Additional reading: http://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/negotiating-the-top-ten-ways-that-culture-can-affect-your-negotiation/#.U6nh-bHyRqw
The course had some interesting points to make:
- Let's say I am a CXO in a company that has made some important discovery (say a mineral find). During the time when the public is not aware of the discovery...my buying further stocks of the company will amount to insider trading and illegal. We all know this. But if I buy some land from a farmer in that area (the farmer doesn't know of the mineral discovery) - then the buying of the land at, what is a cheap price, is quite legal.
- When I have quoted $300K to another person for the sale of my house (for which I have a set a reserve price of $250k in my mind and this is not known to the other party), the other person asks me whether I would consider a price of $260k - I say "NO". I am not supposed to have committed a fraud. A fraud as defined as presenting a data with intent to deceive. Note that I did intend to deceive by saying "No" - but then apparently during negotiation one is allowed these kind of "lies" and hence this is not a fraud.
Hmm. Both the points don't sit well with me. I am neither able to agree nor wholeheartedly disagree. The points that comes to my mind is how many more varieties (such as the two examples above) are there which I am not comfortable with but which are considered normal / acceptable by many other people?
No comments:
Post a Comment