Uncategorized

Welcome back to the class in international business communication. We are nearing the end of the course now. So, today we will talk about ethics, we discussed the applications, we discussed various things I hope I have been able to give enough leads, enough keywords that you can use to find out more about communication Today we will talk about what constitutes ethical communication? And again we will start with a boring piece which is theories like everything else people have worked done theorizing international business communication is well So, we will begin with the theories I do not have any revision, I will revise the whole course with you in the last lecture and we will tie up all loose ends, but for now we will straightaway jump into this topic of deep theories of communication ethics The first one is the deontological approaches According to this approach ethical choices arise from personal allegiance to principles that are relatively unchanging and ongoing Now, this means that the fundamental decision made about one member of a group ought to be universalizable; what this really means is that we are pretty much stuck on what we believe to be right. We do not people who follow this approach feel that ones they have made up their mind ones; they have figured out what is right what is not. Then that opinion does not change and that opinion applies or that notion of what constitutes as ethical or unethical behavior applies across the board to everybody else in that particular context And that is what is meant by the deontological approach The teleological approaches are it is a philosophical study of how goals and outcomes can shape human behavior. People are proactive rather than reactive that is the other thing that is believed. Certain phenomena can be explained not by means of prior causes but by end of aims, intentions or purposes; which means that phenomena can be explained in terms of the reason for the not by how the process has happened. It they can be explained by what eventually comes out, what ultimately happened determines whether you consider what happened as ethical or not; the process is immaterial So, what really happens here is people who believe in the teleological approach or who follow the theological approach really say that the people take people are proactive; they take decisions they move on. But it is not so important to focus on the rightness of how things happened? It is more important to focus on whether the consequence whether the end result comes across as seems right or fits into our notion of ethical or not The consequentialist ethic is what ultimately happened determines whether you consider it ethical or not as opposed to the process involved Utilitarianism is another aspects of teleological approach where what the ultimate result of the process is going to be used for. And whether that use can be considered ethical or not or useful or not is when we decide whether something is ethical or not. And you will say how does this apply to the notion of communication; anything we say or do. Here depends you know the effective what we say or do determines whether what we said or did is ethical or not. And that is how this apply the intention does not really matter. According to this approach the intention does not really matter and the ultimate result what how people felt, how the ultimate output was really determines whether what we said was ethical or not

The egalitarian approach evaluates communication using the criterion of equality have the condition produced by communication enhanced or hindered equal treatment for the individuals; who are affected by it that is the egalitarian approach So, it really it essentially deals with the equality of the interactants involved have be treated everybody right; have we said whatever has whatever we said or is whatever we have said treating the interactants involved equally or not; have the conditions or has the result that has been produced at the end of whatever we have said is it equally applicable to everybody or not is it affecting everybody equally or not that is the egalitarian approach. Egoistic ethic is the outcome of the communication event good or bad this is an extra is here which I am going to remove I am sorry But then this is what happens in a real class we as hard as we try we do make mistakes like anyone else. And thus an extra is that I am going to remove from here. So, according to this approach or according to the egoistic ethic we say that whether the it is not about quality being applicable for everybody; it is not about equality for everyone, it is not about the notion of goodness for everyone; it is more about the outcome being good or positive or helpful or gratifying for the person who is doing the evaluation of the communicative event; do I perceive whatever is happening as good or not. And that is the egoistic ethic Now, how do you curb I mean people call it as ethical people say I am qualified, I am in a position, I am in a based on my experience training whatever I am in a position to judge whether whatever is being said is ethical or not. But ultimately this is this can be curbed by using the veil of ignorance; which means that we dissociate ourselves. And we say let me then move myself let me assumed that I am not a part of this, I am not getting affected by it and how are the others getting affected by it What happens in a egoistic ethic is that if I am feeling good about it everybody else around me is also feeling good about it. So, everybody we are all equals and I am a representative of the group that this is being addressed to. And if I feel comfortable everybody has feels comfortable. Now, that may or may not be true. And just to become more objective what we do here is we use the veil of ignorance; which means let us assume that I am not a part of this whole situation how would the others in the situation feel? Do they feel that whatever is happening is right or not if yes then we are on the right track Specific theories of communication ethics; that applies specifically to communication events. Now, what I said was actually these are these theories applied to behavior in general. Now, will talk about