A632.4.4.RB – Deception in Negotiations

            Hoch & Kunreuther (2005) indicated that regardless of the evident of deception, it is more complicated to evaluate the anticipated valuation of deception.  The reason behind the complication is that first, the negotiator must be able to estimate the likelihood of detecting a deceptive action.  Second, the negotiator must determine the value of a deception that has been detected.  And lastly, the negotiator may endure the cost of being misleading through the feeling of guilt and remorse. 

Hoch & Kunreuther (2005) further stated that there are steps that we can take during negotiations to lessen the possibility of people using deception.  Some of those steps are:

·         Establishing Trust – from the very beginning of the negotiation process, negotiators must strive hard to sustain a foundation of trust where both sides can corroborate that there will be no deception to used on the negotiation table.

·         Asking direct questions and listening carefully – during the negotiation process, we need first to evaluate the happenstance of our negotiation by asking a direct question with the goal of having the other side of the table work with us and not against us.  Once a direct question has been acted, we need to listen carefully to things that were said and were not said.  By listening carefully, we build up better insight of the other individual’s thought process to further explicate his/her justification or rationale.

·         Paying attention to nonverbal cues – Hoch & Kunreuther (2005) recommended that as we are listening to the responses of the other individual, it is of utmost importance that we concentrate on the visual clues of the other individual such as respiration changes, increased blinking, etc.  People who are lying has the tendency to get emotional for fear of being caught and feeling guilty or shameful. 

·         Keeping records and getting things in writing – during the negotiation process, it is essential that we maintain records of all claims that the other person(s) are making.  Consequential information(s) that has/have significant meaning to the deal must be placed in writing and guarantees have to be in place.  What we may perceive as the reality of the deal may not be the reality of the actual agreement.  In some instances, oral agreements may be enforceable, but in general, there are aspects of the verbal agreement that are legally determinable.

            Most recently, my husband and I moved to a newer and unfurnished house.  The older house that we lived on for almost 5 years was fully furnished that when we moved to that house 5 years, we had to sell or donate all furniture that we owned.  My husband is very aware how I loved decorating our home.  So, he gave me his verbal assurance that I can do whatever I wanted in the new house and furnish it, however, I wanted to.

            Today, it has been exactly 10 days since we moved to the new house and I have started buying little things like a curtain for the master’s bedroom and my office.  When I showed the items to my husband, he automatically blurted out his disagreement with my choice color and the store where I purchased the items.  My perception of his disagreement was that he lied to me or has misled me when he promised me that I can do whatever I want in decorating the new house.  We sat down this morning and had a heart to heart talk.  I was very open in expressing my disappointment of how he misled me, and I have asked him to stop agreeing with everything I say or want even if he actually does not think that my idea was not as acceptable to him.  So, although it was not done in writing, we made a compromise that before I buy an item, I would take a picture and show it to him.  The agreement is only applicable to bigger items like the dining room, living room, office furniture, etc.

            Another most recent event that happened at work was corporate office requiring an audit of I9 Forms and I9 acceptable documents for every employee within the Adventist Health System campuses.  This is the second year that we have been audited by corporate for compliance imposed by the Homeland Security and USCIS.  Homeland Security and USCIS require that all employees must have been verified of being authorized to work in the US.  This year, it appears that we are missing I9 Forms and I9 documents for 130 employees.  These are workers employed by FHMMC between 3 to 20 years. 

            To comply with corporate requirements, I sent out letters to the 130 employees requiring them to appear in person at any HR Office within the East Florida Region hospitals and bring forms of identification(s) and fill out section 1 of the I9 form.  I received a couple of calls from several employees demanding an explanation why they are required to do so.  To defend the inefficiency of the HR system i.e. not appropriately scanning the I9 forms and documents to the employee's online personnel file plus not able to find the originals.  My explanation to the employees was that Homeland Security and USCIS require organizations to conduct a random audit of employees’ I9 forms and acceptable documents on as needed basis.  My claim was valid, but in this instance, I left off the fact that we do not have their I9 forms and acceptable I9 documents which were the reason why we required them to come in. 

            In the real world, a random audit process is to pull out about 25 to 30 names of employees from the system.  Once the list of randomly selected employees was received, I would access the employee’s online personnel file, review his/her I9 form ensuring that Sections 1 & 2 of the form were appropriately completed by the employee and organization’s authorized representative.  Then, I pull up the I9 document(s) submitted by the employee ensuring that identifications have not expired most particularly the employee’s work authorization card. 

            I have, to be honest, I was quite perturbed lying to our workforce.  I have to get the job done to comply with the corporate’s mandate without having the Human Resources Department appear to be inefficient or inadequate of performing their job.  But that was the extent that I would go to complete the task for my team.  I have tried to be consistent in upholding my personal ethics and professional values in synced to preserve my mental health and successfully navigate the ethical challenges I faced daily at work, in my community, and at home.

Reference:

Hoch, S. J., & Kunreuther, H. C. (2005). Wharton on making decisions. (1st edition.).

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.