Unlike flat-footed lies, which mislead by misinforming, deceptions mislead by causing the target to mis-think. Artful deceptions insert data into — or trigger reactions within — the minds of their targets, to cause them to make incorrect inferences or conclusions favorable to the deceivers.
To evaluate the ethics of deception, we must understand the situational context. For example, the nurse about to draw blood from a four-year-old boy might say, "This will pinch a little, but you're a big boy, right?" It's a deception, but few would call it unethical.
Ethical or not, most would agree that negotiations are fairest to all, and best for the represented organizations, when the process is free of deception. Recognizing deceptive techniques is often all that's needed to defeat them. Once we're aware of a particular deception, it loses much of its power.
Here's Part I of a little catalog of deceptive negotiation techniques, emphasizing persuasion. Part II focuses on deceptive techniques for drafting agreements. In what follows, Donald is the Deceptive partner, and the Other partner is Olivia.
- Painting over rust
- Olivia voices concern about part of the proposed agreement, noting that it's unfair in certain specific circumstances. In response, Donald explains the (supposed) intent of the language, and notes that it is benign in other circumstances. He suggests that Olivia is being unreasonable or insulting for even considering the issue she identified.
- This is an attempt to make Olivia doubt her own reasonableness and generosity of spirit, or to make her believe that she is excessively fearful or suspicious. Donald is using shame to cause Olivia to abandon caution.
- Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain
- In response to Olivia's expressed concern, Donald offhandedly says, "Oh, that's just our standard language."
- Here Donald seeks to mollify Olivia not by addressing her concern, but by asserting, "we always do this." He wants to create a sense that "authorities" have approved the language, that it's legitimate and benign, and that it cannot be changed.
- You're the first to object
- Olivia expresses a concern, to which Donald replies, "Everyone else we've worked with has always agreed to this language."
- Instead of addressing the objection, Donald seeks to coerce Olivia by exploiting her desire to affiliate with a respected group, and her desire not to be viewed as difficult.Most would agree that
negotiations are fairest
to all when the process
is free of deception
- As the pair invests more time in the negotiation, Donald can use threats to limit Olivia's objections. When she objects to conditions Donald recently added to the agreement, he might fault her for raising the issue "at this late date," asking whether she wants to be known as someone who "negotiates in this manner."
- Intimidation is especially effective, because Donald need not deal with issues he can prevent Olivia from raising. In this example, Donald threatens Olivia's reputation, but threats of any kind can work.
Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info
Your comments are welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenwtusqjrQFAIuBJzdner@ChacxYDRPzFFwyQJjQVtoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
About Point Lookout
Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.
Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.
Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.
More articles on Ethics at Work:
- Your Wisdom Box
- When we make a difficult decision, we sometimes know we've made the wrong choice, even before the consequences
become obvious. At other times, we can be absolutely certain that we've done right, even in the face
of inadequate information. When we have these feelings, we're in touch with our inner wisdom. It's a
- It Might Be Legal, but It's Unethical
- Now that CEOs will be held personally accountable for statements they make about their organizations,
we can all expect to be held to higher standards of professional ethics. Some professions have formal
codes of ethics, but most don't. What ethical principles guide you?
- When Others Curry Favor
- When peers curry favor with the boss, many of us feel contempt, an urge for revenge, anger, or worse.
Trying to stop those who curry favor probably isn't an effective strategy. What is?
- Managing Personal Risk Management
- When we bias organizational decisions to manage our personal risks, we're sometimes acting ethically
— and sometimes not. What can we do to limit personal risk management?
- On the Appearance of Impropriety
- Avoiding the appearance of impropriety is a frequent basis of business decisions. What does this mean,
what are the consequences of such avoiding, and when is it an appropriate choice?
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming December 19: Embarrassment, Shame, and Guilt at Work: Creation
- Three feelings are often confused with each other: embarrassment, shame, and guilt. To understand how to cope with these feelings, begin by understanding what different kinds of situations we use when we create these feelings. Available here and by RSS on December 19.
- And on December 26: Embarrassment, Shame, and Guilt at Work: Coping
- Coping effectively with feelings of embarrassment, shame, or guilt is the path to recovering a sense of balance that's the foundation of clear thinking. And thinking clearly at work is important if you want to avoid feeling embarrassment, shame, or guilt. Available here and by RSS on December 26.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenvClwxIOsBZUdTqBUner@ChacUXvkgTtvPUxLMLqFoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.
Get the ebook!
Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:
- Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, USD 11.95)
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, USD 28.99)
Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
- Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
Beware any resource that speaks of "winning" at workplace politics or "defeating" it. You can benefit or not, but there is no score-keeping, and it isn't a game.