Beyond rationality: Exploring non-rational factors in the application of ethically ambiguous negotiation tactics

Abstract: Research traditionally takes a strongly rationalistic perspective on the usage of ethically ambigu-ous negotiation tactics (EANT) by implying that negotiators primarily use these tactics as a choice of a conscious decision-making process because they anticipate gaining an advantage from them. However, doubts articulated by Rees et al. (2019) led this study to challenge this perspective and to examine the extent to which EANT may also be grounded in non-rational factors. Using the an-swers from 495 experienced practitioners, we measure EANT frequency and appropriateness using the SINS II scale and assess the factors for their application using a modified scale based on Thompson (1998). We find that 42% of the factors leading to the application of EANT are non-rational and note that this share increases as tactics are perceived as less appropriate. Additionally, we examine gender, age, negotiation experience, negotiation training, industry, and culture, as fur-ther independent variables on the share of non-rational factors in the application of EANT. We pos-it that people use EANT not only for their own benefit, but also rather as an intuitive reaction to the encountered situations. This perspective significantly influences how to deal with EANT: it is not just about resolving an ethical dilemma but also about managing encountered negotiation settings.

Keywords: negotiation ethics, behavioral ethics, bounded rationality, dual process theory, ethically ambiguous negotiation tactics, SINS II scale