Abstract
As the focus on ethical business practices intensifies worldwide and as international trade and business opportunities grow, business executives from around the world are constantly engaged in the negotiation of business deals. The negotiation process is littered with ethical dilemmas. In a tactical process, as two parties try to reach agreement, each wanting to maximize their results, the temptations to use deceptive or dishonest tactics are undeniable. It is, therefore, imperative that global executives understand the ethical mindset of their negotiation counterparts in order to develop effective relationships. The present study examines the effects of the preferred ethical ideologies (idealism and relativism, opportunistic and Machiavellianism tendencies of marketing executives from six countries on their perceived appropriateness of unethical negotiation tactics (Making false promises; Attacking opponents' network; Misrepresentation of information and inappropriate information gathering). Results from a series of regressions analyses provided confirmations for the proposed relationships indicating that marketing managers who are more idealistic, less relativists, less opportunists and less Machiavellians perceive inappropriate negotiation tactics as unethical. Implications of these results for practitioners and future research are discussed. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]