It's been said that the whole notion of negotiation is built on ethical quicks and: to succeed, you must deceive. Is this true? Apparently, a lot of people think so. One study found 28 percent of negotiations, while another study found 100 percent either failed to reveal a problem or actively lied about it during negotiations if they were not directly asked about the issue.

On the other hand, truthfulness and openness appear crucial to attaining win-win solutions. After all, any possibility of reaching an integrative negotiation settlement depends on both sides openly disclosing their interests.

Evidence indicates that deception in negotiation can produce short-term advantages (albeit with long-term costs). This, of course, does not mean that what is effective is morally right.

We can probably agree that bald-faced lies during negotiation are wrong. The universal dilemma surrounds the little lies: the omissions, evasions, and concealments that are often necessary to best an opponent.

When are deception, evasiveness, or collusion out of bounds?