Es, French - Face-to-face Versus Internet.pdf - Psychologia - koni86

Resolving Conﬂicts over Ethical

Issues: Face-to-face Versus Internet

Negotiations

Robert van Es

Warren French

Felix Stellmaszek

ABSTRACT. Is the Internet an appropriate medium to

use when attempting to resolve conﬂicts over ethical is-

sues in business? The research reported on in this paper

focuses on internet versus face-to-face negotiations as a

component of applied discourse ethics. Although internet

negotiation has serious restrictions, it also has speciﬁc

qualities. It enhances reﬂection and plays down emotion.

Important qualities when handling complex and delicate

ethical issues.

discussion. With this in mind Drake et al. (2000)

present a thought provoking argument that infor-

mation technology can go a long way to facilitate

moral dialogues in business. Grounding their argu-

ment on the theory of moral discourse presented by

Habermas, they list potential beneﬁts of ethical

negotiation conducted over the Internet. Certainly,

in an era of globalized trade, when making time to

meet those with whom one has an ethical problem is

a begrudged use of a scarce resource, there is an

allure to Drake’s argument.

A derivative question relates to the values

underpinning an ethical argument. Habermas (1979)

has claimed the most successful moral dialogues will

result in a new position based on shared values

arising from the discourse. The assumption made is

that negotiators will discover (reorder) their values

during the course of the moral dialogue.

French et al. (2002) investigated negotiation ethics

as a component of applied discourse ethics. They

found that the expression of shared values is not

sufﬁcient to resolve ethical conﬂicts. Resolutions of

conﬂicts over ethical issues are produced by a mutual

reframing process during constructivist negotiation

with little attention explicitly paid to shared values.

Schwartz (1996) presents evidence that people do

reorder priorities among their values, dependent on

the situations, which they face. He has found reor-

dering between situations to be most likely in the

form of shifting from one value to a compatible value.

Compatibility refers to values within the same cate-

gorical dimension and, to a lesser extent, to another

categorical dimension, which is close to the original

dimension under his graphical scheme. What

Schwartz did not investigate is whether people reor-

der their values within any one situation in the process

of moral dialogue or constructivist negotiation.

KEY WORDS: moral dialogue, negotiation ethics, face-

to-face negotiations, Internet negotiations, universalism,

benevolence

Negotiating ethics and reordering values

How much time do businesspeople have for

thoughtful resolutions to ethical problems? Meeting

face-to-face with a supplier, colleague or client to

resolve an ethical issue takes a block of time – the

span of which is usually not known ahead of the

Robert van Es is Lecturer in Organizational Philosophy at the

University of Amsterdam, and Consultant in Organizational

Culture and Ethics. His research area is negotiating ethics

across cultures.

Warren French is the I.W. Cousins Professor of Business Ethics

at the Terry School – University of Georgia. He also serves as

a visiting faculty member at the University of Lyon III where

he teaches business ethics. His research area is conﬂict reso-

lution through discourse ethics.

Felix Stellmaszek earned an MBA at the University of Georgia

and is a Cand.rer.pol. at the University of Erlangen-

N¨rnberg. He has worked as a consultant both for Porsche

and for Accenture.

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

2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

166

Robert van Es et al.

Grounded in the work of Drake, French, Haber-

mas and Schwartz the following research proposi-

tions are posited. While Drake et al. (2000) pose an

interesting theory about the efﬁciency and effec-

tiveness of moral dialogue over the Internet; does

further data support their theory? Our ﬁrst proposi-

tion is ‘‘Negotiations concerning a business issue

with ethical ramiﬁcations, conducted over the In-

ternet, will produce a greater percentage of successful

resolutions than those conducted face-to-face’’.

Past research by Van Es (1996) has found that

values are not brought up to great extent in face-to-

face business negotiations over an ethical issue. Will

the physical separation and asynchronous timing of

Internet negotiations lead to more disclosure of

values? Our second proposition is ‘‘There will be

more mentions of values in Internet negotiations

concerning a business issue with ethical ramiﬁcations

than in face to face negotiations’’.

Past research by French et al. (2001) has ques-

tioned whether shared values appear without guid-

ance in face-to-face business negotiations over

ethical issues. Will the physical separation and

asynchronous timing of Internet negotiations lead to

the recognition of more shared values upon which a

resolution can be based? Our third proposition is

‘‘Resolutions to conﬂict over a business issue with

ethical ramiﬁcations will be based more on com-

patible values rather than on shared values’’.