the theories that applies specifically to ethical communication; the first one here is virtue ethics. Virtue is the way people create and preserve good things or a faculty of conferring many great benefits; again this is based on Aristotle concepts. Justice is the sorry it should be root, it should be virtue of again another spelling mistake and apologize for that. Justice is the virtue through which everybody enjoys his own possessions in accordance with the law; its opposite is injustice through which men enjoy the possessions of others in defiance of the law So, according to virtue ethics or as per virtue ethics we do good things, we preserve good things, we do things that can be beneficial to others or we do things that eventually end up been helpful to others. And we enjoy the fruits only of our own labor we do not enjoy the fruits of other peoples labor, we do not do things, we do not say things that we enjoy the possessions that we have earned by virtue of our own hard work; that is the

concept of justice. And we only clean to enjoy the fruits of our labor one application of this is intellectual property the talk about that; we will touch upon it just a little bit towards the end of this lecture. But excuse me that is the principle of justice in action I have created this knowledge I am going to only clean this portion as my own knowledge creation For example, what I am doing in this series of lectures is I am giving you a lot of different opinions, a lot of different suggestions by different people. And I give you the references which means; that I have not created this knowledge I have not even created these words; these words have come from the authors that have been mentioned. But what I say outside of the slides comes from here. So, what I am saying outside of these slides is what I have interpreted. But what is on the slides if somebody else is words somebody else is knowledge creation; and I am not claiming it as my own I have no rights to. So, that is one thing you will do the same thing in you are work environment So, also I have heard I do not know how far this is true. But I heard that many times due to positive time people copying whenever they ask they are asks to submit something they just copy and paste things from the internet And but that is not right I am just showing you how different people view things as right or wrong. So, principle of the golden mean is when people are faced with ethical choices in a situation the most ethical action is often the one at a midpoint between the 2 extremes; excuse me. So, what happens is that in a situation where two people are saying things that are could-be opposite to each other; at that point what you think is right which situation or what is really appropriate For example, one person says again I am going to use this approaches that I have talked about that the deontological approach; where we say that taking other peoples things is or sorry lying is wrong it is not right to lie the that is the deontological approach So, across the board that applies to everybody in every situation. If you lie you are being unethical then we move on to the teleological approach excuse me which is the use issue at that point you say that it is bad to lie But if assuming somebody else thus as a weak heart and some close family members as just died. And this person may have another heart attack and die. And the doctors says if persons asks you about the person whose dead please save that the person is sick but do not tell him that this person has died So, where do you draw the line? An another tenverse assertion is the concept of transparency versus confidentiality where do you draw the line? So, we say everything should be transparent in an organization; at the same time it is important to protect information that can be damaging to the organization it one has to protect information that can put the employees address. So, where do you draw the line? So, that is where we approach conflict. So, at that point we use the principle of the golden mean we come to a midpoint we give exceptions And we say I am going to share this much information I will not share everything with you; I will not say I do not have any other information But I will not share that information because I feel it is risky to do. So, I feel it might incriminate me, I feel it might put me you know be damaging for me all of those things I have more information I am not going to tell you what it is I will not share the quality the contents of that information also. And this is one example of the golden mean Taoist ethics another theory of communication ethics. According to this life is an organic whole with its own dynamic ecology and no individual person or thing exist except in relation to others. Thus no action can be taken egoistically we see more conflicting things. At this point I want you to start thinking about the implications whatever I am saying in international business. How would people in different cultures believe things, what would people in an low context culture believe more, what would people in a high

context culture believe more, where do we draw line? If you are a person from high context culture who believes one set of ways or who has one method of assessing what is right and what is wrong moves to another culture. At that point you are faced with the deciding what is right and what is wrong; how do you make that distinction where do you draw the line? So, this is that is why I am showing you all of these different opinions where that people have. And these notions of right and wrong good and bad have a very significant bearing on how people treat take over curse on the international business interactions; how you are perceived, how people perceived their own selves and how you are perceived in relation to them. And how well you match up their notions or what is right and what is wrong So, according to Taoist ethics again I am sorry this should be a sub part alright this should be like this. So, according to Taoist ethics communicative decisions are guided by harmony in the environment; what we decide to say is guided by our the main goal here is harmony in the environment. Now, which context