Three Schools Of Bargaining Ethicsg Richard Shellthe Three Schools Of
The three schools of bargaining ethics I want to introduce for your consideration are (1) the “It’s a game” Poker School, (2) the “Do the right thing even if it hurts” Idealist School, and (3) the “What goes around, comes around” Pragmatist School. Let’s examine each one to understand their perspectives, and reflect on which aligns best with your own attitudes and beliefs about bargaining. I suggest aiming as high as possible within the bounds of your genuine ethical convictions. In real-world practice, there is a tendency to slide downward in ethical standards under pressure.
The “It’s a Game” Poker School
This school views negotiation as a strategic “game” governed by specific rules, primarily those defined by law. Conduct within the law is considered ethical, while conduct outside it is unethical. The modern proponent of this school was Albert Z. Carr, who wrote in the 1960s that bluffing and misleading tactics are integral to the bargaining “game,” akin to poker. Carr argued that tacticians who master deception and cunning are more successful and that deception is essential for effective negotiation, provided it remains lawful.
Members of this school see bargaining as a turn-based game: one side makes an opening, followed by proposals, arguments, and counterarguments. Both sides may bluff to disguise weaker positions—misrepresenting their alternatives or arguments, but always within legal bounds. Successful negotiation involves judging when the other side’s claims are truthful or strategic falsehoods. If confronted with a credible ultimatum, the bluff fails, and the negotiations may collapse or result in a less favorable deal. The Poker School emphasizes adherence to the law, but not necessarily to honesty beyond legal compliance. Its key problems include the assumption that everyone views bargaining as a game, the variability of legal standards across regions, and the difficulty in reliably knowing which tactics are permissible.
The Poker School:
Negotiation as a Strategically Lawful “Game”
The Poker School perceives negotiation as a strategic game regulated chiefly by law, where deception and cunning are not just permissible but necessary for success. This view is rooted in the belief that bluffing, withholding information, and strategic misrepresentation are integral tactics akin to poker. Albert Z. Carr’s influential writings in the 1960s articulated a perspective that views bargaining as a competitive activity where the primary rule is to operate within the bounds of the law. In this context, honesty is confined to legal compliance, whereas tactics such as bluffing are viewed as fair play.
Proponents of this school argue that mastering deception is essential for gaining advantage, and that skilful negotiators are those who can successfully mislead their opponents without crossing legal boundaries. The core assumption is that every negotiator is aware of and accepts the notion that bargaining involves strategic misrepresentation, making trust less important than tactical skill. This view naturally emphasizes legal boundaries but often downplays the importance of moral considerations beyond legal legality, raising questions about the ethics of deception.
However, the Poker School is not without limitations. It presumes that all parties view negotiation as a game, an assumption that does not always hold true, particularly in negotiations involving relationships, ethics, or high stakes. The variability of legal standards across different jurisdictions further complicates adherence to this model, underscoring the need for legal expertise to navigate complex environments. Despite these issues, the Poker School advocates for a pragmatic approach emphasizing strategic advantage and legal compliance.
The Idealist School: Negotiating with Moral Integrity
The Idealist School advocates that negotiators should always act according to ethical principles, doing the “right” thing, even if it disadvantages them temporarily. This perspective emphasizes honesty, transparency, and fairness, arguing that ethical conduct builds trust and sustains long-term relationships. It sees deception, bluffing, or coercion as inherently unethical, regardless of legal permissibility.
This school aligns with the belief that moral integrity should underpin all bargaining activities. Advocates emphasize that trustworthiness and credibility are vital for effective negotiations in the long run, and that unethical tactics ultimately backfire by eroding reputations and damaging relationships. From this perspective, negotiations are not merely a strategic game but a moral enterprise, where principled conduct is paramount.
The challenge of this approach lies in its potential for being exploited by less scrupulous counterparts, and in the practical realities where difficult compromises or tough negotiations are required. Nonetheless, proponents argue that adhering to the higher ethical standards promotes a fairer, more sustainable bargaining environment and reflects a commitment to moral consistency.
The Pragmatist School: Balance Between Ethics and Strategic Interests
The Pragmatist School advocates a flexible approach to bargaining ethics, emphasizing pragmatic considerations over rigid adherence to rules. Negotiators should aim to achieve the best outcomes feasible within legal and ethical limits, but remain adaptable depending on context and strategic needs. This perspective recognizes that in real-world negotiations, hard lines can be counterproductive.
Practitioners of this school often employ tactics that are morally neutral but strategically advantageous. They may engage in deception or manipulation if it serves their interests, provided such actions are not illegal or overtly unethical. The focus is on pragmatism—assessing the context, the relationship, and the potential outcomes—and choosing tactics that maximize benefits without crossing ethical boundaries. Critics argue that this approach risks moral relativism, potentially allowing unethical behaviors to be justified as “pragmatic.” Nonetheless, the Pragmatist School often stresses the importance of context-dependent decision-making and the pursuit of practical results aligned with one's strategic goals.
In conclusion, understanding these schools enables negotiators to reflect on their practices and develop a coherent ethical stance aligned with their values and the demands of each negotiation context. While the Poker School emphasizes strategic deception within lawful limits, the Idealist School champions unwavering moral integrity, and the Pragmatist School advocates flexibility, balancing ethics and strategy.
References
Carr, A. Z. (1968). Business as a Game. Harvard Business Review.
Shell, G. R. (2006). Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People. Penguin Books.
Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin.
Baumrind, D. (1985). Moral Development, Ethical Behavior, and Negotiation Strategies. Journal of Business Ethics, 4(2), 131-139.
Rubin, J., & Brown, B. (1975). The Social Psychology of Bargaining. Academic Press.
Thompson, L. (2015). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. Pearson Education.
Shell, R. G. (2018). Negotiation Essentials: Your Guide to Effective Negotiation. Routledge.
Ury, W. (1991). Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People. Bantam Books.
Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., & Barry, B. (2015). Negotiation. McGraw-Hill Education.
Fisher, R. (2014). The Negotiation Game. Harvard Negotiation Law Review.
