Business School Ethics Case

[ojc02]

I was just in a marketing class where we were given a one page case to read and then discuss. It lead to some interesting discussion during which almost everyone disagreed with me... I just thought it would be interesting for this forum and I'd love to see where you guys stand on this...

To summarize: You are Harold Cassidy, a salesman for a childrens clothing manufacturer and you're taking over the Texas region after the previous salesman left. You're meeting your second largest client who repesents a $200,000 account for your company from which you get an $8000 commission. You meet their buyer, Jim Carson, over dinner. He tells you that his company has several other options and that he had an arrangement with the previous salesman to personally pay him $750 in cash per year to keep the account. He expects this to continue with you, what do you say?

In my naivity, I actually didn't realize this was illegal until someone mentioned it early in the discussion. My take was that you giving him the bribe is not unethical, but him accepting it is. My reasoning for this is that you are acting in the best interest of both yourself and your company by paying him the $750. However, he is not acting in the best interests of his company if he accepts the bribe and makes a decision that would be suboptimal for his company.

I said that I would not do it because of the risk of going to club fed, but if the legal imperative were not there then I would pay him in a second. Several of my classmates said that it was unethical and they would never do it but didn't give me any reason why.

Thoughts?

[DougShrapnel]

If it is in the best interest of your employer there is nothing unethical about it. But why are you sure it is in the best interest of your employer to bribe other companies representatives? You are seeling the integrity of your company at the cost of a fraction of a region in a unspecified number of regions. Not enough info to make an business ethics decision.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
If it is in the best interest of your employer there is nothing unethical about it. But why are you sure it is in the best interest of your employer to bribe other companies representatives? You are seeling the integrity of your company at the cost of a fraction of a region in a unspecified number of regions. Not enough info to make an business ethics decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if there's nothing wrong with it then why would it reflect badly on our integrity? Also (not that it really matters), there's a very good chance that nobody else would ever find out about it.

[ojc02]

Ah, I guess then the buyers might stop wanting to do business with you if they think the only reason your company got chosen was because you paid their buyer... I get the impression that this goes on a lot but it stays under wraps.

[DougShrapnel]

Becuase it's clearly within your best interest to take the deal, but it may or may not be within the best interest of the company to take the deal. If I change the problem to in order to pay the 750 you and the other salesmen negotiate a price of 218750. You get your 8,000 and he gets his 750. What would you say then. There is no way to determine if 200,000 is the correct price or if it was inflated by you and other salesman.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, I guess then the buyers might stop wanting to do business with you if they think the only reason your company got chosen was because you paid their buyer... I get the impression that this goes on a lot but it stays under wraps.

[/ QUOTE ]Happens all the time. But it's dinners, and golf outings and strip clubs (Parternship Building)

[BPA234]

If you remove the legal issue, you still have an ethics issue relative to the compensation paid directly to the buyer.

IMO, @ $750 you also have an over compensation issue. But hey, what do you think expense accounts are for?

Seriously, many companies offer customers rebates etc. expressed in trips, discounts or other forms of compensation. So you could easily argue that this is the cost of doing business with this particular company.


What breaks the deal for me, is the fact that you are giving the buyer (not the owner) a cash bribe to maintain an account.

[ojc02]

That's pretty much what I was saying. When a bribe is involved it could cause the buyer to accept a sub-optimal deal for his company (optimal would be $200,000, sub-optimal would be $218,750). It's definitely in my company's best interest to take the higher price, so it's ethically fine for the salesman. However, it's definitely not optimal or ethical for the buyer (who is under contractual obligation to accept the best deal).

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
If you remove the legal issue, you still have an ethics issue relative to the compensation paid directly to the buyer.

IMO, @ $750 you also have an over compensation issue. But hey, what do you think expense accounts are for?

Seriously, many companies offer customers rebates etc. expressed in trips, discounts or other forms of compensation. So you could easily argue that this is the cost of doing business with this particular company.


What breaks the deal for me, is the fact that you are giving the buyer (not the owner) a cash bribe to maintain an account.

