However, this is not necessarily to suggest that all bluffing is wrong. The analogy he uses is the game of poker. And, what is not a trivial reason, because changing them is the right thing to do from an ethical standpoint. After all, that would be tantamount to encouraging them to lie!
It is also unlikely to be believed except by the most credulous counterparties, meaning those most likely not to understand the rules of the game that make bluffing legitimate in the first place.
Carr concludes that truthtelling must be abandoned as an ethical value in the workplace and be replaced by the bluffing and deception characterized by poker. Negotiations do not have to involve actually deceiving the other parties, even if they know the dance.
Part of this came from a bad experience I had had, where I really took advantage of someone—completely legally. Cunning deception and concealment of one's strength and intentions, not kindness and openheartedness, are vital in poker.
The question is whether this is justified. There are some scenarios where it is clear that everyone does know the rules, such as negotiations for commercial real estate sales, or settlement agreements in lawsuits.
IVP Academic, But he decided he wanted more transparency in the process of negotiations. After all, no one wants to deal with a business that talks about bluffing. So much of the discussion of issues in the business world relates to how things are.
If you talk a good game of ethics today you might save yourself from more intrusive laws and regulations tomorrow. But the fact that the opposite happened—housing prices declined, the loans went bad, and the economy was thrown into a global recession—shows that just because a deception sometimes benefits from good luck, it is not true that everyone benefited and no one got hurt.
This last element is especially important since the line between bluffing someone who knows what is happening and taking advantage of someone who does not, is not always clear. But the strategy of bluffing is less effective the more it becomes known that you are bluffing or intending to do so.
The two points seem to go hand in hand. Others need to be changed because changing them would make things better for everyone involved. Gillespie specifically outlines three of these cases.
As suggested earlier in this paper, the poker analogy does not apply to business, since business is clearly not a game: After all, that would be tantamount to encouraging them to lie!Perhaps the classic defense of bluffing in business comes from Albert Carr, writing in the Harvard Business Review in Carr claimed that business is analogous to poker, and since everyone knows the rules of the game, bluffing is not deception and is therefore an acceptable practice.
Business Bluffing Given what we’ve said about truth telling this may seem like a strange question to ask. But, the issue does arise in business in many ways from one’s first entry into the work world right through to the end of a career. At the same time, I suggested that most bluffing in business might be regarded simply as game strategy—much like bluffing in poker, which does not reflect on the morality of the bluffer.
Bluffing is widely practiced in business, and bluffing = “calculated lying.” This means that the “church ethics” of honesty, integrity, and decency have no place in business.
That is, “some dishonesty accepted in the narrowly restricted context of negotiation” = “no honesty required anywhere” 3. A respected businessman with whom I discussed the theme of this article remarked with some heat, “You mean to say you’re going to encourage men to bluff?
Why, bluffing is nothing more than a. Dec 04, · Business bluffing could affect the habits of consumers and that could lead to decreased profits which is bad for business.
To sum it all, the Utilitarian theory is very practical in this case, because profit is the goal for most businesses and satisfying needs is the goal of consumers. Both of these are satisfied by business bluffing and .Download