The argumentation used in these two sets of

negotiations was analyzed using Schwartz’s classiﬁ-

cation for values as well as Brown’s (1996) classiﬁ-

cation for ethical arguments. Brown’s basic model

contains four elements relating to ethical discourse:

1. Proposals: prescriptive statements that suggest

action,

2. Observations: descriptive statements that por-

tray situations,

3. Value Judgments: normative statements that

guide actions, and

4. Assumptions: reﬂective statements that express

views and attitudes.

Brown’s justiﬁcation for his coding scheme comes

from his adaptation of the argumentation model

posited by Toulmin (1957). He adapts Toulmin’s

model to ethical arguments by substituting discourse

ethics terminology into Toulmin’s logical argu-

mentation process. This adaptation process is de-

scribed in detail in Brown’s (1990) earlier text.

Schwartz (1996), in turn, claims that a set of

universal values exists in cultures around the world.

He further claims that there are 10 such values,

grouped under four dimensions, which he labels self-

transcendence, self-enhancement, conservation and

openness to change (see Table I for a listing of these

values). The basis for his claim is a set of data

gathered from over 40 countries located on six

continents. The priorities assigned to these values,

however, differ between countries, within countries

and even within people. It is the degree to which

they shift within people that is of interest in this

research. To this end two judges jointly coded paper

copy transcripts of the 20 Internet negotiations that

had been conducted on a restricted access discussion

board. The same judges then coded the 20 audio-

taped, face-to-face negotiations. Disagreements over

coding were reconciled by referring back to the

detailed work of both Brown and Schwartz.

Research method

A business case with strong ethical ramiﬁcations was

created to investigate the three research propositions

(see Appendix 1). This case was analyzed by a large

set of subjects who made a binary choice – to either

keep a chemical plant open or shut it down. Then 40

subjects, split into 20 pairs based on their decisions

about the case, negotiated the case over the Internet.

Another 40 subjects, also assigned to 20 pairs,

negotiated the case face-to-face. Each of the sub-

jects, all U.S. citizens, possessed a university degree

and had been in the work place before returning to a

university setting for advanced business training.

Our samples are modest in numbers and show a

strong homogeneity; therefore the results of our

research are primarily to be regarded as good heu-

ristic insights.

Analysis of Internet Negotiations

The main values voiced in this particular case, using

Schwartz’s taxonomy, were: universalism (usually

expressed by those who initially wanted to shut the

factory down), and benevolence (usually expressed

Face-to-face Versus Internet Negotiations

167

TABLE I

Values underlying the ethical argumentation

TABLE II

Values expressed in negotiations regarding an ethical issue

Keep plant open Shut plant down

Successful

negotiations

Failed

negotiations

Self-transcendence a

Universalism 7

Internet negotiations

Shared values

Benevolence

Openness to change

Self Direction

Compatible values a

Disparate values

Stimulation

Face-to-face negotiations

Shared values

Conservation

Security

Compatible values

Tradition

Disparate values

Conformity

a Compatible values are restricted in this research to values

classiﬁed under the same dimension. The four dimensions

are listed in Table I.

Self-enhancement

Power

Achievement

Hedonism b

a 64 of the 80 subjects mentioned more than one value.

b Hedonism can be classiﬁed under the openness to change

dimension as well.

perceived responsibility. They were more open to

alternative resolutions if the employees’ economic

well-being was assured.

Fourteen of the 20 Internet negotiations resulted

in a mutually agreeable resolution (see Table II).

Two of these negotiations were conducted syn-

chronously, both resulting in a resolution. Syn-

chronous Internet negotiations contained more

(average 19) but shorter comments than did asyn-

chronous negotiations. The number of different

statements input by both parties into the asynchro-

nous Internet negotiations ranged from 6 to 12 with

a median average being 11. Again, all statements

were coded using Marvin Brown’s four-part cate-

gorization scheme (see Table III). Each negotiator’s

entire comment, irrespective of length, was consid-

ered as one statement. Any one statement was coded

to allow for more than one of the four designations.