[/ QUOTE ]

So do you think it's unethical for the seller, the buyer, or both?

[BPA234]

I agree with you on the partnership building reality (I am in sales). But, I disagree that paying the buyer is not unethical. You are aiding the buyer's unethical practice. You are definitely complicit.

[DougShrapnel]

Once word gets out that your companies salesmen artificail inflate their prices to bride other companies buyers. You have an integrity issue on your hands. Cash bribes are not the ethical route. Use the expense accounts you will have. Do not associate your business with unethical business practices. Keep the transaction on the books.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you on the partnership building reality (I am in sales). But, I disagree that paying the buyer is not unethical. You are aiding the buyer's unethical practice. You are definitely complicit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, this is what people were saying in class.. I guess it really comes down to what you consider to be the definition of "ethical / unethical". IMO, their only ethical obligation is to abide by their contractual agreements with their employers. They are both contractually obliged to get the best deal which the seller is doing and the buyer is not doing.

I don't really see why the seller, or his company have any ethical obligation to help the buyer's company...

[BPA234]

Both, because one of the stakeholders (buyer's employer) is being abused. Since you are party to that, you are, at least in part, also guilty.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
Once word gets out that your companies salesmen artificail inflate their prices to bride other companies buyers. You have an integrity issue on your hands. Cash bribes are not the ethical route. Use the expense accounts you will have. Do not associate your business with unethical business practices.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is another thing that was brought up in class that I thought seemed strange. What is the difference between taking the buyer to a $1000 lunch and giving him $1000 in cash?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once word gets out that your companies salesmen artificail inflate their prices to bride other companies buyers. You have an integrity issue on your hands. Cash bribes are not the ethical route. Use the expense accounts you will have. Do not associate your business with unethical business practices.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is another thing that was brought up in class that I thought seemed strange. What is the difference between taking the buyer to a $1000 lunch and giving him $1000 in cash?

[/ QUOTE ]Is the $1000 in cash on the books?

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
Both, because one of the stakeholders (buyer's employer) is being abused. Since you are party to that, you are, at least in part, also guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I don't see how they are being abused by the seller. This feels analogous to me selling someone a gun and that person then shooting someone. Am I responsible for their death?

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once word gets out that your companies salesmen artificail inflate their prices to bride other companies buyers. You have an integrity issue on your hands. Cash bribes are not the ethical route. Use the expense accounts you will have. Do not associate your business with unethical business practices.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is another thing that was brought up in class that I thought seemed strange. What is the difference between taking the buyer to a $1000 lunch and giving him $1000 in cash?

[/ QUOTE ]Is the $1000 in cash on the books?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would imagine that as part of the deal, the buyer would insist that it be kept off the books.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Both, because one of the stakeholders (buyer's employer) is being abused. Since you are party to that, you are, at least in part, also guilty.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I don't see how they are being abused by the seller. This feels analogous to me selling someone a gun and that person then shooting someone. Am I responsible for their death?

[/ QUOTE ]Yes if they walk into your store and say "I'm gonna shot someone with the gun I purchase" you will be held in part accountable for his actions.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with you on the partnership building reality (I am in sales). But, I disagree that paying the buyer is not unethical. You are aiding the buyer's unethical practice. You are definitely complicit.

[/ QUOTE ]I haven't yet made a judgement on paying the buyers ethicality. I'm trying to show that it isn't in the sellers companies interest to do so. And is unethical on that ground. I figured it would be an easier route.

[BPA234]

Well, ethics are relative. IMO, if I participate in a "wrong", and the buyer getting paid cash (assumed to be outside his employer's knowledge) to award me business fits my definition of a wrong, than I am guilty of an unethical act.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once word gets out that your companies salesmen artificail inflate their prices to bride other companies buyers. You have an integrity issue on your hands. Cash bribes are not the ethical route. Use the expense accounts you will have. Do not associate your business with unethical business practices.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is another thing that was brought up in class that I thought seemed strange. What is the difference between taking the buyer to a $1000 lunch and giving him $1000 in cash?

