what I was doing. But what about when it comes to professional
negotiations? That is something that we all have to do in life and business
contracts are surely a little more consequential than teasing your dog.
There
is no defense for blatantly lying. However, it is not truly possible to set a
professional adhere to a standard of being perfectly and fully truthful
(without any omission) (Hoch, Kunreuther, & Gunther, 2001). “Negotiators
who honestly represent their bottom line or correct every mistaken impression
their counterparts have, are likely to find themselves seriously disadvantaged”
(p. 198). So on one hand we have morality and ethics that prevent us from lying
yet full honesty is most likely not an option, either. Think of the sell of a
vehicle. That is something that most of us have experienced and we can probably
all relate to it. He (or she) may be aware that a competitor has a model better
suited to your needs or perhaps receives a higher commission by selling one
model over another. The salesman may highlight or even exaggerate features to
appeal to you. Suppose you have expressed a need for efficient fuel
consumption. Model A may receive 22.6 MPG and Model B is 23.4 MPG but the
salesman will receive a higher commission for Model A. He may say, “Well, Model
A gets nearly 25 MPG but model B only is rated and 23 MPG”. This is not a lie.
22.6 is almost 25 and 23.4 does round down to 23.
When
we enter into a negotiation, we need to evaluate the information such as claims
and terms to ensure that we are not being deceived. There are people that
specialize in lie detection through methods such as spotting body language and
eye movement but this is the information age. Not all terms are negotiated in
face to face contact anymore. Even in face to face interactions, though, what if
you misread body language? We are not psychoanalysts so let’s focus on some
areas that we can control.
I
was researching some negotiation methods and came across an article in the American Journal of Trial Advocay that
was about methods that trial attorneys can use to successfully detect deception
during the Voir dire process (DeWitt, 2015). In some ways, the Voir dire is
much like selling a product and the attorney is similar to a salesman so the
attorney must be keen on spotting deception. “The most vexing problem for any
trial attorney is knowing whether the jurors are being honest when disclosing
the answer about their attitudes, biases, and life experiences” (p. 29). One of
the regular readers of this blog is a trial attorney so can probably attest to
this. Prospective jurors often want to be selected for a case and will say just
about anything to make it happen. The article begins with one such example
where a juror is watching the process happen over and over all day. He is
interviewed much later in the day and has learned that certain prejudices are
discovered in the way that people are answering so answers the questions in a
neutral manner. Even though the idea is to train attorneys to spot deception,
the juror in the article also learned how to spot deception by observing the
process in others over and over. When we enter into any negotiation, that is
probably the first thing that we should do, too. We need to be like the
deceptive juror and observe how others have handled the same process. By paying
attention to what we see and hear, we will be able to notice trends in the
process and avoid making the same mistakes as others.
Often,
deception is unintentional. Perhaps something is vague or not explained well.
Whether deception is intentional or unintentional, one way to identify it is to
be direct. In the same article, DeWitt (2015) admonishes attorneys to “identify
problems with a juror’s attitude using proper
questions,
qualify them with specific questions about their beliefs and dispositions” (p.
31). Direct and specific questions should result in direct and specific
answers. This was a technique also suggested in our assigned reading for the
week. “One study found that subjects were significantly less likely to lie when
asked a direct question” (Hoch, Kenreuther, & Gunther, 2001, p. 197). Using
the citation in the text, I tried to search for the study which is referenced.
Unfortunately, with as amazing as our library is, it is not all-encompassing
and I was unable to review the study but the data is still documented showing
that when direct and specific questions were asked, lies by omission dropped
from 75% to 0%. In the negotiation process, if you are not sure about any
aspect of it at all, just ask. If someone is intentionally deceiving you, they
may still lie through commission but this method at least alleviates omission
of needed information.
Another
method that we must employ to detect deception is context analysis. I used to
live in the Biloxi, MS area and we had 18 casinos down there. When we would go
to the casinos, there were an awful lot of people that were toting around tanks
of pure oxygen with them to breathe as they played their slots. When I lived
there, I completed my SCUBA training and received my Advanced Open Water
certification. It’s a little interesting to think that if I took that same tank
of oxygen that the casino patrons had and dove down to about 20’ that it would kill
me within just a couple of minutes. You see, what is true in one case may not
hold the same truth or value in another case so we have to be able to properly
analyze context. “Negotiations always exist in a speciļ¬c context, and
understanding that context is essential to understanding the fundamental nature
of that negotiation” (Crump, 2015, p. 139). As negotiators, we have to seek
clarity about both the general and specific context of terms and conditions.
For example, suppose you are entering a negotiation about an international
trade. In order to understand the terms, you would have to understand the
context in which they are being used. If you do not understand Foreign Trade
Zones, international business policies, tax policies, etc, the terms of the
deal would be irrelevant to your understanding so spotting deception would be
highly unlikely.
The
fourth method that I discovered is essential to detecting deception in a
negotiation is time management. “Time pressures increase a negotiator’s
perception of risk in two ways: by speeding the process and forcing a decision”
(Druckman, 2009, p. 439). Clearly we cannot always control the time table for a
negotiation but what we can do is manage the time that we do have. If the
process is moving too quickly, we don’t have the time necessary to analyze the
situation. Though it may not be possible to slow the process, at least having
the awareness of the pressures can be beneficial. If things are moving too
quickly, perhaps you can ask to adjust the timeline or, if that is not a
possibility, at least understand the difficulties of the time constraints and
prioritize how you spend your time clarifying and evaluating the negotiation. This
is a technique that we utilize within my job. I am proud to say that we, as
Army recruiters, are heavily vetted and hold a position of public trust and are
therefore held to an extremely high moral and ethical standard. That was not
always the case in the past, as you may have heard, but we cannot lie to our
applicants and we have an obligation to fully disclose all relevant
information. We therefore must rely on methods other than direct deception to
entire our applicants to sign contracts with us. By rushing the process, we are
able to energize and excite our applicants and we do pressure them to sign a
contract before that initial excitement wears off. We understand that there is
a lot to know about a career in the Army but if we can get the applicant to
sign a contract and ship within a month, there is minimal risk that the
applicant will fail to ship. My goal is to process applicants within two weeks
of their commitment to join the Army and have them ship to Basic Training within
two months. Is this deceptive on our parts? Perhaps a little because we know
that they perhaps didn’t have the time to explore all other options. (However,
I do believe that the Army is the best choice for most of the people that walk
through our door.) However, it is neither immoral nor unethical. That is about
as far as I would be willing to engage in any form of deception in this
position.
Before
I close for the week, I want to highlight an instance where I was deceived. I
have been debating on whether or not to put this in my blog as I don’t want to
further damage a good organization but it is also important to highlight that
deception can happen on a large scale as well. In the recent past, I have
donated a significant amount of money to the Wounded Warrior Project as it is
something that is very personal to me. You are probably well aware of the
scandal that surrounded some of the top executives in the company. The thing is
that they indirectly disclosed how little of the money donated was going to the
actual cause of benefiting wounded warriors but, at the same time, they went to
great lengths to conceal the information (or at least make it difficult to
find). Being deceived like that is an emotional experience to say the least. I
am grateful, however, that the scandal was brought to light and the
organization is restructured and is doing wonderful work again.
Crump,
L. (2015). Analyzing complex negotiations. Negotiation Journal, 31(2), 131-153.
doi:10.1111/nejo.12086
DeWitt,
A. L. (2015). Detecting deception during voir dire. American Journal of Trial Advocacy,
39(1),
25.
Druckman,
D. (2009). Intuition or counterintuition? The science behind the art of
negotiation.
Negotiation Journal,
25(4), 431-448. doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00237.x
Hoch,
S. J., Kunreuther, H., & Gunther, R. E. (2001). Wharton on making decisions. New York: Wiley.
No comments:
Post a Comment