Negotiation is often described as a rational process. People enter a negotiation with goals, alternatives, interests, and constraints. They evaluate options, compare possible outcomes, and decide how far they are willing to go to reach an agreement.
When ethically questionable behavior occurs in negotiation, the explanation often follows the same logic: a negotiator weighs the potential benefits of a tactic against the possible costs and then decides whether it is worth the risk.
That explanation is intuitive. It is also incomplete.
Our article, “Beyond Rationality: Decision Drivers of Ethically Ambiguous Negotiation Tactics,” now published open access in Group Decision and Negotiation, examines what drives negotiators to use tactics that fall into an ethical gray area. The article was co-authored with Felix Kröcher and Peter Kesting, and it explores a question that has stayed with us for a long time: when negotiators use ethically ambiguous tactics, what is actually behind that behavior?

Ethics in negotiation is rarely simple
Negotiation often involves tension. Parties want to create value, but they also want to claim value. They want to build trust, but they may also feel pressure to protect themselves. They want to be honest, but they may not always feel obliged to disclose everything.
This creates a space in which certain tactics can appear tempting: exaggerating one’s alternatives, withholding relevant information, applying pressure, misrepresenting priorities, or exploiting the other side’s assumptions.
Some of these tactics may be clearly unethical. Others are ethically ambiguous. They may be seen by some negotiators as part of the game, while others experience them as manipulative or dishonest. In many negotiations, ethical decisions do not present themselves as obvious choices between right and wrong. Instead, they emerge in situations marked by uncertainty, pressure, emotion, competition, and social expectations.
The limits of the rational cost-benefit view
A common explanation for ethically questionable negotiation behavior is that negotiators make a deliberate trade-off. They consider the possible advantages of a tactic, such as gaining better terms, increasing leverage, or avoiding a concession. They also consider the possible downsides, such as reputational damage, retaliation, guilt, legal consequences, or the breakdown of trust.
From this perspective, unethical or ethically ambiguous behavior is mainly a matter of calculation.
Our findings suggest that this view is too narrow.
Based on survey data from nearly 500 experienced practitioners, we show that the use of ethically ambiguous negotiation tactics is linked not only to rational cost-benefit considerations, but also to a broader set of decision drivers. These include emotional, reactive, normative, and socially shaped factors.
In other words, ethically questionable behavior in negotiation is not always a cold calculation. Sometimes it is fast, intuitive, situational, and only partly deliberate.
Negotiators do not always act after careful reflection
This matters because much of the advice around ethical negotiation assumes that people make ethical choices through conscious reasoning. We tell negotiators that ethical behavior pays off in the long run. We explain that trust is valuable, that reputations matter, and that manipulative behavior can damage future relationships.
Those arguments are important. But they may not be enough.
In practice, negotiators may act under time pressure. They may respond defensively to a perceived threat. They may mirror the behavior of the other side. They may feel that “everyone does this.” They may be influenced by organizational norms, competitive incentives, or the behavior of senior colleagues. They may experience anger, fear, frustration, or anxiety and then justify their behavior afterward.
This means that ethical behavior in negotiation is not only a matter of knowing what is right. It is also a matter of recognizing what is happening in the moment.
Ethical negotiation requires more than good intentions
For those of us who teach, train, or advise negotiators, this has practical implications.
Encouraging ethical negotiation cannot rely only on explaining why ethics is beneficial in the long run. That message remains valuable, but it may miss the situations in which people act before they fully reflect.
A more effective approach should help negotiators develop awareness of the triggers that can pull them toward ethically ambiguous behavior. These triggers may include:
- feeling treated unfairly by the other side;
- pressure to achieve a specific outcome;
- fear of appearing weak;
- competitive organizational cultures;
- ambiguity about what is acceptable;
- emotional escalation during difficult conversations;
- social norms that frame questionable tactics as “just business.”
Once negotiators can recognize these dynamics, they are better positioned to pause, reassess, and choose a different response.
Building ethical capacity in the moment
One of the key lessons from our research is that ethical negotiation should be understood as a capability, not simply as a principle.
It is not enough to tell negotiators to “be ethical.” They also need tools that help them behave ethically when the situation becomes difficult.
That may include preparing ethical boundaries before entering a negotiation, discussing acceptable and unacceptable tactics within teams, reflecting on emotional triggers, creating space for deliberate decision-making, and developing strategies for responding when the other side uses questionable tactics.
Ethics also needs to be addressed at the organizational level. If negotiators are rewarded only for short-term outcomes, while the methods used to achieve those outcomes are ignored, ethically ambiguous behavior becomes more likely. Training individuals is important, but so is shaping the norms, incentives, and expectations around negotiation.
Why this research matters
Negotiation is central to business, politics, employment relationships, procurement, conflict resolution, and many other areas of professional life. The quality of negotiation behavior affects not only the outcomes of individual deals, but also trust, relationships, and institutional credibility.
Our study contributes to a better understanding of why negotiators sometimes use ethically ambiguous tactics. It moves beyond the idea that such behavior is always the result of deliberate calculation and shows that ethical decision-making in negotiation is shaped by a wider range of psychological and social forces.
Recognizing this complexity does not excuse unethical behavior. It does help us understand it better. And if we understand it better, we can design better training, better organizational practices, and better negotiation processes.
Many thanks to the reviewers and editors at Group Decision and Negotiation for a constructive and helpful review process. The paper is much stronger because of their input.








