Resolving Conflicts over Ethical Issues: Face-to-Face versus Internet Negotiations

Author(s): Robert van Es, Warren French and Felix Stellmaszek

Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 53, No. 1/2, Building Ethical Institutions for
Business: Sixteenth Annual Conference of the European Business Ethics Network (EBEN)
(Aug., 2004), pp. 165-172
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25123290 .
Accessed: 23/06/2014 12:23
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:23:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Issues:

over Ethical

Conflicts

Resolving

Internet

Versus

Face-to-face

Is the

use when
sues

on

focuses

to

The

component

of

negotiation

has

Important

reflection
when

qualities

on

reported
face-to-face

discourse
ethics.
applied
serious
restrictions,

It enhances

qualities.

over

research

and

this

paper
as a

negotiations

internet

Although
it also has

KEY

moral

WORDS:

to-face

and

Internet

negotiations,

a begrudged

face

ethics,

negotiation

dialogue,

allure

universalism,

negotiations,

and

ethics

have
for
time do businesspeople
to
ethical
resolutions
thoughtful
problems? Meeting
or client to
a supplier, colleague
with
face-to-face
a
the
block of time
resolve an ethical issue takes
span of which

van Es

University
Culture

Warren

not

is usually

is Lecturer

known

ahead

in Organizational

research

of

the

at

Philosophy

and Consultant

of Amsterdam,
His
and Ethics.

the

in Organizational

area

is negotiating

ethics

cultures.

French

at the
Terry

is the I.W.
School?

Cousins

University

Professor

of Business

of Georgia.

He

Ethics

also serves as

a visitingfaculty member at theUniversity ofLyon III where

he

teaches

lution

business

through

ethics. His

discourse

research

is

Cand.rer.pol.
He
has worked

Nurnberg.
and for Accenture.

^*
P*

area

is conflict

to Drake's

argument.

at

at theUniversity of Georgia

the University
as a consultant

of Erlangen
both for

derivative

ethics
French et al. (2002) investigated negotiation
as a component
ethics. They
of applied discourse
is not
of shared values
found
that the expression
of
sufficient to resolve ethical conflicts. Resolutions
conflicts over ethical issues are produced by amutual
negotiation
refraining process during constructivist
with
little attention explicitly paid to shared values.
Schwartz
that people do
(1996) presents evidence
on
reorder priorities among their values, dependent
the situations, which
they face. He has found reor
to be most
between
situations
likely in the
dering
form of shifting from one value to a compatible value.
refers to values within
the same cate
Compatibility
a
to another
to
lesser
dimension
extent,
and,
gorical

reso

ethics.

Felix Stellmaszek earned anMBA

and

the Internet. Certainly,

time to
trade, when making
one has an ethical problem
is
an
a
scarce
is
there
of
resource,

is
arising from the discourse. The assumption made
their
values
that negotiators will discover
(reorder)
during the course of the moral dialogue.

values

reordering

much

across

use

over

to the values
relates
question
an
Habermas
ethical
(1979)
argument.
underpinning
has claimed the most
successful moral dialogues will
based on shared values
result in a new position
A

Negotiating

Robert

et al. (2000)
this in mind Drake
discussion. With
that infor
argument
present a thought provoking
can
a
to
facilitate
mation
way
go
long
technology
in business. Grounding
their argu
moral dialogues

conducted
negotiation
in an era of globalized
meet
those with whom

delicate

benevolence

How

French

on the theory of moral discourse presented by

of ethical
benefits
Habermas,
they list potential

issues.

ethical

Warren

ment

specific
emotion.

down

plays

is

ethical

in

complex

handling

to

medium

appropriate
conflicts

resolve

versus

internet

an

Internet

attempting

in business?

van Es

Felix Stellmaszek

Negotiations

ABSTPJVCT.

Robert

Porsche

categorical
dimension
Schwartz

is close to the original

dimension, which
his graphical
under
scheme. What
did not investigate iswhether
people reor
any one situation in the process
or constructivist
negotiation.

der their values within

of moral

dialogue

Journal of Business Ethics 53: 165-172,2004.

