BUSI 455 Week 5 Ethics Paper Example

Silence Is Not a Lie: Deception, Withholding Information and the Biblical Negotiator

Introduction

Every negotiator eventually faces a moment when the whole truth seems costly. A buyer asks a seller, "Is this your best price?" A job candidate is asked about other offers. Much negotiation advice treats these moments as matters of skill, and some of it treats deception as part of the game. This paper argues that a biblical worldview draws a clear line through them: deceiving the other party is wrong, but declining to reveal private information is not. The line matters ethically, and it also matters practically, because deception carries costs that discretion does not.

Common Tactics and How They Are Judged

Lewicki et al. (2015) describe a range of ethically ambiguous tactics in negotiation. Lewicki and Robinson (1998) asked students to rate the appropriateness of such tactics and found that respondents distinguished among categories. Traditional competitive bargaining, such as making an opening demand far above what one expects to settle for or hiding one's real bottom line, was widely seen as acceptable. Misrepresenting information to the other side, bluffing about alternatives, making promises one does not intend to keep and attacking the opponent's network were seen as much less appropriate.

Those ratings describe what people accept, not what is right. But they reveal that most negotiators already sense a difference between keeping cards close and lying about what is in one's hand.

Lewicki et al. (2015) describe four ways of reasoning about such choices: end-result ethics, which judges an act by its consequences; duty ethics, which judges it by obligations and principles; social contract ethics, which judges it by the customs of a community; and personalistic ethics, which relies on one's own conscience. A negotiator reasoning only from consequences might justify a lie that wins a large deal, and one reasoning from social contract might accept bluffing because "everyone does it." A biblical worldview stands closest to duty ethics, but its duty rests on God's own truthfulness, since Numbers 23:19 says he is not a man that he should lie, rather than on a rule humans agreed to. That grounding matters, because it means the standard does not shift when the stakes rise or when the other side lies first.

Deception: What Scripture Forbids

The ninth commandment forbids bearing false witness against one's neighbor (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, Exodus 20:16), and Proverbs 12:22 sets the Lord's disgust at deceitful speech against his pleasure in people who deal faithfully. Paul grounds honesty in belonging, telling the Ephesian church to stop lying to one another because its members are joined as one body (Ephesians 4:25). Jesus asked that a plain answer be enough, with no oaths needed to make it true (Matthew 5:37).

Applied to negotiation, these passages rule out several common tactics. Claiming a competing offer that does not exist is false witness. Saying "I cannot go above $22" when one can is a lie, even if it is expected. Promising future business with no intention of providing it is a false promise. Each of these plants a false belief in the other person's mind to gain an advantage, which is what Scripture forbids.

Withholding Information: What Scripture Permits

Scripture does not require a person to disclose everything. Proverbs 12:23 says that a prudent man conceals knowledge, and Proverbs 11:13 praises the one who is trustworthy in spirit and keeps a thing covered. Discretion is presented as wisdom, not deceit. A negotiator who declines to name a bottom line, saying "I'd rather not share our limit, but here is our offer," has told no lie.

The test is whether the other party is led to believe something false. Silence about a limit leaves the other party uninformed; a false statement about a limit leaves them misinformed, and only the second is deception. Some silences do deceive: a seller who knows a used car has a cracked engine block and stays silent while the buyer inspects it is concealing a material defect, and the law and Scripture's call to love one's neighbor (Leviticus 19:18) both condemn that. Withholding is acceptable when it protects one's own negotiating position, and wrong when it hides a fact that would harm the other party.

The Consequences of Deception

Deception also fails on its own terms. Boles et al. (2000) studied repeated ultimatum bargaining and found that deception was common, but when it was revealed, the deceived parties retaliated by rejecting later offers, even at a cost to themselves. Schweitzer et al. (2006) found that trust damaged by untrustworthy behavior could be restored through apology and consistent behavior over time, but trust damaged by deception did not fully recover, even after the deceiver promised to change and behaved trustworthily. A negotiator who lies to win one deal may lose every deal that follows with the same partner.

Sande and Johnson (2015) frame conflict as an opportunity to glorify God, serve others and grow to be like Christ. A negotiator who refuses to lie, even when lying is expected, bears witness to a different standard.

Rules for an Honest Negotiator

• Never state a false fact, including false alternatives, deadlines or limits.
• Keep a bottom line private by declining to answer, not by misstating it.
• Disclose material defects or risks the other side cannot discover and would care about.
• Make only promises you intend and are able to keep.

Conclusion

Ambitious openings and private limits are part of honest negotiation. Lies about alternatives, limits and intentions are not. Scripture permits the first and forbids the second, and research shows that the second also destroys the trust negotiators depend on. In Negotiation 1, our pair declined to reveal our resistance point but never misstated it, and we still reached a strong agreement. Honesty did not cost us the deal; it helped make the relationship that followed possible.

References

Boles, T. L., Croson, R. T. A., & Murnighan, J. K. (2000). Deception and retribution in repeated ultimatum bargaining. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 83(2), 235-259. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2908

English Standard Version Bible. (2016). Crossway. (Original work published 2001)

Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2015). Negotiation: Readings, exercises, and cases (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Lewicki, R. J., & Robinson, R. J. (1998). Ethical and unethical bargaining tactics: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(6), 665-682. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005719122519

Sande, K., & Johnson, K. (2015). Resolving everyday conflict (Rev. ed.). Baker Books.

Schweitzer, M. E., Hershey, J. C., & Bradlow, E. T. (2006). Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.005