Bluffing and Business Ethics Studies

Bluffing and Business Ethics

Studies of business theory and organizational behavior have both classically and currently held with total consistency the importance of sound business ethics to the success of a business. The role of ethics today, as in the past, is one directly proportional to the ability of an organization to achieve stability, efficiency and profitability as well as to remain with the limitations of the law in terms of policy and practice. Yet, there is also the perspective that a distinct set of ethics applies in the realm of corporate business as a way of governing behavior that is contextually ethical but reflective of a distinct set of success-driven values. This is the argument at the crux of Carr's (1968) article, which endorses the use of 'bluffing' as a measure of succeeding in business.

Framing the discussion from an initial conversation with a colleague who ardently refused to accept the value of bluffing, Carr argues to the contrary that the use of certain measures of deception is dictated as not just appropriate but even necessary in surviving and succeeding in business. He contends that "if the individual executive refuses to bluff from time to time-if he feels obligated to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth-he is ignoring opportunities permitted under the rules and is at a heavy disadvantage in his business dealings." (Carr, 144) Carr makes the contention thusly that the business world is predicated on certain expectations regarding the flexibility of the truth. To this end, Carr provides such examples as the use of planned obsolescence in moving multiple product generations; the presentation or exaggeration of certain attributes in job-hunting; the use of marketing measures to exaggerate product value; or using hardball negotiation tactics to achieve suitable compromise. In each of these, Carr perceived an area of business orientation in which bluffing has been necessitated by the pressures of the business world itself.

This certainly helps to explain why bluffing might be required to survive the current business climate. However, that does not constitute an ethical orientation. Carr perceives that certain acts of deception may be rationalized by the business context, referring at multiple points to business as a game possessing its own unique set of rules. In order to function effectively within the context of this game, individuals that have a firmer grasp on such unspoken rules are likely to experience greater success.

It is in this regard that the author compares business to the game of poker, in which players who succeed by balancing honesty with opportune acts of deception are not viewed as behaving immorally. Instead, it is understood that this is what is required in order to emerge as victorious. There is a set expectation amongst individuals with an understanding of the game that they will face such deception at points, and that the degree to which this can be detected will have a significant bearing on one's success. To Carr's view, this demonstrates that where contextual norms allow, ethicality can take on proportions distinct from those of religious tradition, an example frequently used as a counterpoint in the article.