A632.4.4.RB - Deception in Negotiations

All human interactions in life are vulnerable to deception; some instances may be harmless, while others are purposefully malicious. Two types of lies include those of omission and those of commission. Lies of omission consist of a person withholding information; lies of commission, considerably more spiteful, involves a person communicating inaccurate information to their advantage.

A plethora of guarding techniques may prevent a person from falling victim to deceptions in negotiations. Before protection, however, one must be able to identify instances where lies exist using signs. These signs consist of both verbal and nonverbal forms; the majority and more useful cues are of nonverbal forms. Verbal cues to be wary of are ironic usually including words like, “honest”, “truth”, “sincerely”, “frankly”, etc. Some non-verbal cues include changes in pitch, respiration, blinking, and physical movements. Knowing these verbal and non verbal cues will assist a person to identify when a negotiation is being tainted with deception.

Another way to protect the integrity of a deal is to evaluate motivations. This principal can easily be translated to “putting yourself in another person’s shoes”. Most deals made are often beneficial to both sides of the party; it is important to realize what the opposite side of the party is gaining. When a person’s suggestion would increase the opposite party’s profit, one must be able to question the honesty of that claim.

During the process of negotiations, a person can make themselves less susceptible to deceit by establishing trust with the opposite negotiator. This technique should be done in the beginning of the deal. A statement that acknowledges both parties should come out with some profit could establish trust; assuring the opposite negotiator that he or she would not be lying or using deception would have the same effect. This strategy is very useful; nonetheless, one should be continue to search for deception cues if the opposite negotiator makes a statement mentioned.

The last, and perhaps more legally binding, method of guarding against deception is to get negotiations in a contractually binding agreement. This agreement ensures a person has evidence that the information they were given was correct; cases where the inaccurate information was used for negotiations could be fought against in the court system. Establishing a requirement of a written deal with negotiators could also prevent deception in advance.

A recent negotiation where I have overstated a claim was in my last employee performance review. When asked what kind of raise I expected for my own performance, I asked for a five dollar raise and explained what responsibilities I have taken on the last year and why I thought I deserved it. In all honesty, I did not expect to receive the full raise, I overstated the amount of raise I would require to stay with the company. In return, I actually received a six dollar raise, as shocked as I was, the overstatement of what I wanted worked out to my advantage. At this period, I would have agreed to staying with the company if they had offered a three or four dollar raise.

References

Stephen J. Hoch & Howard C. Kunreuther & Robert E. Gunther. (2001). Wharton on Making Decisions. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.