[/ QUOTE ]Is the $1000 in cash on the books?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would imagine that as part of the deal, the buyer would insist that it be kept off the books.

[/ QUOTE ] That's the difference. Why would someone want to do something perfectly ethical yet insist that it be kept off the books. The reality is don't worry, you will have plenty of opportunities to legally and ethically bride buyers.

[BPA234]

I definitely think this is all relative. Admittedly, I wonder how resistant I would be to this concept if the sales volume was 2M, my commission was 80K and his "kickback" was $7,500.

Recently, I had an interesting situation that mirrors this. I have a new account that is generating modest action. A lower level decision maker (who definitely influences buying decisions) hit me up for free product. I blew him off, with an evasive response. But, I am sure he will be back to try again.

I think compensating him to maintain business would be wrong. Fortunately, my company has very strict and meanignful ethics guidelines that prohibit me from any act that is not able to be fully disclosed.

[madnak]

I don't know much about business, but I would never ever let a client push me around like that. I'd sweeten things for everyone on general principle, but if someone demanded a bribe from me they could find someone else. If the arrangment wasn't mutually beneficial from the start, I wouldn't want the client.

Of course, if it were just a wage job and I didn't give a [censored] about the firm, then I'd do it. But I wouldn't work with a firm that I didn't think was the best, or in which I didn't have opportunities. Buuut I'm not Harold Cassidy. Poor fella's got kids to feed, after all.

[BPA234]

It's more direct than that. Here are two reasons:
1. The buyer is supposed to be acting in the best interest of his employer. If he is taking kickbacks, he is putting himself first and his company second.
2. The buyer is supposed to be deriving his compensation from his employer, not from the seller.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
It's more direct than that. Here are two reasons:
1. The buyer is supposed to be acting in the best interest of his employer. If he is taking kickbacks, he is putting himself first and his company second.
2. The buyer is supposed to be deriving his compensation from his employer, not from the seller.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, it's definitely unethical for the buyer...

I thought it was ethical for the seller but I'm struggling now with my own gun-store analogy. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I think I would have to sell him the gun even if I knew he was gonna shoot someone else. If I'm acting ethically in my own self interest then I should take the sale, *he* is the one shooting someone else, not me.

I guess it could be argued that it would be in my best interest to not have maniacs like this guy on the street with a gun, but that is kinda indirect and doesn't apply to the sales analogy.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I definitely think this is all relative. Admittedly, I wonder how resistant I would be to this concept if the sales volume was 2M, my commission was 80K and his "kickback" was $7,500.

Recently, I had an interesting situation that mirrors this. I have a new account that is generating modest action. A lower level decision maker (who definitely influences buying decisions) hit me up for free product. I blew him off, with an evasive response. But, I am sure he will be back to try again.

I think compensating him to maintain business would be wrong. Fortunately, my company has very strict and meanignful ethics guidelines that prohibit me from any act that is not able to be fully disclosed.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think that compensation is nesessarily wrong, In a lot of business free product is an attemp to breed familiarity. A big mistake companies make is selling off their name. Short term gain in exchange for long term loss.

[BPA234]

If we can agree that the buyer is acting unethically, than you need to decide if acting in concert is unethical. I believe that complicity in an unethical act is unethical.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
I definitely think this is all relative. Admittedly, I wonder how resistant I would be to this concept if the sales volume was 2M, my commission was 80K and his "kickback" was $7,500.

Recently, I had an interesting situation that mirrors this. I have a new account that is generating modest action. A lower level decision maker (who definitely influences buying decisions) hit me up for free product. I blew him off, with an evasive response. But, I am sure he will be back to try again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it seems like this kinda thing really does happen a lot.

[ QUOTE ]
I think compensating him to maintain business would be wrong. Fortunately, my company has very strict and meanignful ethics guidelines that prohibit me from any act that is not able to be fully disclosed.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I knew that my company did not allow it then that would make it unethical for me to pay the bribe because I would be breaking my contract with my employer. However, I get the impression that there are many employers (including the fictitious one in this case) who almost expect their sales force to do this.