would this apply to high or low? You have to decide that we talked about this So, please discuss amongst yourselves whether this would apply to high context or low context And then you decide whether this will help you figure out what will be considered right in a particular context and what will be considered wrong. The other one here is a person must always take into account the ways in which individual action may be counter-productive; when considered holistically. What kind of culture are we talking about, what kind of communication climate are we talking about, what will happen in this situation is it individualistic or is it collectivist philosophy that we are talking about here. So, you have to discuss that And this is why you know we talked about values, believes and ideals; I hope this is making some sense in light or what we discussed in the context of intercultural communication and even international communication. You may be coming from a different region, but; you are interacting with migrants; you are interacting with people who been leaving there, you are interacting with people whose value systems are in transition all of that stuff is going on. Yin and Yang; yin is the passive and receptive elements of living, yang is the active and forceful elements of living they exist interdependently and dialectically that is what Taoist ethics say that we cannot separate ourselves from the holistic picture we cannot separate ourselves from the context And, that is what we have been talking about in this class; you have to decide which culture values what more. And then that will help you determine the context of the person who is receiving your messages; that will help you design your messages across borders more efficiently. Once you know where they are coming from what there notion of right and wrong; good and bad appropriate and inappropriate is that will help you decide how to frame your message in a way that it appeals to their sense of rightness, it appeals to their sense of appropriateness, it appeals to their sense of what is really required. And that will they will in turn determined how competent you are perceived as a communicator Dialogic ethics I thou relationship versus I it relationship in and through communication creating the perceptual reality; that the target of our conversation is a human being versus an object or a thing to be used. How do we again you know I will just clarify this we have talked about this little bit earlier; what happens is when we are talking to people depending on the words be used, the tone we used, the manner in which we talk to them the possess, the interplay of communication rules; we established these relationships I thou relationship is and treating you like a human being. You are as much a participant in this relationship as I am you is, a you come with your own intensions, your own emotions And, all of that your communications wrapped in that your interpretation what I am saying to you is based on your own emotions and feelings and perceptions about me. And I am expecting the same kind of interactions from you when how our relationship is formed; our relationship

is a result of our treatment of each other as human being with aspects that neither how as can control about each other; with aspects of our relationship, but neither how as can control even independently of each other that is this I thou relationship Now, I it relationship is where I treat you as an object you are a resource I am asking you I am paying you the money you are paying me we are giving me the service; I am giving you the money you are teaching me; I am giving you the money you are treating me if you are a doctor. So, you are a service provider you are a resource, you are a I objectify you So, I have an upper hand if I am the one who the, I in this relationship and you are the it then I have a higher position, higher status in the relationship. I decide what the communication rules are going to be, I decide how they will be played out, I decide what the climate of this communication or dis interaction is going to be and all of that stop Psychologism is an all authentic experience that occurs in the inner self and can be measured or described by the concept of psychology And this is what was rejected by Martin Buber Buber said that I do not exist on my own I either exist in relation to the objects in my environment over in relation to the other people in the environment; but I do not exist on my own. Condition of being versus seeming being is when persons respond to each other in terms of the demands of the immediate situation Seeming is when we objectify the other person we attempt to manipulate each other and each others reactions again. And you will say well ethical behavior is that we treat each other as human beings; once in a while we need to objectify each other in order to get things done. And this not I am not saying what is right or what is wrong; but it becomes necessary we also become objectified it is important to objectify our own selves. And we getting to the discussions this will just sort of take on a life of its own So, I am not going to go there. But then again where we draw the line between being and seeming where are our intentions very absolutely honest and sincere. And where do are intentions have a bearing on manipulation of another persons behavior. Natural unfolding of ideas; ideas and communication evolve through the quality of communication versus imposition of ideas which is propaganda and persuasion using the I am sorry about this I think it is gone beyond the slide using the relationship of interactants Let me just reduce the size so you can see at and you can say maybe not this will help yeah. So, the natural unfolding of ideas of another concept here; ideas in communication evolve through the quality of communication versus the imposition of ideas I think I have mentioned that again on the next slide. And this means that again this is based on Martin Buber’s concept of I thou; I let ideas evolve naturally which means that ideas and communication evolve through the quality of communication and the relationship of the interactants. And are this evolution is based on mutual