The Internet negotiators reviewed previous

statements quite often and, consequently, reviewed

each other’s assumptions as well as the relatively few

observations that were made. This might be typical

for Internet based negotiations, since rereading

previous statements precludes the need to rehash

objective facts. In truth, negotiators using the In-

ternet may not have to be as well prepared as those

negotiating face-to-face, since they have time lags

between their comments to reﬂect on both past

statements and possible future tactics. Evidence for

this conjecture derives from the fact that early

statements were reread seven times on average,

by those who initially wanted to keep the plant

open) (see Table I). The difference in applying these

values often reduced to the span of those harmed:

(a) wide deﬁnition of non-maleﬁcence for those

expressing a value of universalism (deonto-

logical argumentation about physical harm to

human life),

(b) narrow deﬁnition of non-maleﬁcence for

those expressing limited benevolence (teleo-

logical argumentation about responsibility of

managers for employees/families).

There was a higher likelihood for a resolution when

both parties were open to new proposals. Addi-

tionally, the likelihood for a resolution increased

when alternatives were given at the beginning of the

negotiation. When this occurred, one or both parties

continued the rest of the negotiation without fear of

losing respect in the eyes of the other for abandoning

the original decision.

Generally, the negotiators who initially wanted to

shut the plant down were less ﬂexible than those

who wanted to keep it open. Their prime value was

not to physically harm others. Those who wanted to

keep the plant open tended to consider only the

well-being of employees, for whom they had a

168

Robert van Es et al.

TABLE III

Proﬁles of ethical speech patterns by success of the negotiation

Proposal

average (%)

Observation

average (%)

Value judgment

average (%)

Assumption

average (%)

Total (%)

Successful internet negotiations

35.9

17.4

24.2

22.5

100.0

Successful face-to-face negotiations 37.4

16.4

21.6

24.6

100.0

Failed internet negotiations

27.7

15.6

28.9

27.8

100.0

Failed face-to-face negotiations

16.1

18.0

37.4

28.5

100.0

while latter statements were reread four times on

average.

Very few of the comments seemed to express

intense emotion. In contrast, a few of the face-to-

face negotiations were highly charged with emotion.

Many of the Internet negotiation statements ap-

peared to follow a logical progression. Some nego-

tiators even listed the arguments of the adversary and

addressed these points in sequential order. That

would be quite difﬁcult in face-to-face negations if

there were numerous and/or complex points.

However, in one case where a participant tried to

control the Internet negotiation using sequential,

deductive logic and textbook negotiation tech-

niques, there was intransigence due to the other

party’s perception of being controlled and not being

an equal party to the resolution.

In each of the 20 Internet negotiations underlying

values were made clear. It appeared that negotiators

wanted to reveal their reasoning in order to justify

their decisions. Rarely was there a search, though,

for a resolution based on a shared value even though

shared values existed (see Table II). Also, fewer value

reordering than expected appeared in these negoti-

ations. Perhaps, this is because Schwartz’s identiﬁ-

cation of value tradeoffs was between situations

rather than within one situation. The negotiations

concerned only one issue (situation).

The two values, which the adversaries most fre-

quently expressed – universalism and benevolence –

are part of Schwartz’s value dimension labeled

self-transcendence. In terms of Schwartz’s theory

this should lay the grounds for a not too difﬁcult

trade-off. Yet, most negotiators kept closely to their

initially expressed values and did not move that short

distance to a shared value. Part of the failure was due

to stubbornness to move away from tangible data

points in the case – data points that became the

grounds for initial positions, e.g., three people

would died versus 300 handicapped, non-mobile

people would lose their jobs.

In most of the resolutions egoistic, personal,

hedonistic well-being was not mentioned, and if

mentioned, it was mentioned in initial positions, but

not in the latter stages of the discourse. Religious

values as well did not enter into the discussions. But,

self-respect, classiﬁed under the dimension labeled

Self Direction, did appear to be an underlying

inﬂuence for many of the negotiators. One reason

may be a fear that abandoning original values would

be seen as a weakness and cause lack of respect from

others, when searching for a new proposal? Ironi-

cally, self-respect could have been turned from an

obstacle to a core shared value if it had been ap-

proached constructively? This would be the case in

face-to-face negotiations as well as in Internet

negotiations.

Analysis of face-to-face negotiations

Only 11 of the 20 face-to-face negotiations were

successfully resolved. The number of statements

constituting the negotiations ranged from 13 to 86

with the median average being 29.