? 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in theNetherlands.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:23:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

van Es et al.

166Robert
in the work

Grounded

of Drake, French, Haber

the following
research proposi
tions are posited. While
Drake et al. (2000) pose an
and effec
theory about the efficiency
interesting

in these two
used
argumentation
was
negotiations
analyzed using Schwartz's
cation for values as well as Brown's
(1996)

over the Internet; does

dialogue
further data support their theory? Our first proposi
a business
issue
tion is "Negotiations
concerning

contains

mas

and Schwartz

of moral

tiveness

with

ternet, will

ramifications,
a greater percentage

than

Past

those

research
are

not

face business

conducted

by Van
up

brought

Our

more

extent

in

will

proposition
in Internet
of values

business

face-to-face

4.

"Resolutions
ethical

a business

ramifications

will

be based more

rather

than

on

values

patible

over

Research

Brown's

of

under

grouped

from
The

over

plant open or shut it down. Then 40

subjects, split into 20 pairs based on their decisions
the case over the Internet.
about the case, negotiated
to 20 pairs,
40
also
Another
assigned
subjects,
a chemical

Each

of

the

between

samples

are

modest

strong homogeneity;
research are primarily
ristic insights.

in

numbers

therefore

the

to be regarded

and

show

results
as good

of

to

assigned
countries,

on

located

countries

these

within

six

values,
countries

to which
It is the degree
that is of interest in this

people.

they shift within

people
research. To this end two judges jointly coded paper
that
20 Internet negotiations
copy transcripts ofthe
on a restricted access discussion
had been conducted
board.
taped,

same judges

The

face-to-face

were

coding
detailed work

then

coded

by
of both Brown

over

Disagreements

negotiations.

reconciled

the 20 audio
back

referring
and Schwartz.

to

the

sub

a university
degree
and had been in the work place before returning to a
business
training.
university
setting for advanced
Our

40

priorities

differ

however,

case with
strong ethical ramifications was
to investigate the three research propositions
1). This case was analyzed by a large
(see Appendix
? to
set of subjects who made a binary choice
either

(see Table I for a listing of these

for his claim is a set of data

to change
basis

continents.

and

conservation

self-enhancement,

gathered

he labels self

which

four dimensions,

The

values).

created

de

text.

(1990) earlier
in turn, claims that a set of
(1996),
universal values exists in cultures around the world.
He further claims that there are 10 such values,

openness

A business

is

process

adaptation

in Brown's

Schwartz

transcendence,

com

This

process.

in detail

scribed

method

the case face-to-face.

negotiated
U.S.
all
citizens, possessed
jects,

scheme comes
for his coding
the argumentation
model

justification

and even within

keep

express

attitudes.

his

mentation

issue with
on

that

adaptation
(1957). He
posited by Toulmin
adapts Toulmin's
to ethical arguments by substituting discourse
model
into Toulmin's
ethics
argu
logical
terminology

values".

shared

statements

reflective

and

that

and

actions,

views

statements

normative

Judgments:

Assumptions:

from

over

negotiations

that por

of
be

and
separation
physical
to
of
Internet
lead
timing
asynchronous
negotiations
a
shared values upon which
of more
the recognition
can be based? Our
is
third proposition
resolution
to conflict

Value

of

the

issues. Will

ethical

3.

statements

descriptive

situations,

guide

issue. Will

is "There

that suggest

action,

that

and asynchronous
timing
lead to more
disclosure

statements

prescriptive

2. Observations:

negotiations
a business issue with ethical ramifications
concerning
than in face to face negotiations".
Past research by French et al. (2001) has ques
shared values appear without
tioned whether
guid

ance

1. Proposals:

in face-to

an ethical

classifi

basic model
arguments. Brown's
four elements relating to ethical discourse:

tray

has found

(1996)

to great

second

mentions

cation

face-to-face".

over

negotiations

the physical separation

Internet negotiations
values?

