In a layman’s term, the most effective, though not the fastest way to be as wealthy as you can be is through coming up with the decision to start perspectives and ideas on having a business. Believe it when someone says to you that the previous statement is easy to say but really hard to put into concrete actions. Usually, aspiring businessmen in the complex corporate word have to undergo four to five years of studying in a college or university, depending on the chosen specialization, to be able to secure the highly-coveted diploma. They dutifully spend most of their young adulthood life trying to be fully-acquainted with the technicalities of the rise and fall of economies and its implications to the standards of the society. They are doing so with the overestimating belief that the knowledge of these “business fundamentals” would drive them toward achieving enduring goals that they personally set for themselves.
However, it is a common misconception that coherence to textbook knowledge and punctuality to in-room discussions are the perfect elements for a recommendable future. In more ways than one, non-conformity or the gift of being different or unique can be the deciding factor between success and failure. So much has been said and done with the obedience to basic rules and laws of business principles as vital and inviolable must-do in the world of marketing and management. Rarely has it been advocated that crossing over morality will turn out to be a plus factor for a businessman desiring to be a successful one.
In the article entitled, Is Business Bluffing Ethical, it is said that there are selected special instances that require total disobedience to societal moral law. (Carr, 1968, p.42) As an indirect contradiction to the belief that transparency is the reflection of the competency of a business, Carr argued that bluffing can also build up spice and twist to it. Wise as he is, he then compared the business game to the varieties of the poker game. Obviously, the common denominator between the two is that they both employ strategic decisions and movements as being emphasized by Carr in his statement, “Business is our main area of competitions, and it has been ritualized into a game of strategy” (Carr, 1968, p.42). For him, business bluffing is merely the “white lies” of the corporate world wherein one has to ultimately bend a particular rule for the greater good.
On the flipside of the coin, Albert Carr was quick to emphasize that morality in business is different from that of the values internalized by the society and its religious beliefs as stated in his words, “The essential point, I said, is that the ethics of business are game ethics, different from the ethics of religion” (Carr, 1968, p.38). With this counter-argument for the primary moral issues that lying represents even in business, Carr was able to segregate business bluffing from the usual suspects that deception represents.
He also said that, “But as long as a company does not transgress the rules of the game set by the law, it has the legal right to shape its strategy without reference to anything but its profits” (Carr, 1968, p.42). According to Carr, businessmen have the unfathomable tendency to eventually bluff or lie due to their focus on making their unsurmountable work profitable. This presents a valid reason which does encapsulate the very essence of putting up a particular business – make money.
However, the strategic decision of trying to bluff will also put a business at risks and challenges that may be detrimental to its resources, especially in terms of manpower. The relationship between an employer and his employees would eventually careen into danger if liberated to do so. This argument was presented by Norman A. Bowie, Chair of the Business Ethics Department in the University of Minnesota. Bowie showed an argumentative comparison that mainly focused on the negativities that business bluffing can eventually cause to the developing relationship of an employer and employee.
As his counter to Carr’s positive outlook on business bluffing, Bowie maintained loyalty to human resources as the inevitable core of the success of a business. In his statement, “What the poker model overlooks is the fact that the production of a good or service in any given plant or office is a cooperative enterprise” (Bowie, p.44), he emphasized that the process of working on a certain business should be a mutual interrelating cycle between the superior and the workers. Bowie threw shade to Carr’s argument that deception and occasional bluffing will produce benefits for the company.
He also took note that collective bargaining is not at all a healthy regimen as it causes adversarial relationship between employer and employee. With this, he places trust at the heart and soul of the mutuality of human resources. Bowie pins on the significance of pure transparency to effectively generate motivation and production of the employees.
On the contrary, Bowie’s argument could be placed into debate as a little too idealistic for the taste of the modern society. With past widespread issues of evasion and deception, the idea of banking on the verbal or even, written promises of a contract or an agreement would prove to be unsurprisingly difficult to believe. If put into the lens of the perspective on moral grounds, Bowie’s contradiction to business bluffing is a thing of perfection. Its fidelity to establishing an effective employer-employee bind would place a business in enviable position to make the most of the opportunities to produce good results and succeed.
However, as opposed to Carr, Bowie was not able to discuss the importance of privacy and confidentiality and the role they both play in the corporate world. Realistically speaking, it’s an absurdity that everything has to be fed to everyone in a business. Both bluffing and telling the truth have its pros and cons that may be hard to duck or even avoid. One just has to know the right place and right time to use each.
References
Carr, A. (1968, January). Is Business Bluffing Ethical. Harvard Business Review, 143-153.
