Is Business Bluffing Ethical - Essay Example

IS BUSINESS BLUFFING ETHICAL? Is Business Bluffing Ethical? Introduction For decades now, scholars and theorists have embarked on the development of ethical theories and definition of ethical standards that should apply in business. A popular scholar, however, appears to differ from it all. Albert Z. Carr, in his article entitled “Is Business Bluffing Ethical?” brings in a whole new point of view. He demonstrates the opinion that, when it comes to business, one can bluff in an effort to maximize profits on his side and not be held at fault. According to this article, one does not have to tell the truth or be honest, which justifies bluffing. In asking whether or not bluffing in business is ethical, Carr is of the opinion there is no problem with it. He compares it to a game of poker, where no one puts all his cards on the table for everyone to see, or a situation in which a man is given a chance to make a killing by the law, which he would be a fool not to take (Carr, 1967). This essay seeks to develop the argument, in reference to the article, that bluffing in business is as unethical as any form of dishonesty. Theoretical Perspectives The various theories used in ethical arguments by different authors have bene found to present different standpoints as far as honesty and lying are concerned. The two are critical issues in the article by Carr. One of the key theories that have been used in the history of ethical studies is that of religion, which seems to leave no conditions to the propagation of honesty and unconditionally banishes lies (Vitell, 2009). In short, according to this point of view, one cannot lie for any cause or under any circumstances, regardless of the consequences. Another theoretical perspective that has been used in business, which might also be used in the argument of Carr, is utilitarianism. This point of suggests that utility should be maximized in order to benefit the highest number of people possible (Baugher & Weisbord, 2009). As such, one would argue that he can lie as long as it is for a good cause. One would compare this to the justification of clandestine business operations that are meant to benefit a suffering community. Rational egoism also has been used in the evaluation of the honesty question. This theory suggests that one should not tell lies in an effort to “obtain a positive value” (Debeljak & Krkac, 2008). This means that he or she could lie and justify it if he or she did it in self-defense, the point at which his or her privacy was under threat. In this regard, the consequences at the personal level are used to justify lying. However, this perspective makes clear the boundaries within which one should lie, which involves lying for a benefit. For instance, telling lies in a resume to obtain employment is not justified under this theory, which obviously comes into conflict with Carr’s argument. As Carr would argue, if one can lie to increase profit then one should; it is just business. Then last theory to be examined here is Machiavellianism, which suggest that one should lie of lying will help him or her obtain the personal gain he desires (Zagenczyk, Cruz, Woodard, Walker, & Few, 2013), which is in complete conflict with rational egoism and any other theory, but in agreement with Carr’s argument, of course, in the business context. The evaluation of these theories has been carried out with the primary objective of illuminating the extent to which Carr, as many other business people, would be willing to go in an effort to maximize profits on their side. However, choosing one theory over the others would be conflicting as each, to some extent, is not in agreement with the other three. Questioning the Poker Game Analogy The poker game, as any good player in it would understand, is not only based on a set of rules, meaning that one not only needs to follow some rules in order to win. With this understanding, one would add that the eventual winner, as Carr notes, is the person that plays with steady still. This necessitates a combination of an insight into the psychology of the other players, self-discipline, and the capability to identify and respond fast to the winning opportunities as they arise (Carr, March 9 1967). There are numerous inferences that one can deduce from this presentation, which one can look at in diverse ethical perspectives. First, looking at the dimeson of the psychology of other players, one would understand that, according to Carr, the winning player should look to not only exploit to the maximum but also to confuse the other players is such an opportunity arises. The identification and response to such opportunities, therefore, becomes an automatic way of exploitation of the other players (Jennings, 2008). He also adds that the poker game is not a matter of applying the ethical principles that people learn in churches. In other words, it is applicable in poker to bluff, and this does not require and should not involve the application of the ethical principles that are taught in church (Steiner & Steiner , 2002). From this point of view, Carr makes an express comparison between the poker game and business, not to mention that he completely disregards the ethical principles that business borrows from religion (Priest, 1998). One would also look at his perspective from a social responsibility standpoint. It is a common understanding that business should ultimately involve making a profit or increasing it. It would also be acceptable that a business can make a profit at the expense of another business, which is a dimension of competition. On the other hand, it is understood in the business world, that businesses are not the exact kind of competitors that poker players are. If so, one would suggest that it is fine to engage in cutthroat competition, even though it continues to hurt some stakeholders (Kurbjeweit, 2011). As such, one would agree that business and the poker game are not exactly comparable and, as such, not all principles that are applying in poker games, such as bluffing, should be applying in business because some stakeholders will be negatively affected. At this point, it would be important to invoke the stakeholder theory, which suggests that a stakeholder is anyone or any party that affects or is affected