There were many more requests for clariﬁcation

in the face-to-face negotiations than in the ones

conducted via the Internet. Most of these requests

came as interruptions to the other party’s presenta-

tion. Interruptions make it difﬁcult to understand

the presenter’s complete argument. The interrupter

tended to focus 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

contextual argument (analogous to focusing on a

forest). If the interrupter had waited for the other

Face-to-face Versus Internet Negotiations

169

party to ﬁnish the presentation, the questioned point

might have been clariﬁed. These interruptions and

the perceived failure on the part of the interrupter to

understand the complete argument of the presenter

may have been the cause of the presenter reiterating

key parts of the presenter’s argument – many more

restatements than found in the Internet negotiations.

Reiteration of statements is most likely the pre-

senter’s attempt to bring about one of Habermas’

four preconditions for successful discourse – that of

mutual comprehension (MC). The presenter’s hope

may be that as soon as the other party comprehends

the logic of the presenter’s argument, the other party

will, at the least, respect the presenter and, at best, be

won over by the argument.

In this particular ethical dilemma two of Haber-

mas’ four preconditions – truth and truthfulness –

should be taken as a given. Both parties were

provided with the same background information

(satisfying the precondition for truth) and, thus,

there were few if any opportunities for deception

(satisfying the precondition for truthfulness.) The

focal points of this negotiation should reduce to the

other two of Habermas’ four preconditions – MC

and Appropriateness (A).

Paraphrasing on the part of the second party

shows that a degree of MC has been attained.

Paraphrasing was more evident in the Internet

negotiations than in the face-to-face negotiations.

That may have occurred because each party had time

to reﬂect on the other party’s complete argument,

i.e., last statement as well as all preceding statements,

before responding with a paraphrase. This is a ben-

eﬁt of asynchronous Internet negotiations. The

argumentative process in the failed negotiations was

slightly different. In all of the failed Internet nego-

tiations the parties at least attempted to satisfy

Habermas’ precondition of A. They tested alterna-

tive positions. In some of the failed face-to-face

negotiations neither party attempted to explore

other alternatives or A. They just agreed to disagree.

In the face-to-face negotiations there were quite a

few reﬂective comments at the end, i.e., after a

resolution had been reached or the parties had

agreed to disagree. One could attribute this to the

negotiators’ desire for respect – respect for the logic

behind their decision. The more structured the

negotiation the less emotional it was, and the more

likely that it resulted in a resolution. Structure was

evidenced in the face-to-face negotiations in one of

two ways. First, one of the parties suggested a format

for the subsequent argumentation at the beginning

of the negotiation. Second, one of the parties took

brief notes of what was transpiring during the

negotiation. This helped attain MC and defuse

emotion. But, does the nature of a face to face-to-

face negotiation, as contrasted with an Internet

negotiation, make it more difﬁcult to rationally

deliberate over ethical arguments?

Discussion

Synchronous face-to-face negotiations, while they

allow for time to prepare a strategy before the

negotiation, allow for little time to revise that

strategy during the negotiation. In contrast, asyn-

chronous Internet negotiations allow time to delib-

erate changes of strategy as well as tactics during the

negotiation. The added time can be used not only

for reﬂection but also for checking one’s own logic

and terminology. The negotiator can then structure

comments so as to preclude anticipated questions

and potential objections.

Additional time for reﬂection is just one of the

potential beneﬁts of negotiating ethical issues over

the Internet. Other beneﬁts are listed in Table IV.

These beneﬁts might help explain why the ﬁrst re-

search proposition, ‘‘Negotiations concerning a

business issue with ethical ramiﬁcations, conducted

over the Internet, will produce a greater percentage

of successful resolutions than those conducted face-

to-face’’, was supported by this study. But, Internet

negotiation is not without its detriments. Two of the

detriments pointed out by Drake et al. merit serious

attention. One is that most people would rather talk

than pursue the more arduous task of typing com-

ments on a discussion board. The typing task may

motivate negotiators to move too rapidly toward

closure. The second problem is the one most

emphasized by those who favor face-to-face nego-

tiations. It is that non-verbal cues, indicating the

other party’s receptivity to a statement, are stripped

from the message.

It was assumed that the discussion board would

act as an electronic ﬁrewall behind which Internet

negotiators would feel comfortable expressing val-

ues. It was also assumed that face-to-face negotiators

Es, French - Face-to-face Versus Internet.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: