Ethics In Negotiation Consider The Scenario Presented On Pag ✓ Solved

Ethics In Negotiation Consider the scenario presented on page 171

Consider the scenario presented on page 171 of your textbook: You are a vice president of human resources, negotiating with a union representative for a new labor contract. The union refuses to sign a new contract unless the company agrees to raise the number of paid holidays from six to seven. Management estimates it will cost approximately $220,000 for each paid holiday, and argues that the company cannot afford to meet the demand. However, you know that, in reality, money is not the issue – the company simply doesn’t think the union's demand is justified. To convince the union leaders that they should withdraw their demand, you have been considering these alternatives: (a) tell the union that the company simply can’t afford it, without further explanation; (b) prepare erroneous financial statements that show that it will cost about $300,000 per paid holiday, which you simply can’t afford; and (c) offer union leaders an all-expenses-paid “working” trip to a Florida resort if they will simply drop the demand.

Employing one of the four approaches to ethical reasoning presented in the text, justify or criticize each of the three alternatives.

Paper For Above Instructions

Negotiation is a critical aspect of business operations, particularly in labor relations where human resources professionals must balance the interests of the organization with the rights and expectations of employees. The negotiation described in the scenario presents a dilemma involving ethical reasoning. The choices include telling the union that the company cannot afford the holiday, fabricating financial statements, or offering an incentive for the union to withdraw its demand. Each of these alternatives raises significant ethical questions that can be assessed using different approaches to ethical reasoning.

Overview of Ethical Reasoning Approaches

In evaluating the three alternatives, we can employ either utilitarianism, deontological ethics, or virtue ethics. Utilitarianism assesses the consequences of actions and aims to maximize overall happiness. Deontological ethics focuses on duty and adherence to rules. Virtue ethics emphasizes character and the moral integrity of the individual.

Option A: Tell the Union the Company Cannot Afford It

This option involves communicating to the union that the company cannot afford the additional holiday without providing further clarification. From a utilitarian perspective, this could be viewed as an attempt to minimize conflict and maintain organizational stability. However, it is also misleading, as it conveys a false sense of financial constraints where none exists. This approach may undermine trust between the management and the union. If the union discovers the truth later, it can lead to greater dissatisfaction and damaged relationships, essentially working against the idea of maximizing overall happiness.

From a deontological standpoint, this approach could be criticized because it involves withholding the truth. The ethical duty to be honest and transparent is violated, which may lead to more significant breaches of trust in future negotiations. Furthermore, virtue ethics would deem this option problematic because it does not reflect the character of integrity that a vice president of human resources should embody.

Option B: Prepare Erroneous Financial Statements

This alternative involves creating and presenting false financial documents to justify the refusal to meet the union's demand. This choice can be argued against categorically. From a utilitarian lens, while it might achieve a short-term victory for the organization by discouraging the union from pursuing the demand, it is likely to cause long-term damage to the company's reputation. The risk of exposure and subsequent legal implications could outweigh any immediate benefits.

Examined under deontological ethics, this option is unequivocally unethical. Deliberately falsifying information constitutes a breach of moral duty not only to the union but also to the company and its stakeholders. Formulating inaccurate statements violates principles of honesty and accountability that are essential in professional ethics. From the virtue ethics perspective, engaging in dishonest behavior reflects a lack of integrity and character, traits that are undesirable in a negotiator or leader.

Option C: Offer an All-Expenses-Paid Trip

Offering an incentive, such as an all-expenses-paid trip to Florida, presents a different ethical dilemma. On the surface, this option might seem advantageous since it could potentially satisfy the union leaders and lead to a swift resolution. From a utilitarian standpoint, this approach could be seen as maximizing happiness by offering something of value in exchange for dropping the demand. However, this may also lead to questions about the ethicality of using a personal reward to gain compliance. It can be perceived as a form of bribery that could damage the integrity of future negotiations.

In terms of deontological ethics, offering a trip might be viewed as ethically ambiguous, depending on how it is framed and received. If it is seen as a mere ploy for compliance, then it compromises moral duties to engage fairly and openly. However, if presented transparently as a goodwill gesture, it could potentially align with both ethical duties and the pursuit of mutually beneficial outcomes.

Virtue ethics would suggest that while the trip may foster a favorable outcome, the act of leveraging personal incentives can reflect poorly on an individual's character. Leaders should seek to negotiate based on reasoned discussions rather than transactional offerings.

Conclusion

Upon evaluating each alternative using multiple ethical frameworks, it is clear that options A and B pose significant ethical concerns. Both fall short of the principles of honesty and integrity essential in negotiations. Option C, while more ethically flexible, also presents challenges regarding the ethics of negotiation practices. Ultimately, a more ethical approach would entail engaging in open dialogue with the union and presenting a well-reasoned explanation as to why the demand for an additional holiday cannot be met, fostering an environment of collaboration rather than manipulation.

References

• Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2011). Essentials of Negotiation (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Paley, J. (2016). Ethics in Negotiation: A Framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(4), 589-599.
• Rahim, M. A. (2017). Managing Conflict in Organizations. Transaction Publishers.
• Fisher, R., Ury, W. L., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books.
• Thompson, L. (2013). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. Pearson Education.
• Ury, W. (1991). Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People. Bantam Books.
• Shell, G. R. (2006). Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People. Penguin Group.
• Kolb, D. M., & Williams, J. (2003). The Shadow Negotiation: How Women Can Master the Hidden Agendas That Determine Bargaining Success. Scribner.
• Camerer, C. F. (2003). Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments in Strategic Interaction. Princeton University Press.
• Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (2006). 3D Negotiation: Powerful Tools to Change the Game in Your Most Important Deals. Harvard Business Review Press.