[BPA234]

The problem is that my product is expensive, he wanted a lot, and for use in a private enterprise.

Wrong, right?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that my product is expensive, he wanted a lot, and for use in a private enterprise.

Wrong, right?

[/ QUOTE ]Seems wrong to me in a business ethics sense. It also seems like it would put your job in jeopardy, and put your companies image in jeopardy. Bad business and unethical.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
If we can agree that the buyer is acting unethically, than you need to decide if acting in concert is unethical. I believe that complicity in an unethical act is unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, my ethical guide is the objectivist "rational self-interest". As such, complicity in an unethical act is not necessarily unethical and in the cases we have discussed so far I don't think it is..

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know much about business, but I would never ever let a client push me around like that. I'd sweeten things for everyone on general principle, but if someone demanded a bribe from me they could find someone else. If the arrangment wasn't mutually beneficial from the start, I wouldn't want the client.

Of course, if it were just a wage job and I didn't give a [censored] about the firm, then I'd do it. But I wouldn't work with a firm that I didn't think was the best, or in which I didn't have opportunities. Buuut I'm not Harold Cassidy. Poor fella's got kids to feed, after all.

[/ QUOTE ]Harold Cassidy will lose his earning power if he is a known cheat. It's because he has kids to feed that harold shouldn't make this deal.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know much about business, but I would never ever let a client push me around like that. I'd sweeten things for everyone on general principle, but if someone demanded a bribe from me they could find someone else. If the arrangment wasn't mutually beneficial from the start, I wouldn't want the client.

Of course, if it were just a wage job and I didn't give a [censored] about the firm, then I'd do it. But I wouldn't work with a firm that I didn't think was the best, or in which I didn't have opportunities. Buuut I'm not Harold Cassidy. Poor fella's got kids to feed, after all.

[/ QUOTE ]Harold Cassidy will lose his earning power if he is a known cheat. It's because he has kids to feed that harold shouldn't make this deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he would only lose his earning power if he got busted by the feds. If we were in a situation where this is not illegal (or just never enforced, like in many other countries) d'you still think he shouldn't do it?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know much about business, but I would never ever let a client push me around like that. I'd sweeten things for everyone on general principle, but if someone demanded a bribe from me they could find someone else. If the arrangment wasn't mutually beneficial from the start, I wouldn't want the client.

Of course, if it were just a wage job and I didn't give a [censored] about the firm, then I'd do it. But I wouldn't work with a firm that I didn't think was the best, or in which I didn't have opportunities. Buuut I'm not Harold Cassidy. Poor fella's got kids to feed, after all.

[/ QUOTE ]Harold Cassidy will lose his earning power if he is a known cheat. It's because he has kids to feed that harold shouldn't make this deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he would only lose his earning power if he got busted by the feds. If we were in a situation where this is not illegal (or just never enforced, like in many other countries) d'you still think he shouldn't do it?

[/ QUOTE ] You should steer clear of win-lose business relationships. If the arangement you are forging to your knowledge is stealing from paul to pay peter. You are acting against your self interest. You want buyers that want your product, and buyers that have a need for your product, you don't want buyers that have a need to line their own pockets.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
You should steer clear of win-lose business relationships.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yeah, I don't deny that I don't know too much about business relationships, that's why I'm in school. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
If the arangement you are forging to your knowledge is stealing from paul to pay peter. You are acting against your self interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I'm stealing from anyone... Sorry, I may be missing the point..

[ QUOTE ]
You want buyers that want your product, and buyers that have a need for your product, you don't want buyers that have a need to line their own pockets.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really control the quality of the product or the marginal cost of production. As a salesman, my job would just be to well as much of it as possible.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, I don't deny that I don't know too much about business relationships, that's why I'm in school.