respect I treat you as a human being whose equal to me and you treat me as an equal. And that is how these ideas evolve inclusion sorry this is natural unfolding of ideas. Imposition of ideas on the other hand would be propaganda and persuasion using the relationship of interactants So, what I am really saying is that when we impose our ideas anothers we say by virtue of this relationship; you have to believe in whatever I am saying, by virtue of this relationship you have to do what I am saying, by virtue of this because I have this relationship with you should be believing it. Because I am saying something you have to be believing it. So, we sort of assert ourselves a lot more when we use propaganda and when we impose our ideas on somebody. And that where do we draw the line, where do we where do we draw the line in this; do we draw the line, do we always let ideas unfold or do we sometimes need to put of food down in say. You know what this is where we need to stop and we need to you decide on the course of the communication Inclusion is when people are engaged, people

engaged in inclusion maintain their own perspective while simultaneously imagining in the experienced reality of the other communicators from their perspectives So, what we do is that we maintain our own perspective, we also invite the experiences of; we simultaneously imagine the experience reality of the other communicators from their perspectives; we put ourselves in the other person’s shoes. And we say I am thinking like this what would the other person think be thinking, what would the other person the imagining, what would the other person be understanding from this situation; am I doing justice to both of these opinions or not And that is the concept of inclusion again that is part dialogic communication a lot of flow of messages is involved in taking these decisions about what is right and what is wrong and what is ethical, and what is not ethical and what should not be said Ethical guidelines for communication based on the dialogic theories of communication The first one is authenticity truthfulness are we been truthful; are we saying what we are supposed to be saying, are we have we saying things that we have decided to say I am sorry being truthful means am I saying the right thing am I is the rely involved, am I saying things that are not that are in accurate that are incorrect or am I saying things that are correct. So, that is authenticity inclusion we just discussed. Confirmation inclusion means we take the other persons perspective also into account; before we open amounts confirmation of each other existence in and through dialogue So, when we say inclusion yes I am considering a point of view; when I say confirmation I am also accepting you as a or acknowledging you as a thinking, feeling human being who has a personality of his or her own. And whose behavior I cannot predict fully. Presentness dialogue partners demonstrate willingness to become fully involved with each other by taking time, avoiding distraction, being communicatively accessible and risking attachment. One avoids being an onlooker who simply takes in what is presented or an observer who analyses So, dialogue partners are people who are who become fully involved in each other minimize distractions; they are present in the moment of the communication, they are there, they are fully there we often encounter this. We usually switch off in meetings about things that do not concern as directly. We switched to selective listening what communication you know if you are an ethical or if you are ethical communicators; what we really need to do is be attentive, be alert, be responsive to the other persons, existence, ethnology other persons existence, be responsive to the other persons existence this is what presentness is talking about. Spirit of mutual equality when we are engaged in communication with someone; do we engage in a monologue is it only about me myself I all the time or are we taking the other persons perspective into account, are we focusing on the other persons reality, are we focusing on what the other person wants to say they; do both the interactants have an equal share or do both the interactants participate equally in what is being said or not; that is the spirit of mutual equality Supportive climate dialogue is more of a team effort then a transfer of psychologized meanings from one individual to another; this really focuses on the co-construction of meaning we have discussed to that. Then we talk to each other we discover things, we build the communication, we build the climate, we build whatever is going on the environment, we create a new context together. So, it is not an exchange of ideas alone; it is also the creation of this context by the interactants. And that is the supportive climate not only do we contribute to the building of this new context; we also encourage the other party to contribute their share in the building of this environment Interpersonal ethic, the applications of dialogic theory; where do we applied in real life

Interpersonal ethic is choices communicators have and are able to develop regarding attitudes towards each other; as a result of interpersonal communication. Whatever enhances that which is uniquely human in participants is ethical; whatever dehumanizes is unethical. According to the interpersonal ethic this is again based on the I thou and I it perspectives of Martin Buber; what is really being said here is as long as I treat the other person as a human being as long as I in hands the humanness of the interaction; as long as I do not objectify the other people I am interacting with I am being ethical. When I start objectifying people, when I start dehumanizing the interaction, when I start talking about profits and losses, when I start talking about what matters more to me than another person, when I start using people in and through communication at that point; the communication becomes unethical The other one here is feminine ethic of care And I am going to do something here which will help you relates to this better; a little bit of formatting which I should have done earlier on. Feminine ethic of care according to this there