You’re sitting across from a counterpart. They’ve just made a claim about their "walk-away price" that you suspect is total fiction. Your heart rate spikes. You have two choices: call their bluff or counter with a fabrication of your own.
In that moment, are you a liar, or are you just playing the game?
This is often a dilemma the delegates on my workshops struggle with, and rightly so. We are conditioned with a sense of honesty, fairness and integrity.
In the classic anthology What’s Fair: Ethics for Negotiators, editors Carrie Menkel-Meadow and Michael Wheeler force us to confront a discomforting reality: Negotiation is a moral minefield. The most polarising debate in the book centres on two clashing worldviews:
Albert Carr’s "Poker School" and the "Idealist School."
Where do you draw the line?
1. The Poker School: "It's Just Business"
Albert Carr’s 1968 essay, Is Business Bluffing Ethical?, remains one of the most disruptive pieces of writing on the subject. Carr argues that business negotiation is a game, much like poker.
The Logic: If the rules of the game permit bluffing, then bluffing is not "lying" in a moral sense; it’s a tactical move.
The Ethical Boundary: As long as you aren’t committing actual fraud (violating the law), anything goes.
The Disruptive Truth: If you’re too "honest" at the poker table, you aren’t being ethical, you’re just being a bad player. You are failing your company and your stakeholders by bringing "home ethics" to a "game ethics" environment.
2. The Idealist School: "Your Word is Your Worth"
On the other side of the ring are the Idealists. They argue that the "poker" analogy is a dangerous fallacy. Why? Because unlike a game of cards, business relationships are meant to last longer than a single hand.
The Logic: Deception erodes trust, and trust is the "lubricant" of the economy. If you lie about your bottom line today, why should I trust your delivery timeline tomorrow?
The Ethical Boundary: If it’s wrong to lie in your personal life, it’s wrong to lie at the boardroom table.
The Disruptive Truth: The "Poker School" is a race to the bottom. When everyone bluffs, transaction costs skyrocket because no one can believe a word the other side says.
The "Gray Area" That Actually Matters
Most of us like to think we are Idealists, but we act like Poker Players when the pressure is on. This is what Menkel-Meadow and Wheeler call the "Moral Realist's" struggle.
We live in a world of "Standard Practice." If every other car salesperson bluffs about the "invoice price," does your refusal to do so make you a saint or a martyr? Does "everyone else is doing it" actually provide a moral pass, or is that just the coward’s way out?
"The negotiator's dilemma is that to get a 'fair' deal, one must often hide their true preferences, yet hiding those preferences is exactly what prevents a 'perfect' deal." — Summary of the Negotiator's Dilemma, What's Fair.
The Verdict: What’s Your Reputation Worth?
Here is the disruptive reality: The market has a long memory. In the digital age, the "Poker School" is becoming increasingly high-risk. A reputation for "clever" deception travels faster than ever. If you win the battle (the deal) but lose the war (your reputation), was it actually a win?
I want to hear from the practitioners in the trenches:
Do you believe "game ethics" are a valid excuse for withholding the truth?
Have you ever called a bluff and ended up destroying a long-term partnership?
Is "bluffing" just a polite word for lying, or is it a necessary skill for a professional?