NEG 7310 Module 6 Ethics and Relationships Example

Course	NEG-7310 Negotiations
Module	Module 6
Paper type	Discussion forum: initial response and two comments
Length	About 422 words
Format	Discussion post with APA 7 citations
School	Thomas Edison State University
Program	Master of Business Administration
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for NEG 7310 Module 6

Module 6 Discussion: Disclosing a Leak History

Disclosing a Leak History: Where Bluffing Ends and Deception Begins

We refurbish rooftop units removed from buildings we upgrade and sell them to smaller contractors. Last spring a buyer, a contractor we have sold to for years, asked about a ten-ton unit: has it ever leaked? It had. Two years earlier we repaired a leak in its evaporator coil, and it has held pressure since.

Lewicki et al. (2011) distinguish among ethically ambiguous tactics. Some, such as not revealing one's bottom line or bluffing about a deadline, are widely seen as part of the game. Others, such as misrepresenting facts about the item or making false promises, are widely seen as unethical. Lewicki and Robinson (1998) surveyed students and executives and found broad agreement that traditional competitive bargaining, like inflated opening demands, was acceptable, while misrepresentation and bluffing about material facts were seen as inappropriate.

Not telling the buyer my lowest price was fine; I held that back. But the leak was a material fact about the unit. Schweitzer and Croson (1999) found that asking direct questions reduced lies of omission but could increase lies of commission, outright false statements, among some negotiators. The buyer's direct question removed the option of staying silent: I could lie, or I could tell him.

I told him about the repair, showed him the pressure test records and offered a one-year warranty on the coil. He bought it at our asking price. Disclosure did not cost the sale, and it protected a relationship that brings us about $60,000 a year in equipment and parts sales. The textbook notes that in ongoing relationships, reputation and trust become assets, and that deception discovered later destroys both. A refrigerant leak would have been discovered, probably in the first hot week of summer, and the buyer would have learned exactly what our word is worth.

Ethics and self-interest pointed the same way here, but I believe I would have disclosed even to a one-time buyer, because the leak could have harmed the buyer's own customer. The test I now use is simple: would I be comfortable if the buyer later learned everything I knew?

What this page is doingLocating the line between withholding a bottom line and lying about a material fact gives the post a clear ethical rule, not only a feeling.

Comment on Ben's Post

Ben, you sold your car without mentioning a recurring transmission noise because the buyer did not ask. Would your answer change if the noise suggested a safety problem?

Comment on Aisha's Post

Aisha, you asked whether rounding a job title up on a resume is bluffing. The research distinguishes positioning from misrepresenting facts; a title is a fact an employer can check.

References

Lewicki, R. J., & Robinson, R. J. (1998). Ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(6), 665-682. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005719122519

Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2011). Essentials of negotiation (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Schweitzer, M. E., & Croson, R. (1999). Curtailing deception: The impact of direct questions on lies and omissions. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10(3), 225-248. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022825

NEG 7310 Module 6 instructions, in plain terms

The Module 6 forum covers ethics and relationships in negotiation. Expect to analyze an ethical choice you faced or observed in a negotiation, locate it among the textbook's categories of ethically ambiguous tactics and explain your reasoning with ethical principles and research. Consider how the relationship between the parties shaped the choice. Reply to two classmates with questions that test where their examples fall on the line between acceptable tactics and deception. Be candid about any choice you are not proud of, since the forum rewards honest reasoning more than a flattering story. State the rule you would follow next time. Name the ethical principle you relied on.

How the NEG 7310 Module 6 example is put together

The post begins with the unit's repair history and the buyer's direct question. A paragraph sets out the textbook's distinctions and a survey of negotiators' views. A paragraph separates withholding a bottom line from lying about a material fact and applies research on direct questions. A paragraph describes the disclosure, the outcome and the value of the relationship, and a short paragraph addresses whether the choice would hold in a one-time sale. The replies test classmates' examples against the same line. The post ends with a simple test the writer now applies, whether he would be comfortable if the other side learned everything he knew, which turns the analysis into a rule for future negotiations.

Reading the NEG 7310 Module 6 grading rubric

Grading for this forum rests on accurate use of the textbook's ethical categories, reasoning supported by research and principles, attention to relationships and replies that extend classmates' thinking. Posts that draw a clear line between acceptable tactics and deception, and explain why, show ethical reasoning rather than intuition. Considering whether the choice would hold without a relationship demonstrates honesty about motives. Replies that apply the same line to classmates' examples keep the discussion rigorous. Stating a personal rule for future negotiations, and testing it against the case, shows that the post has moved from analysis to a standard the writer will apply. Specific numbers, such as the yearly sales at stake, add weight.

NEG 7310 Module 6 help: mistakes that cost marks

Students lose points by treating every tactic as either fine or wrong without distinctions, by justifying deception because it worked or by ignoring the relationship. Others discuss ethics in general without a case. Use the textbook's categories. Separate withholding from misrepresenting. Explain how the relationship shaped the choice. Ask whether your choice would hold if no one were watching. End with a rule you could apply in your next negotiation, and test it against at least one harder case where honesty would cost you something. Consider the third parties a deception could harm, such as a buyer's own customers, and include them in your reasoning. A free first sample on your own NEG-7310 ethics discussion is available on request.

Write yours, or have the desk draft it

This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Thomas Edison State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.

More NEG 7310 and Master of Business Administration sample papers

NEG 7310 Module 6 questions, answered

Where can I find a free NEG 7310 Module 6 sample paper?

A decision to disclose a rooftop unit's leak history, with two replies, is the discussion above.

Is bluffing ethical in negotiation?

Bluffing about one's bottom line is widely accepted; misrepresenting material facts is widely seen as unethical.

What is a lie of omission?

Failing to disclose a material fact, as opposed to stating something false.

How do direct questions affect deception?

Research found they reduce lies of omission but can increase outright false statements by some negotiators.

Why do relationships matter for ethics in negotiation?

In ongoing relationships, trust and reputation are valuable, and discovered deception destroys both.

NEG 7310 Module 6 Discussion: What to Say About a Used Rooftop Unit's Leak History Example