Read The Withholding Information Case On Pages 193–194 ✓ Solved

Read The Withholding Information Case On Pages 193 194 And Address The

Read the Withholding Information Case on pages 193-194 and address the following: Identify ethical systems that may guide the parties to a negotiation. Determine the substantive fairness of the negotiation. Ensure the procedural fairness of the negotiation. Distinguish between concealment behaviors in negotiations that are ethical and those that are unethical among the parties in the negotiation. Describe how the parties can learn to create trust in a one-shot negotiation and in a long-term negotiation relationship.

The Withholding Information Case paper: Must be four to five double-spaced pages in length (not including title and references pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. Must include a separate title page with the following: Title of paper, Student’s name, Course name and number, Instructor’s name, Date submitted. Must use at least three to four scholarly sources in addition to the course text. The Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for this assignment. Must document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. Must include a separate references page that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. Carefully review the Grading Rubric for the criteria that will be used to evaluate your assignment.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Negotiation is a fundamental aspect of business and interpersonal relationships, often involving complex ethical considerations. The case involving withholding information, as discussed on pages 193-194, provides a pertinent context for exploring these ethical dimensions. This paper aims to analyze the case through various ethical lenses, assess fairness in the negotiation process, distinguish between ethical and unethical concealment behaviors, and propose strategies for building trust in both short-term and long-term negotiations.

Ethical Systems Guiding Negotiation

Understanding the ethical frameworks that influence negotiators is essential. Deontological ethics, emphasizing duty and adherence to moral rules, suggest that honesty is a moral obligation regardless of consequences (Kant, 1785/2013). Conversely, consequentialism or utilitarianism advocates for actions that maximize overall benefit, which may justify withholding information if it leads to a better outcome for all parties (Mill, 1863/2008). Virtue ethics, focusing on moral character, encourages honesty and integrity as virtues that inherently guide ethical negotiation behaviors (Aristotle, 4th century BCE).

In the context of the case, parties may be influenced by a mix of these ethical systems. For example, a negotiator guided by duty may oppose withholding information due to the moral obligation of truthfulness. In contrast, a utilitarian approach might justify withholding if it results in a more favorable outcome for their side, provided it does not cause harm to the other party.

Substantive and Procedural Fairness in Negotiation

Substantive fairness pertains to the fairness of the negotiated outcomes, including the equitable distribution of benefits and burdens, and whether the agreement aligns with justice principles (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). In the case, substantive fairness would evaluate if the negotiated terms are justifiable and equitable to all parties involved.

Procedural fairness involves the fairness of the negotiation process itself, including transparency, opportunity to be heard, and consistent application of rules (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Ensuring procedural fairness entails that both parties have equal bargaining power, access to relevant information, and are treated with respect and honesty during negotiations.

In the case, if one party withholds material information, it compromises procedural fairness, undermining the legitimacy of the process. Transparency and disclosure are critical for maintaining procedural integrity and fostering trust.

Ethical and Unethical Concealment Behaviors

Concealment behaviors in negotiations can be viewed as ethically justifiable or unjustifiable based on intent and context. Ethical concealment occurs when withholding information serves to protect privacy, prevent harm, or is part of strategic negotiation within established ethical boundaries (Shell, 2006). For example, not revealing proprietary information to protect a competitive advantage may be ethically permissible.

Unethical concealment, on the other hand, involves deception, misrepresentation, or withholding information to manipulate or deceive the other party for personal gain (Fisher & Ury, 1981). Such behaviors erode trust and undermine the integrity of the negotiation process.

Distinguishing between these behaviors requires assessing motives, whether the concealment is strategic and necessary or deceptive and harmful.

Building Trust in Negotiations

Trust is fundamental for successful negotiations, whether in one-shot negotiations or ongoing relationships. In one-shot negotiations, trust can be fostered through honest communication, consistent behavior, and establishing credibility (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). Demonstrating reliability and honoring commitments, even in brief interactions, helps build a foundation of trust.

In long-term relationships, trust is cultivated through ongoing transparency, mutual respect, and fairness (Dyer & Chu, 2003). Effective communication, active listening, and reciprocation of trust further reinforce positive relationships.

Parties can learn to create trust by adhering to ethical standards, practicing openness, and engaging in empathetic understanding. Recognizing the interests and concerns of the other party fosters collaboration and reduces the likelihood of deception or concealment.

Conclusion

The case involving withholding information underscores the importance of ethical considerations in negotiation. Understanding guiding ethical systems, ensuring fairness, and distinguishing between ethical and unethical behaviors are crucial for maintaining integrity. Building trust, whether in short-term or long-term relationships, requires transparency, honesty, and consistent ethical conduct. By adhering to these principles, negotiators can foster sustainable and mutually beneficial agreements.

References

1. Aristotle. (4th century BCE). Nicomachean Ethics. (W. D. Ross, Trans.).
2. Dyer, J. H., & Chu, W. (2003). The role of trustworthiness in reducing transaction costs and improving performance: Empirical evidence from the U.S. and China. Organization Science, 14(1), 57–68.
3. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational Justice and Fairness in the Workplace. Sage Publications.
4. Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin Books.
5. Kant, I. (2013). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, Ed.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785)
6. Lewicki, R. J., & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research (pp. 114–139). Sage Publications.
7. Mill, J. S. (2008). Utilitarianism. Brighton: The Summa Publishing. (Original work published 1863)
8. Shell, G. R. (2006). Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People. Penguin Books.
9. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.