are researched differences where that indicate that women and men tend to solve problems differently. Women are usually associated with caring; women care more they have been known to be more caring towards people, toward situation, towards they are they have a very they have a more caring attitude towards the interpretation of situations, towards the manner in which I mean this attitude please out in the manner in which the draft their communication in which they draft what they say And, they are women are associated with care, relationships, holistic interpretation of situation that includes associated human emotions and feelings whereas men are more object oriented Now, again how does this play out in real life we talk about professionalism. And we say women are unprofessional there are not unprofessional; they believe that anyone else I am interacting with comes with his own set of emotions. And it is not right to disassociate those emotions from the object orientation; those emotions, those feelings; those biases play a role in the manner in which people interact, in the manner in which people behave And these things play out and this is something that I have also heard at work you women just cry at the slightest of pretext; I do not want to see tears, you start feeling bad And, women are built differently; women are by you know an atomically we are programmed to acknowledge, accept, deal with the emotions, expressed emotions more than men. So, this is something that we cannot be disassociated Men are more objects oriented and we say that the feminine ethic of care enhances the involvement or inclusion imagining the real and empathy in any communication. It should play a part again, according to this theory it is important I am not saying it should, it is important in deciding what is ethical or not. The caring is also an integral part of interpreting something as right or wrong. It has 2 aspects to it; one is engrossment which is involvement which includes inclusion, imagining the real and empathy. Empathy is putting yourself in another person shoes and imagining; what they must be feeling Motivational displacement is; motivation is transferred to the cared for person and the relationship between the person who is caring and the one who is cared for. So, in addition to being the object oriented or motivation or the if we if this is the ethic that we go by. Then our motivation depends on the person being cared for or to person who we are empathizing with and the relationship that this person who is being cared for has with the person who is caring for this person whose being cared for. And that ultimately determines what we feel as ethical or not, I know these sounds a lot in the air and I

had noted down an example; I cannot retrieve it right now But this is this really indicates why, you know people in human resource are thought to be more. We have laser officers who can, who are trains specifically in assessing the needs; the emotional needs, the psychological needs, the social needs of people who are actually working in the office. We designated it, we compartmentalize these things, but; it does not necessarily mean that this is right, in every communication there is a human element. And this ethic as essentially empathizes on that human element in communication, the feeling the bios the real component of any communication Discourse ethics; we have communicative rationality which is a consensus according to this, this was proposed by Habermas in 1979. This is according to this consensus is a desirable social goal that can best be achieved by communicators; who chose clear rules for guiding the fairness of deliberations. So, according to this we chose rationally, we chose a set of rules and we let as long as the rules we have chosen are right. As long as the rules we have chosen are rational We can achieve at a consensus in any discussion situation by following those rules. And it has to be a consensus; it cannot be a majority decision. So, everybody has to agree that something is right or wrong and or has to be done or does not have to be done. And as long as the rules are rational nobody should have a reason to disagree. So, we are being ethical, we choose the rational, most rational set of rules here Ideal speech situation is an encounter of ideal speech. You know according to this, the encounter of ideal speech has the following characteristics; the first one here is the cooperative search for truth which results in a consensus or a mutually agreed upon interpretation about that truth. The second one here is a force of the better argument which transcends any kind of internal or external coercion This is all a part of discourse ethic; I should not have a bullet here. So, I am going to remove it, write here. So, according to the communicative rationality this is what the ideal speech situation ship have Force of the better argument transcends any kind of external or internal coercion. And how do we decide what is better? We see what is rational. All communicators have equal access to the discourse, as long as everybody in that team has equal access to the discourse is equal participants in what is being discussed have equal understanding of how this rules were rationalized. And agrees to that rationalization there should be no problem with getting a consensus. All communicative have equal opportunities to question assertions introduce their own assertions and express personal attitudes and wants So, this is also based on the egalitarian principle of communication. Where, everybody has a say, everybody decides, everybody contributes and once everybody has contributed and everybody has agreed on mutually acceptable set of rational rules that are clear to everybody. Then getting to a consensus is not bad; those rules can be applied to different situations. But everybody has to be you know the ideal has to be followed in order to ethically decide on a discussion situation Principles for ethical rhetoric in a democratic society were proposed by Wallace in 1955 They have been mentioned in this book by Anderson and Ross in 2002 have been referring to this book extensively, I will show you this book again, I have shown this to you it is called questions of communication a practical introduction to theory. I have the third edition of the book. You may find later addition this is by rob Anderson and veronica Ross amazing book. This is a very good book on theoretical underpinnings of communicative events. And I have taken all this information from this book especially, the theoretical portions According to the Wallace proposed; the first point here is communicators in a democratic society should uphold a standard of knowledge So, we must know what we are talking about; if we say something, if we want somebody to listen I should have a clear idea what I am