by the accomplishment of organizational goals (Crane & Ruebottom, 2011). This further brings an important element of social responsibility, which involves the fair consideration of all stakeholders. If businesses have to compete like poker players, then many stakeholders, including consumers and local communities, will be negatively affected. As opposed to the standpoint of utilitarianism utility, in that sense, is not at all directed to benefit the majority, which should be an aspect of business in the modern world; it is only meant to benefit the best skilled and, possibly, the most vicious player, just as it is in a poker game. In this regard, bluffing, as it applies to poker games, should not apply at all in business. If the rules and ideas applied by Carr are followed, it will mean that one should have a specific kind of personality out of work and a completely different one out of work. Questioning the Application of Bluffing in Negotiation The primary objective of negotiation, which many seem to agree that it requires artistic skills, is to arrive at a mutual agreement (Burr, 2001). This is why it is important to look at a negotiation process objectively in making sure that there is a win-win situation, not one in which one person wins while the other loses. In the case of Carr, one should use bluffing in becoming the ultimate winner while taking advantage of the weaknesses of the other party, looking at it as a matter between only two parties (Collins, 2001). This is not always how it takes place because other parties, many of which also necessitate the negotiation process, are also involved and could be hurt is a business negotiation should be addressed like a game of poker. In business negotiations, the process does not necessitate intimidation and deception, which bluffing precipitates. One would not aim at being the kind of negotiator who says “this is the best deal you will ever find and there is no time left for you to decide, you either have to take this offer or be the loser”. Such an assertion obviously demonstrates the intimidating attitude of a poker player or a politician who looks at nothing but a win for him, not worrying about the other side, which he could also benefit from (Byrne, 2011). In negotiation, everyone has a price to pay. If one’s objectives are met, it does not mean that those of the other person have not been met (ANSarkar, 2010). It also does not mean that all objectives of all parties involves have been met, but both sides may have won. The corporate world is obviously intensely competitive and involves sale representatives that end up deceiving their clients by providing false information in what Carr refers to as the “pressure to deceive” (Carr, March 9 1967), which he appears to believe is inevitable in business. This is obviously not an ethical practice in any form of business. A sales representation should always aim at meeting the needs of the customer as the ultimate way by which he or she will find the profit that he seeks (Olekalns, Kulik, & Chew, 2014). In such a situation, the representative has had his goals met and so has the customer. Such a customer will stay engaged in the business, bring to the business referrals that will see more profits gained, and become a loyal customer way long into the future. This discredits the bluffing approach that Carr appears to suggest to be applied in business, which is unethical, as this essay remains to hold. Conclusion According to Carr, business is just like a game of poker. This presentation, one would expect, came at a time when perspectives of business ethics were still in their developmental stages, when theorists had not fully conceptualized some of the most applicable theories at present. This, however, is an unacceptable notion, which appears to support cutthroat business practices that can never address issues of stakeholders other than the business. As such, the presentations of Carr are not applicable to business in the modern world, and this essay finds them impractical, especially when it comes to negotiation. References ANSarkar. 2010. Emerging Strategic Issues in Global Business Negotiation: Sharing Global Vision. Drishtikon : A Management Journal 1.2, 1-36. Baugher, D., & Weisbord, E. 2009. EGOISM, JUSTICE, RIGHTS, AND UTILITARIANISM: STUDENT VIEWS OF CLASSIC ETHICAL POSITIONS IN BUSINESS. Journal of Academic and Business Ethics 1 , 1-11. Burr, A. 2001. Ethics in negotiation: Does getting to yes require candor? Dispute Resolution Journal 56.2, 8-15. Byrne, E. (2011). Business Ethics Should Study Illicit Businesses: To Advance Respect for Human Rights. Journal of Business Ethics 103.4, 497-509. Carr, A. Z. (March 9 1967). Is Business Bluffing Ethical? The New York Times, 143-153. Collins, D. 2001. The quest to improve the human condition: The first 1 500 articles published in Journal of Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 26.1, 1-73. Crane, A., & Ruebottom, T. 2011. Stakeholder Theory and Social Identity: Rethinking Stakeholder Identification. Journal of Business Ethics, suppl. Supplement 102, 77-87. Debeljak, J., & Krkac, K. 2008. Me, myself & I": practical egoism, selfishness, self-interest and business ethics. Social Responsibility Journal 4.1/2, 217-227. Jennings, M. 2008. Business Ethics: Case Studies and Selected Readings. New York: Cengage Learning. Kurbjeweit, B. 2011. The Relationship of Ethics and Law in Governing the Game of Business. Journal of Business Ethics Education 8, 55-62. Olekalns, M., Kulik, C. T., & Chew, L. 2014. Sweet Little Lies: Social Context and the Use of Deception in Negotiation. Journal of Business Ethics 120.1, 13-26. Priest, J. 1998. Bluffing. ournal Record [Oklahoma City, Okla] 08 May, 1. Steiner, G. A., & Steiner , ‎. (2002). Business, Government and Society. Cambridge: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Vitell, S. 2009. The Role of Religiosity in Business and Consumer Ethics: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Business Ethics, suppl. Supplement 90, 155-167. Zagenczyk, T. J., Cruz, K. S., Woodard, A. M., Walker, J. C., & Few, W. T. 2013. The Moderating Effect of Machiavellianism on the Psychological Contract Breach-Organizational Identification/Disidentification Relationships. Journal of Business and Psychology 28.3 , 287-299. Read More