[/ QUOTE ] There is somehting fishy about this deal. Perhaps it's becuase there is a competing companies product that is a better match for this clients particular needs. You run the risk of selling a product that doesn't fit the buyers companies needs well. In turn the buyers company now spreads bad word of mouth about your company, becuase it doesn't fit what the companies needs. You made a deal not in the interest of your company or yourself. You may attemp to rationalize this away by creating a senario in that no ill will will come of the deal. But if that is the case, then there is of course no need for buyer to demand a 750 cash off the record kickback.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think I'm stealing from anyone... Sorry, I may be missing the point.

[/ QUOTE ] The buyer is getting 750$ that doesn't belong to him or that he and you don't have the power to negotiate for. Right? Someone is being stolen from.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really control the quality of the product or the marginal cost of production. As a salesman, my job would just be to well as much of it as possible.

[/ QUOTE ] Yet somehow you decided you should have control over what buyers employeer should pay him?

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, I don't deny that I don't know too much about business relationships, that's why I'm in school.

[/ QUOTE ] There is somehting fishy about this deal. Perhaps it's becuase there is a competing companies product that is a better match for this clients particular needs. You run the risk of selling a product that doesn't fit the buyers companies needs well. In turn the buyers company now spreads bad word of mouth about your company, becuase it doesn't fit what the companies needs. You made a deal not in the interest of your company or yourself. You may attemp to rationalize this away by creating a senario in that no ill will will come of the deal. But if that is the case, then there is of course no need for buyer to demand a 750 cash off the record kickback.

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think I'm stealing from anyone... Sorry, I may be missing the point.

[/ QUOTE ] The buyer is getting 750$ that doesn't belong to him or that he and you don't have the power to negotiate for. Right? Someone is being stolen from.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really control the quality of the product or the marginal cost of production. As a salesman, my job would just be to well as much of it as possible.

[/ QUOTE ] Yet somehow you decided you should have control over what buyers employeer should pay him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, that is an interesting way to think about it. Effectively I'd be giving up $750 to get $7250 from the buyers *employer* (not to mention the $200K) that they wouldn't have chosen to give to me..

This is a complicated situation. I think the key is that the money is coming from the buyers employer (not the buyer).. I need to give it further thought - Ultimately, I still think the buyers behavior is the responsibility of the buyers company, not the seller or his company.

I think the way to avoid this situation would be to include in the standard contract between the two companies a clause that stated that none of these shenanigans had gone on, which the seller and buyer both have to sign off on. That way the ethical issue is cleared up.

[RJT]

Of course it is unethical. The question should be - is it good or bad business (for your employer)? The answer is it is probably bad in the long run, for a number or reasons. I’d take the topic from that point forward.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course it is unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Throughout this whole thread I've been trying to determine if it's ethical or not. Everyone agrees that it is unethical for the buyer. I just don't think it's unethical for the seller.

[ QUOTE ]
The question should be - is it good or bad business (for your employer)? The answer is it is probably bad in the long run, for a number or reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

This really gets to the issue for me. If you think it's bad business (ie not maximizing profit long term) then it is effectively unethical - it is not in the rational interest of the selling company (your employer), who you're contractually obliged to act in the best interest of.

If you disagree then you must either:
(1) Disagree that the seller (and the selling company) are acting in their best interest.
(2) Disagree that they should be acting in their best interest.

For (1): I think you could argue this, certainly because of the legal ramifications (which is why I said I wouldn't do this if the situation actually occurred). But I really want to address the hypothetical situation where there are no legal ramifications.

For (2): In the proposed situation:
a. The selling company has no contractual obligation to the buyer or the buyers company.
b. No parties are being forced to do anything against their will.

Those two factors are the two I use to assess moral / ethical situations and the sellers actions pass both those tests (if you agree that he is acting in the best interests of his company).

[RJT]

ojc,


First of all, I assume we are ignoring the illegality of it - - you did say it was illegal, right?