saying. Communicators in a democratic society should exhibit a habit of justice. And what does justice mean? Fair an accurate presentation of facts. Imposition versus encouragement to unfolding of ideas; so we need to decide, we need to present facts accurately, we need to encourage unfolding of ideas, we need to give people the freedom to make choices, we need to give people equal access. That has to be freedom for the equal treatment of the communication event to all the participants in the communication event. And at that point we can say that a sense of justice has been achieved in the communication event Some more principles proposed by Wallace communicators in a democratic society should enact a habit of preferring public to private motivations which means; that and again this is playing out here. Right, here I am telling you where I have got the information that I am sharing with you from. I have given you the references, if I say I believe in something I should be able to disclose why I believe in that, why I am saying something to you in public. I should not need to hide it; I should not have reason that cannot be explained to anyone As long as my reasons for saying; what I am saying are clear can be shared with just about anybody. You know bearing of course, risky situations, my communication can be considered as ethical. Communicators in a democratic society should demonstrate a habit of respect for descent, need t which meanswhich means; that I should be very comfortable where the opposing points of view. It is not only my opinion, it is also the opinions that are contradicting, I am trying to say and I should be with those opinions Market place of ideas ethics; ideas like commodities are and again, this were proposed by Haiman in 1981; 1991; Schauer in 1982 again, discussed in this book by Anderson and Ross published in 2002. And according to this set of ethics; ideas like commodities are differently attractive and influential various publics, which means; people believe different things about different ethics or different notions of ethics. And you as communication experts people who been listening to this different ideas can help me, and can help other communication teachers and can help each other. Figure out how an wide different set of ethics or different notions about ethics may be applicable to different set of situations, different cultures, different people Why would people want to believe a specific set of deciding or why would want how would people differently decide, what is ethical to them handling with situation. So, you know how would they be able to figure out what is ethical. And why would they believe that Once you get a sense of this then you will have absolutely no problem deciding or using whatever you have learnt in any situation And that is why; you said this course is not prescriptive, I am giving you the ideas you have to based on these ideas develop a series of what constitutes ethical communication in different situations. So, you can come up with the sets, share it with me and we will put it up as an attempted this course I invite you to do that like a market economy Market place of ideas gains strength and or influence by encouraging maximum access to the market and by maintaining an adversarial or competitive system for testing ideas against each other. This is exactly what I just said, what Wallace are proposed you know I shared with you what Wallace are proposed in 1955 And he said that you should not be hiding things that are opposing your point of view; make your point of view as strong as possible I am doing this because; I have a reason to do this here is my reason come I invite you to defend my reason. If you defend my reason; I will modify whatever I am saying, if you successfully defend your reason, I will modify what I am saying and come up with the better proposition. So, please give me things that are not, where you do not agree with what I am saying. Please, give me to statement please, tell me why you do not agree and that was strength in my position. So, this market place of ideas ethics is applicable there And this is very applicable to an international business situation where, once you know why people do not consider what you are saying and doing as ethical, you can modify things or you can explain your point of view in a much better manner the enemies known

Censoring of ideas is viewed as an impediment to the market place. In it is quest for truth our ultimate goal is to get to the truth our ultimate goal is to be fair to everyone. If we censor ideas, if we selectively share ideas that can be an impediment to the to our quest for truth. Ethical guidelines for deciding whether secrecy or revelation is the most appropriate would be they were proposed by Bok in 1983. One is the equality the other one is partial individual control over the degree of secrecy or openness about personal matters. Again, Bok proposed these two guidelines; one set or one option was equality everybody should be treated equally. Now, everybody all the interacting should have partial individual control over how secret if they want to be, and how open they want to be Again, I told you we have these 10 verse assertion What should I disclose, what should I hide, where should I be confidential, where should I keep information confidential, where should I let at all out. So, you all these things, if you put all of these in one bag whatever, I am saying in one bag. It will become clearer to you why this topic is important for international business communication and what