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 - Intimidation
- 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.
Next time, unless you object, we'll explore deceptive techniques related to the document drafting process. Next in this series Top Next Issue
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 welcome
Would you like to see your comments posted here? rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.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.
This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.
Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.
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.
Related articles
More articles on Ethics at Work:
- When You're Scared to Tell the Truth
- In the project context, we need to know that whatever we're hearing from colleagues is the truth as
they see it. Yet, sometimes we shade the truth, or omit important details. Here's a list of some of
the advantages of telling the truth.
- More Things I've Learned Along the Way
- Some entries from my personal collection of useful insights.
- The Costanza Matrix
- The Seinfeld character "George Costanza" is famous for having said, "It's not a lie if
you believe it." What if you don't believe it and it's true? Some musings.
- Influence and Belief Perseverance
- Belief perseverance is the pattern that causes us to cling more tightly to our beliefs when contradictory
information arrives. Those who understand belief perseverance can use it to manipulate others.
- Red Flags: III
- Early signs of troubles in collaborations include toxic conflict, elevated turnover, and anti-patterns
in communication. But among the very earliest red flags are abuses of power. They're more significant
than other red flags because abuses of power can convert any collaboration into a morass of destructive
politics.
See also Ethics at Work and Workplace Politics for more related articles.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming April 3: Recapping Factioned Meetings
- A factioned meeting is one in which participants identify more closely with their factions, rather than with the meeting as a whole. Agreements reached in such meetings are at risk of instability as participants maneuver for advantage after the meeting. Available here and by RSS on April 3.
- And on April 10: Managing Dunning-Kruger Risk
- A cognitive bias called the Dunning-Kruger Effect can create risk for organizational missions that require expertise beyond the range of knowledge and experience of decision-makers. They might misjudge the organization's capacity to execute the mission successfully. They might even be unaware of the risk of so misjudging. Available here and by RSS on April 10.
Coaching services
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.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, )
- Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
- Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
- Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
- Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
- Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )
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 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
Follow Rick
Recommend this issue to a friend
Send an email message to a friend
rbrendPtoGuFOkTSMQOzxner@ChacEgGqaylUnkmwIkkwoCanyon.comSend a message to Rick
A Tip A Day feed
Point Lookout weekly feed
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.
- Wikipedia has a nice article with a list of additional resources
- Some public libraries offer collections. Here's an example from Saskatoon.
- Check my own links collection
- LinkedIn's Office Politics discussion group