Es

classifi

for ethical

In

the

of successful

produce

resolutions

values

over

conducted

ethical

sets of

The

our
heu

Analysis

of Internet

Negotiations

in this particular case, using

were:
universalism
Schwartz's
taxonomy,
(usually
to
who
shut
the
those
wanted
initially
expressed by
and
benevolence
(usually expressed
factory down),

The main

values voiced

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:23:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Versus Internet Negotiations

Face-to-face
TABLE
Values

the

underlying

167
TABLE

ethical

Values

argumentation

Keep plant open

expressed

Shut plant down

38 7
6
32

to

Openness

Internet

Security
Tradition

Disparate

Conformity
Power
Achievement
Hedonism
a64 of

the

3 15
00
1
6

80

subjects mentioned
can be classified
under

Hedonism

more

than

one

are listed in Table

I.

was

Fourteen
those who

open)
values

to keep the plant

initially wanted
in applying these
The
difference
I).
reduced to the span of those harmed:

Two

often

chronously,

a value

expressing
logical
human

of non-maleficence

argumentation

for those

of universalism
about physical

(deonto
harm to

life),
of non-maleficence
definition
for
(b) narrow
limited benevolence
those expressing
(teleo
about
of
logical argumentation
responsibility
managers

for employees/families).

of

likelihood for a resolution when

both parties were
open to new proposals. Addi
the likelihood
for a resolution
increased
tionally,
when
alternatives were given at the beginning
of the
negotiation.
continued

this occurred, one or both parties

the rest of the negotiation without
fear of
When

losing respect in the eyes of the other for abandoning

the original decision.
the negotiators who
Generally,
initially
shut the plant down were
less flexible
to keep it open. Their prime
who wanted
not to physically harm others. Those who

wanted
than

to

those

value was
wanted

to

the plant open tended to consider only the

of employees,
for whom
well-being
they had a
keep

20

both

resulting

Internet

in a resolution.

comments

shorter

19) but

Syn
more

contained

negotiations

than did asyn

The
number
of different
negotiations.
statements input by both parties into the asynchro
nous Internet negotiations
ranged from 6 to 12 with
a median
11.
all statements
average being
Again,
were

coded

Marvin

using

scheme

gorization
entire

a higher

dimensions

four

assured.

ofthe

Internet

(average
chronous

ered

There was

to values

research

The

resulted
negotiations
resolution
II).
(see Table
agreeable
were
these negotiations
conducted
syn

chronous

definition

dimension.

in a mutually

(see Table

(a) wide

in this

restricted

open to
responsibility.
They were more
resolutions
if the employees'
economic

well-being

by

are
same

as well.

dimension

values
aCompatible
classified
the
under

perceived
alternative

change

7 2

values

value.
to

the openness

negotiations

negotiations

Disparate

Self-enhancement

negotiations

Shared values 8 2
Compatible values

3 26
6
2 6

Failed

1 8
2

values

Face-to-face

Conservation

Successful

4 3

valuesa

Compatible

20 9
1
1

issue

negotiations

Shared values

change

Self Direction
Stimulation

an ethical

regarding

Self-transcendencea

Universalism
Benevolence

II

in negotiations

comment,
as one

statement.

quite

one

Any

and,

consid

was

statement

negotiators
often

negotiator's
was

coded

four designations.
reviewed
previous
reviewed

consequently,

aswell

each other's

as the relatively few'

This might be typical

assumptions
that were made.

observations
for

length,

than one ofthe

Internet

statements

of

cate

four-part

III). Each

irrespective

to allow for more

The

Brown's

(see Table

Internet

based

since

negotiations,

rereading
to rehash
the need
precludes
facts. In truth, negotiators
objective
using the In
ternet may not have to be as well prepared as those
since they have time lags
face-to-face,
negotiating

previous

statements

between

their

comments

to reflect

statements
this

and possible future

derives
from
conjecture

statements

were

reread

seven

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:23:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

on

both

tactics. Evidence
the
times

fact
on

that

past
for
early

average,

168Robert

van Es et al.

TABLE
Profiles

of

ethical

patterns

speech

Successful

internet
face-to-face

success

by

Observation

Proposal
average (%)

Successful

III
of

Value judgment
average (%)

average (%)

35.9

17.4

37.4

16.4

Failed internet negotiations

27.7

15.6

27.8
100.028.9

Failed

16.1

18.0

28.5
100.037.4

negotiations

face-to-face

while

negotiations

negotiations

were

statements

latter

reread

average.

few

Very
intense

of

comments

the
In

emotion.

contrast,

to express

seemed
a few

of

face negotiations were highly charged with emotion.

statements
of the Internet negotiation
ap
Many
a
to
follow
Some
nego
peared
logical progression.
tiators even listed the arguments of the adversary and
these

addressed

be quite

would

were

there
However,

one

deductive

logic
there was

party's perception
an

to

party

equal

and/or

case

order.

where

negotiation
and textbook

values

their

made

decisions.

shared values

to

using

sequential,
tech
negotiation

It

that

appeared

was

there

existed

rather

of

value

than within

may

tradeoffs

one

was

of

self-transcendence.

situation.

Schwartz's
In

value
terms

of

though
fewer value

situations

The

Schwartz's

turned

as

negotiations

from

an

if it had been

ap
be the case in

This would

constructively?

of face-to-face

Analysis

11 of

Only

as

well

in

Internet

resolved.

successfully

were

There

in the face-to-face
via

conducted

negotiations
the Internet. Most

theory

tion.

Interruptions

the

the

to

interruptions

presenter's

make

complete

the

13 to 86

from

for

requests

clarification

in the ones

than

of these

other

party's

it difficult
argument.

were

statements

of

number

more

many

as

data

The

negotiations

the negotiations
constituting
ranged
with
the median
average being 29.

came

to move
away from tangible
?
in the case
that became
data points

negotiations

the 20 face-to-face

labeled

too difficult
this should lay the grounds
trade-off. Yet, most negotiators
kept closely to their
not move
and
did
that short
values
initially expressed
distance to a shared value. Part of the failure was due

points

shared value

Ironi

proposal?

been

have

from

respect

though,

even

dimension

could

of

lack

a new

for

searching

values would

original

cause

and

reason

One

negotiators.

to justify

for a not

to stubbornness

when

others,

negotiations.

between

the

of

many

as a weakness

negotiators

negotiations
only one issue (situation).
two values, which
the adversaries most fre
?
universalism
and benevolence
expressed

quently
are part

seen

be

concerned
The

for

the dimension
labeled
to be an underlying

appear

be a fear that abandoning

face-to-face

search,

(see Table

under

classified
self-respect,
did
Self Direction,

underlying

in order

based on a shared value

people
non-mobile

mentioned,
not in the latter stages of the discourse. Religious
values aswell did not enter into the discussions. But,

proached

resolution.

their reasoning

three

egoistic,
personal,
not mentioned,
and if
in initial positions, but

was
well-being
itwas mentioned

hedonistic

the

II). Also,
than expected
reordering
appeared in these negoti
ations. Perhaps,
identifi
this is because Schwartz's
cation

100.0

cally, self-respect
to a core
obstacle

Rarely

for a resolution

21.624.6

influence

points.

participant

22.5
24.2
100.0

due to the other

intransigence
of being controlled
and not being

clear.

to reveal

wanted

if

tried

In each of the 20 Internet negotiations

were

That

negations

complex

Internet

the

niques,

sequential
in face-to-face

numerous
in

control

in

points
difficult

(%)

lose their jobs.

people would
In most
of the resolutions

face-to

the

Total

Assumption
average (%)

for initial positions,

e.g.,
grounds
would
died versus 300 handicapped,

on

times

four

the negotiation

requests
presenta

to understand
The

interrupter

on a particular point made by the

other party (analogous to focusing on a tree) rather
than on the other party's total presentation
of a
on
a
to
contextual
argument
(analogous
focusing
tended

to focus

forest).

If the interrupter

had waited

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:23:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

for the other

the questioned
party to finish the presentation,
point
and
have been clarified. These
interruptions
might
the perceived failure on the part ofthe interrupter to
the complete
argument of the presenter
the cause of the presenter reiterating

understand
of

parts

key

restatements

many

argument

presenter's

more

to

attempt

one

about

bring

of

emotion.
face

won

over

the

by

the other party

and, at best, be

argument.

In this particular
mas'

four

truth

preconditions

truthfulness

as a given. Both
the same background

with

provided

and

were

taken

be

should

two of Haber

dilemma

ethical

parties
information

on the part of the second party

Paraphrasing
shows
of MC
has been
that a degree
attained.
was
more
in
evident
the
Internet
Paraphrasing
That may
to

the

as well

responding

with

of

efit

face-to-face

party's
as all

negotiations.

each party had time

because

other

statement

last

before

the

have occurred
on

reflect

i.e.,

in

than

argument,

complete

statements,

preceding

a paraphrase. This is a ben

Internet negotiations.
The
was
in the failed negotiations

asynchronous
process
argumentative
In all ofthe
slightly different.

failed

Internet

the

Habermas'

other

alternatives

In
few

or A. They

the

face-to-face

resolution

had

been

at

reached

the

i.e.,

end,

or

to disagree.
were

there

negotiations

comments

reflective

just agreed

the

quite

had

parties
attribute this to the

to disagree. One
could
desire
for
respect
respect for the logic
negotiators'
behind
their decision.
The more
structured
the
agreed

the less emotional

it was,
negotiation
a
resolution.
likely that it resulted in

and the more

Structure was

nature

it more

ethical

a face

of

to
an

with

contrasted

the
during
and defuse

to

difficult

face-to
Internet

rationally

arguments?

face-to-face
while
Synchronous
negotiations,
a
to
allow for time
prepare
strategy before
to revise
for
time
allow
little
negotiation,
the

during

In

negotiation.

contrast,

they
the
that
asyn

allow time to delib

as tactics during the
erate changes
can
The added time
be used not only
negotiation.
for reflection but also for checking one's own logic
Internet

negotiations
of strategy as well

can then structure

The negotiator
and terminology.
so as to preclude
comments
questions
anticipated
and potential objections.
is just one of the
of
ethical
issues over
potential
negotiating
IV.
the Internet. Other benefits are listed in Table
the first re
These benefits might help explain why
time for reflection

Additional

benefits

a
concerning
"Negotiations
ethical ramifications,
conducted
over the Internet, will produce a greater percentage
of successful resolutions
than those conducted
face
search

proposition,
issue with
business

attention.

was

supported by this study. But, Internet

not
is
its detriments. Two of the
without
serious
pointed out by Drake et al. merit
is that most

One

rather talk
people would
arduous task of typing com
board. The typing task may

than pursue the more

on a discussion
ments
motivate

to move

negotiators

too

rapidly

toward

is the one most

problem
who
favor
those
face-to-face
nego
emphasized
by
tiations.
It is that non-verbal
the
cues, indicating
closure.

after

transpiring
attain MC

Discussion

negotiation
detriments

nego

at

parties

the
as

negotiation,
deliberate over

to-face",

to satisfy
least attempted
of
A.
tested
alterna
precondition
They
tive positions.
In some of the failed face-to-face
to explore
neither
party attempted
negotiations
tiations

helped

does

negotiation,

strategy

(satisfying
focal points of this negotiation
should reduce to the
other two of Habermas'
MC
four preconditions
and Appropriateness
(A).

negotiations

This
But,

chronous

the precondition
for truth) and, thus,
for deception
few if any opportunities
the precondition
The
for truthfulness.)

(satisfying
there were

was

of what

make

Habermas'

that of
for successful discourse
four preconditions
mutual
(MC). The presenter's hope
comprehension
may be that as soon as the other party comprehends
the logic ofthe presenter's argument,
will, at the least, respect the presenter

notes

negotiation.

in the Internet negotiations.

is most
of statements
likely the pre

than found

Reiteration
senter's

the

in one of
negotiations
one
two ways. First,
of the parties suggested a format
at the beginning
for the subsequent
argumentation
of the negotiation.
Second, one of the parties took
in the face-to-face

evidenced

brief

have been

may

169

Versus Internet Negotiations

Face-to-face

The

other party's
from

second

receptivity

to a statement,

are stripped

the message.

It was

assumed

act as an electronic
negotiators

would

ues.

also

It was

that the discussion

firewall
feel

assumed

behind

comfortable
that

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:23:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

face-to-face

board would
which

Internet

expressing
negotiators

val

van Es

170Robert

TABLE
The

of

impact

of moral

Characteristics
Power

information

on moral

technology

neutrality

Required

Generality

access
time

Facilitates

Role

to past

for

of

redundancies

Improves

organization
is more
accountability

somewhat
self-conscious
and, perhaps,
if they expressed
the values underlying
In addition, the pressure to make the
their positions.
in face-to-face

time

of

to make

negotiators

of

reflexive

not

i.e.,

negotiations,

air" moments

cause

could

silence,

some

comments,

of

a questioning
of values. But,
might
the second research proposition,
'There will be more

which

include

of

mentions

cerning
than

in

Internet

in

values

a business

issue with

face-to-face

con

negotiations

ethical

ramifications
was

negotiations",

in this study.
successful
Paradoxically,

not

sup

ported

III).
(see Table
What was noted

with

search

were

made

proposition
about

values

in

the

irrespective
value
fewer
negotiations

to the second

respect
the types
face-to-face

of

re

comments

of one's

other party's values

values

the

and paraphrasing
occurred more frequently

of

the

in the

of

components

an

argument

visible
to visible

due

record

Internet negotiations.
Habermas'
ethics,

statements

of

The

for

discourse

successful
was

comprehension,

in the Internet

is that one of

conclusion

preconditions

mutual

evidenced

more

than in the face-to-face

negotiations

negotiations.

II relate to the
The
results presented
in Table
to conflict
third research proposition,
"Resolutions
over a business issue with
ethical ramifications will
be based more on compatible
values rather than on
can be somewhat misleading.
The
shared values",
in
has
the
Internet
support
proposition
superficial
In none

but

ofthe

not

in

the

face-to-face

25 successful

negotiations.

however,
negotiations,
mention
that the reso

the subjects specifically

satisfied the values of one party,
parties. Perhaps there is a subconscious
did

let alone both

lution

will
are

not

support

a resolution

unless

filter, which
personal values

satisfied.

There were

negotiations.

and restatement of original

Requests
more
in these
values occurred much
frequently
than in the Internet negotiations.
negotiations
Single
for clarification

mentions

of

negotiations

negotiations,
elicited
of the discourse
medium,
statements
than did the unsuccessful

assumptions

understanding

Deception

"dead

and

issues can be highlighted

feel

use

of values

statements

Reduction

too candid

create

discussion

emotional

Increased

best

statements

reflection

structured

Improves

would

constraints
focused

of

Key

Transparency

barriers

Reduction

taking

dialogue

assimilation of typed information

Provides
More

model

and message

speaker

physical

chronological
are more

Quicker
evaluation

and Dillard

power of rhetorical skills

Discussions

Autonomous

between

overcome

Helps
Minimizes

moral

Yuthas

skills are minimal

technological

Minimizes

the Drake,

status

a distance

Creates

of

supports

negotiation

message

Equalizes

IV
modification

dialogue:

Internet

Ways

dialogue

et al.

the nego
reordering of values within
set and two in the
in the face-to-face

tiations,

five

Internet

set. These

original

value

of

reordering
benevolence

were
to

primarily
a new,

shared

from

an

value

of universalism, which matched

the original value of
the other party. All seven reordering were associated

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:23:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

111

Face-to-face Versus Internet Negotiations

with

successful
reiterating was

One

resolutions.

observation

worth

the difficulty
that the subjects had
two values
to universalism,
from benevolence

moving
nested within

the same dimension

scendence.

Most

tions were

marked

I). A
demonstrated

Table

of the failed

reasoning

have

those

(1963). He

whom

(again, see
those who

to the work

of Stanley
that it is easier to harm

found
never

have

you

negotia

why
explanation
based on benevolence
may
to take a more
universalistic

been unwilling
can be traced back
position

Milgram

face-to-face

by this intransigence

possible

self-tran

labeled

met

than

those

whom

you are likely to come in contact with. This was

in many of the failed negotiations.
undertone

the

in

Internet

and

face-to-face

Both

exchanges.

were

values

negotiations

they were
expressed. When
dominated
the face-to-face

only modestly
shared values

expressed

negotia
tions and compatible
the Internet
values dominated
A
of values was
serious reordering
negotiations.
All seven re
reached in 7 out of 40 negotiations.
a

in

sulted

successful

because

solution,

in a process

ceeded

of reframing

suc

subjects

from benevolence

to universalism.
To

success

the

increase

tions

subjects

are advised

logue

by

agreeing
or take notes
of

negotia

advised

to move
the

create

and

of

their
increase

subjects are
strict tangible

negotiations
the
from

away

case

their dia

them. To

during

Internet

data

of

face-to-face

of

to either begin
on
the
format

negotiations,
the success

Conclusions

in less statement

solutions

agreeable

own

their

room

to

manoeuvre.

on ethical issues were more

successful
Negotiations
when
rather than value judg
alternative positions
ments or assumptions dominated
the discussion. An
in reaching agreeable
is
solutions
important
- not
to
to
in
issue
and
the
the
respect
only
regard
but also in regard to the actual
groups represented,

1. Managerial

Appendix

decision

factor

values are reordered

Especially when
on
are
to
keen
negotiators
self-respect;
they wanted
as self-aware negotiators who decided
be perceived
what is best under the circumstances.
negotiators.

Face-to-face

on

negotiations

moral

issues

are

in the use of paraphrases and have little time

for reflection or changing
strategy. They need a lot

modest
of

time

emotional
to

for preparation,
sometimes
include
strong
an
use
often
behavior,
interruption

require

clarification
on

negotiators

of
issues

moral

statements.
need

less

Internet
preparation

and interrup
behavior
time, show little emotional
tion is not an option. They use paraphrases
inten
of
offer
time
and
offer
for
reflection,
sively,
plenty
several

opportunities

to

and

strategy.

find face-to-face
participants
negotiations
to
attractive because
liked
each other
they
talking
more
to
than typing, and they like the opportunity
communicate
The
of
lack
non-verbal
non-verbally.
cues is a serious restriction of Internet negotiation;
it
because
there is
quality. Precisely
to pay
need
communication,
only
subjects
to
attention
careful
and
special
reading
writing,
In delicate moral
and paraphrasing.
interpreting
matters
Internet negotiation
tended to lead to more

chemical

firm

north

of

The fumes from your plant are toxic

a northeast

in

blow

usually

of

manager

plant

into

direction

Ontario,

Canada. The fallout from the fumes is killing the forests in

the wind's

path.

Your
Yours

plant's
is the only

employees
in the
firm

are

all partially

state

them

not

could

find work

300 would

cost

scrubbers

of putting

these jobs at least 300 of

elsewhere.

that 140 ofthe

handicapped.
out of its way

that goes

to hire the handicapped. Without

The

are 70-30

odds

see their families break up. The

in the

is prohibitive.

smokestacks

firm will shut down the plant as inefficient

pollution had to be cleaned up.

if the

The

are 61

You
You
and
the

have

no

takes

care

plant

retirement,
rest

of

of your

not

spouse's

The
that

Canadians

odds

enable

you

allergies
have

at the

arrived

fee.

are

90-10

to find

demand

child.