makes this topic excuse me so complex. The applications of ethics in international business communication; this is perfect timing I just, they just showed me this label they would they give me a signal when 15 minutes are remaining So, it got really smoothly today, one of the applications is negotiations. Now, why do people lie in negotiations again, I have taken some bits and pieces from various situations Various applications of ethics negotiations or a big one, marketing is another one we have talked about, lowball tactics is in that So, that is another one, I will also share with you how people lie in or how deception, how people deceive others. How do we know that they are deceiving us? We will also talk little bit about deception and unethical practices in written communication. And these are some of the applications I am sure that lot more, but; we just do not have time for all of it So, anyway the first one is peoples are comes to may succumb to temptation. And again this is based on these 2 papers one by Tenbrunsel and Diekmann. The other paper is by Malhotra which was published in 2004. I will give you the references; the first one is they believe the people lie in negotiations, because; they attends to succumb to temptations. Something you want more so this succumb to temptation and they lie Attraction to uncertainty; may be what I do not know is more attractive so they lie in negotiations, because; they feel that if they lie then they will get more out of the situation then they would have. If they had not lied, if they lie about their position, if they lie about their, if they lie about what they have, if they lie about their bottom line maybe they will get a little bit more than they would have. If they had been honest and you say well that is worldly wisdom. You need to be worldly wise and maybe that is true maybe that not I cannot say for sure, but; these are some of the reasons Enjoying the powerlessness of the other; that is another reason why people lie in negotiations; they like to see the other person feel powerless, they like to see the other person feel dependent on them and that is why they lie. To avoid hurting the other side’s feelings or to save face; sometimes people lying can be for good purposes also for good reasons also there lie either to avoid hurting the other person or they will lie to save their own face when, we say face we are not talking about this skin, we are talking about public image. I hope you are now, on the same pages when we, when I use these different terms To defend yourself when you sense your opponent is being deceptive; if you see deception coming from the other side you attempt to lie, because; you do not wants to give too much of yourself To restore equality and justice when you feel wronged; that is another reason why you may lie, you feel wrong you want to get back to somebody you sorry, add somebody and you end up lying. To make a profit or avoid a loss; you want to get the maximum benefit out of the situation. So, we attempts to lie Disclosing information in negotiations; when must you disclose information and when must you hide the information in negotiations or any business situation. When is disclosure a good idea; one the information is required by law; if law requires that you give out

some information then you have to give it For example; in any business situation I will give you one example, if you hear about a threat to national security, it is your legal responsibility to inform the next the nearest police station or the nearest authority. So, treats to national security can never be kept confidential, threats to a person’s safety If somebody in your office says that I am going to commit suicide; that cannot be kept confidential that has to be conveyed to the H R head If you are the H R head hearing this you need to convey to your superiors. That so and so is so badly heard. So, and so is threatening to commit suicide. So, it is threat to if human life, at that point you cannot be confidential You may not share it on a public notice board, you should not share such information on a public notice board, but; it cannot be staying only with you should inform you have a responsibility to inform the people who can one help this person 2 people who can be effected in the organization by this. So, it leaves your higher offs Information that is in the public domain; has to be shared, you cannot say I have put it on a public website, but; do not tell anyone, it is confidential. Whatever, I am saying in this is not confidential. Even, if I wanted to keep it confidential, it will be available on you tube everybody will have access to it. Information that could inspire reciprocation; again in negotiations, if you feel that some information can help you get same kind of information from another person than it is the good idea to share that information. Potentially damaging facts and needs; again disclosure is a good idea, you share the information with the other party When is disclosure not a good idea; if there is sensitive or privileged information you have information that can be that is sensitive that you have no right to share information that is not yours to share information that diminishes your power. If it is information that is not required by law to be disclosed, but; this there diminishes your power then you should be sharing information. And information that may fluctuate for example, the fuel prices these days, the prices of airlines tickets, the stock prices all of these things. So, you know you can definitely contextualize information, but you cannot give a definite response to anyone Deception; how do we know that people are lying or what is deception? Deception is the ways in which people send messages designed to do foster beliefs contrary to what the actor believes is the true state of affairs It is manifested through impression management or self presentation. So, we give the other person and impression that we something that is different from the actual truth. And we were just talking about ethical communication this is unethical communication Psychological processes affecting deceptive behavior; how do we know the people are being deceptive? One is