Furthermore, author accepts the complexity of exception and discusses different situation where deception can be accepted. For instance, he mentions concealment or failure to reveal as a form of acceptable behavior in some situation that involves negotiation. To my opinion, failure to reveal is not acceptable in the situation when something very important is strategically hidden from opposite side, which can completely change the direction of negotiation.
Further author discusses other unacceptable forms of influences that are broadly used in bargaining, but proofed by multiple research groups to influence human reception and decision-making skills National Center for Biotechnology Information unacceptable and shouldn’t be used in negotiation. In addition, scarcity, as a form of influence where final decision is affected by impression about the scarcity of the resource, should also be prohibited in negotiation. I believe practice of such forms of influences should be considered manipulations and unacceptable in bargaining.
The only time when such forms of influence can be acceptable is when they happen naturally, and not planned in advance as part of negotiating strategy. In addition, people should know in advance and be aware of the presence of natural forms of influences, so they can base their decisions accordingly and independently from those influences. As a result, the main point is the importance of making people aware of any forms of influence to demonstrate your respect of their right to know the most accurate information so they can make the most ethically responsible decisions as they can.
In other words, treat people the way you want to be treated. For instance, if people are made aware of incomplete information prior to agitation, then it can help them make more rational and informed decisions. Furthermore, author discusses deception about reservation prices, where deception can be more acceptable in some situations. For instance, most of the time before the negation people have firm idea of what result they expect. However, during negotiation process people can change their mind, or can be persuaded into changing their mind.
In fact, experienced negotiators can estimate many different directions the negotiation can take, and base their negotiation behavior and actions accordingly. For instance, experienced used car salesman can change the mind of the beer who is trying to negotiate the price down by explaining all great option car has, including low mileage, clear past accident report, great maintenance report. The car salesman genuinely believe into the value and quality of the product he is trying to sell, and at the same time he is trying to convince the customer that the vehicle is priced right.
As a result, the customer is convinced and agrees to buy the car for the listed price. I think this form of influence is acceptable and ethical, because salesman uses his expertise and knowledge in negotiation to convince the customer to buy the vehicle. As buyer got more information about the car of his interest, he became aware of new considerations about the value of the vehicle, and as a result he has changed his mind. I believe such form of influence is normal part of negotiation process. A common type of deception, according to the author, is vagueness or ambiguity during the negotiations.
In fact, such techniques are commonly used for indirect communication, where negotiators have limited trust for one another. According to author, these techniques are used for self-protection, where negotiators are not completely open, but not for the purposes of confusion or selfish gains. I believe in situation like this, it is acceptable to use vagueness or ambiguity during negotiations, and I wouldn’t classify it as an actual deception. However, it would be the exclusion from the rule, rather than a rule. Most of the times vagueness or ambiguity is used to mislead or confuse the negotiator.
In addition, author discusses further that trust is very important, and if there is no trust, then it is unfair to risk everything for the interest or moral rights of others. Author also puts special emphasis on the importance of fairness. Author explains that since negotiation takes place in the untrustworthy environment, fairness plays key role in building that trust ground, so both parties can further involve and participate in the equally honest negotiation. I believe honesty helps to build trust and is the most important part of an effective negotiation.