If

with

last until
for

per year
that

another

your
job

that you

live
a

commissioned

following

can

If you

$35,000

you

give

The

allergies

handicapped
be
terminated

will

you

severe

has

spouse

retirement

lump
the firm will

your

your

retirement.

from

away

30-year-old

down

life.

1 year

and

since

savings

closes

skills would
Your

old

years

sum

$100,000
change

Most

also

are

You

Midland, Michigan.

age
in the

in the

scientific

the
and
area.

area.
study

conclusions:

it's critical
verbal

1. Your

plant

astation

2. The
jobs

alone

in a 100

is the major
square

mile

loss of timer is $100,000

to your

handicapped

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:23:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

cause
area

of

forest

dev

of Ontario.

per year. (The loss of

workers

who

probably

172Robert
cost them

could not find other employment would

in wages

rnillion

$1

per

3. The odds are 80?20

area

in that wooded

year.)

that the 300 Canadians

of Ontario

will

have

their

lives

continues

if the pollution
by 5 years
months.
About
three of

shortened
six more

living

those

for

Canadians

develop cancer because of the pollution (if it

continues) and die painfully. All of the 300 Cana

will

dians

area

in that

commune.

in religious

live

van Es

et al.

French,

2002,

'Constructivist

Business

Ethics

Habermas,
of Society

The

The

down.
firm's
must

U.S.

CEO

says

choose

1. Keep

government
the

is yours.

decision

one

of

the

up

to

interfere.

The

that

Given
two

following

shut

you

options,

you choose?
the

open_.

plant

the

Shut

you
refuses

only

which would

2.

demand

Canadians

or

Ethic', Journal

Negotiation
Communication

1979,
Press,

the Evolution

and

Boston).

Seligman,

Shalom:
a

of

J. M.

Olson

and Behavior:

Priorities

'Values

1996,

Theory

Integrated
and M.

Value
P.

Zanna

Psychology of Values: The Ontario Symposium, Vol.

(Lawrence

Erlbaum

Associates,

Mahwah,

NJ),

Stephen: 1957, The Uses of Argument (Cam

Press, New York).
University
bridge
Van Es, Robert:
1996, Negotiating Ethics. On Ethics
inNegotiation andNegotiating inEthics (Eburon, Delft).

Faculty

Marvin

Ethics

1990, Working

(Jossey-Bass

Francisco).

T:

1996,

The

Process

Ethical

Kristi
-

Bruce,

Words
Only
on Moral

Yuthas

The Netherlands

of

Impacts

Information
of Business

Journal

Dialogue',

E-mail:
F. Dillard:

and Jesse

2000
Technology
Ethics

'It's

French,

Warren,

Scherer:

2001,

Trompenaars'
Americans
about
Ethics

34,

'Intercultural
and

Zeiss

and

Discourse

Hampden-Turner's
the French',
and

Andreas
Ethics:

Warren French
University of Georgia,
The Netherlands

Georg
Testing

Felix

Conclusions
Journal

rvanes@fmg.uva.nl

23,

41-59.
Harald

van Es

University of Amsterdam,
and Behavioral Sciences,
Social
of
Oudezijds Achterburgwal 237,
1012 DL Amsterdam,

(Prentice

Saddle Fiver, NJ).

Hall, Upper
Drake,

T:

San

Publishers,

8.

1-24.

pp.

Toulmin,

References

Brown,

The

(eds.),

down_.

plant

Marvin

in C.

System',

Robert

Brown,

of

371-378.
Schwartz,

clean

(Beacon

Es:

83-90.

39,

Jurgen:

van

and Robert

Milgram,
Stanley: 1963, 'Behavioral Study of Obedi
ence', Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67(4),

Applying
that

Hasslein

Christian

Warren,

of Business

University

145-159.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.230 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 12:23:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Stellmaszek

of Erlangen-Nurnberg,
The Netherlands