psychological arousal; due to detection apprehension, we are scared that we may be detected. So, there psychological arousal and that is something that you can see. Emotional reactions; which arise from guilt or fear of detection, again you can see it. These are some of the things that play into deception and they can they are visible. Cognitive load; the extra cognitive effort required to formulate the deceptive message it can affect the framing of a deceptive message, it can also give you an idea of whether, the messages deceptive or not. Behavioral control; which is the efforts to suppress tell-tale signs and to create a credible demeanor again, this is the, these are the psychological processes that affect deceptive behavior and that can in turn be used to detect deceptive behavior Unethical practices in written communication and implications for intellectual property The first one here is plagiarism. Plagiarism is the kidnapping of another’s words. This is by doctor Sutherland-Smith, who based in Australia I spread a paper by her which will published in 2009. So, this is from there Plagiarism is the act of taking, borrowing, stealing, misappropriating, passing of an object, work, computer images, choreography from a source by an agent without adequate acknowledgement with or without intention to the deceive. So, this is something that people may engage in when they use when they lie in written communication Unethical practices in written communication; one is plagiarism, the copying is another one, you use someone else is work and not acknowledge the person. Cheating is fabrication of data procedures etc, you just fill in the gaps by making assumptions, but; that is cheating

that is not right. Contract cheating is having someone else to your work for you. Again, different people have giving the definitions Patch writing; this copying from a source text and then deleting some words altering grammatical structures or plugging in one for one synonym substitutes and I would have shown you an example; we just do not have enough time for it. But I have given you the link, you can read the link and you can find some more information. So, all these are different forms of unethical practices in written communication Why do people resort to these thing; lack of proficiency in a language could be one, perception that big words and complicated flowery language will leave a good impression about the author about the person who is written that document. Nobody in business has time to pick up a dictionary and find out the meaning of words. Lack of expertise, lack of awareness, laziness, fear of failure, peer pressure, egotism and the drive for self enhancement and the pressure to perform so some of the reason why people may lie in written communication Now, what are the consequences of unethical communication in general; one if you are not communicating ethically it could affective of credibility, it could affective your reputation people will not believe you, people will not respect you, it could damage your reputation It has professional implications; intellectual property you know, you may your promotion may be delayed, your, you know people and all these things are interrelated. You could have legal implications you could be sued Cost to funding agencies; if there is money involved in creating the information that you have created which is when cheated or fabricated or whatever. Cost to do academia; especially if you creating in academic document, future knowledge creation professional careers of people who use this copied or unethical written work in their own careers as a base Under this cost of society; depending on what you have said and why said it and you know if you are writing about some medicine, if you not given all the information then it could end up killing people. So, stuff like that. So, there is a cost involved. So, these are the consequences of unethical communication What you say can affect people careers, it can affect people’s lives, it can affect what society experiences, it can have you put behind bars, it can damage your credibility, can damage your reputation. Please, do not do it, do not do it. So, as far is possible, tell people that you have information that you do not want to share or that you are not authorized to share or that you are not comfortable sharing. But do not lie as far as possible Now, I would like you to discuss a few things before, we end before series of lectures We will have another lecture to wrap up everything we have done. Based on your understanding of the theoretical underpinning dealt with earlier, discuss how the following impact the decision of the interact-ants regarding what constitutes ethical communication. The first one is national boundaries; do national boundaries have anything to do with how meanings are interpreted as right or wrong, good or bad etc. Does culture play a role, do communication rules play a role, where do they decide, whether, where do they help you decide, what is right and what is not. Just compare all these different theoretical underpinnings match them or you know compare them in light of whatever, you have heard or read or studied about diverse or culturally different communication And, then see where what fits in and why people believe things to be right or wrong. And also make a list of where people might get confused in ethical communication; I will add all these things I will give you. More ideas in the web course being developed along the same lines; I just do not have enough time to discuss everything here. But you discuss all these you with your own list of these confusions And then you will be able to figure out on your own what you want to considered as ethical communicative behavior. And what you will this regard where you will draw the line between ethical and unethical communication. And then you can come up with your own strategies and maybe you can teach others about what is right and what is wrong in communication. And in the next class in the last lecture of the series; we were just wrap up everything we have done So, thank you

You Want To Have Your Favorite Car?

We have a big list of modern & classic cars in both used and new categories.