Read the following case study and answer the question:

Ethical Dilema

In Chapter 11, we addressed lying in the context of communication. Here we return to the topic of lying but specifically as it relates to negotiation. For many people, there is no such thing as lying when it comes to negotiating.

It's been said that the whole notion of negotiation is built on ethical quicksand: 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.

Can such tactics be legal and still be unethical?