Here’s a few things to consider:

Most companies send out notices to their venders ( your employer) (especially around Christmas time) that they have a policy that their employees are not allowed to accept gifts (or gifts valued over x$). Your company implicitly agrees to this once they receive this notice and continue to do business with them. If they ignore it and allow Cassidy to pay-off the buyer, they are acting unethically. (I am assuming the buyer, Carson, is an employee and not acting as his own privately owned company). Now the question becomes, is it ok to act unethically as the seller. Well, if is “ok” to act unethically , then there is no such thing as ethics (at least in the business world).

This assumes Cassidy’s company knows about this and condones it. If they don’t know the deal, he has an obligation to inform his own employer and let them decide if they want to do business like this.

If we decide it is “ok” to act unethically, then the question becomes is it good or bad business? Now it simply becomes a numbers game. How much profit can we make and for how long can we make this profit relative to the probability of getting caught by the buyer and thus lose all future business. The other thing to consider is if we get caught, will we lose their business and potential business with other companies (word will get out)? In the long run, the risk (lost of future business) might out way the immediate rewards (the profits now).


RJT

[ojc02]

Yeah, I talked about the illegality in the OP. As I have said already, I am interested in whether people would consider it unethical if the legal impediment were removed.


[ QUOTE ]
Most companies send out notices to their venders ( your employer) (especially around Christmas time) that they have a policy that their employees are not allowed to accept gifts (or gifts valued over x$).

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is true then I agree that it is unethical for the seller to pay the buyer because the buying company is effectively saying: "As a precondition to any agreement, you must not have paid our buyer."


[ QUOTE ]
If we decide it is “ok” to act unethically

[/ QUOTE ]

It is never ok to act unethically, that's why I've been trying to figure this out /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Thremp]

Question: Since this is an ethical issue, you obviously do not accept free drinks etc. from friends who work at resturants, employee discounts on clothing etc., correct?

[ojc02]

Hey, I'm not trying to proselytize one way or the other. I had an opinion (that I'm not 100% confident in) to start with and I'd love for someone to prove me wrong (or right).

I think I would not accept because I have a vested interest in my friends not getting into trouble if they aren't supposed to be doing it. If the owners don't care then I'd accept for sure. If it was someone I didn't know who offered then I would accept.

What would you do?

[Thremp]

Bribe him.

But the thinking in not allowing him to steal from his company means that you would not accept stealing from others who were doing the same thing regardless of size, no?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, I'm not trying to proselytize one way or the other. I had an opinion (that I'm not 100% confident in) to start with and I'd love for someone to prove me wrong (or right).

I think I would not accept because I have a vested interest in my friends not getting into trouble if they aren't supposed to be doing it. If the owners don't care then I'd accept for sure. If it was someone I didn't know who offered then I would accept.

What would you do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only read the first post and this.

Um, Texas? Well, I'd get in touch with the client himself and ask what he thought about it and see what happens after that.

No way I'd pay an employee of a valued client a bribe to keep a 8k comission, personally. It isn't about illegality, it's about honor. And that's always worth more than 8k a year to me.

Greed's well and all, but there's more fulfillment in acquiring it through noble means. Even if it means passing up on opportunities or losing them. I like looking in the mirror and knowing I do what's right by myself and what's expected of a gentleman. That's how it works for me.

[ojc02]

If the legal impediment weren't there I'd bribe the buyer too. (I'm too pretty to go to jail /images/graemlins/smile.gif )

[ QUOTE ]
But the thinking in not allowing him to steal from his company means that you would not accept stealing from others who were doing the same thing regardless of size, no?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's really what I was trying to get at. As the seller, I have no obligation to the buyers company (unless I signed something saying that I did). The buyer is the one doing the unethical thing in my opinion.

If the positions were reversed and I was the buyer, I would not accept a bribe from a seller because I'm under contractual obligation to my company to seek the best deal and not take bribes.

The situation you mentioned early (the drinks & clothing discount) is really more analogous to the sellers situation. In this case the employee is the one behaving unethically by giving those things away when they're not supposed to be. That's why I said I would accept if it was from someone I didn't know (if it was a friend I'd probably say no and just pay full price because I wouldn't want them to get in trouble)

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey, I'm not trying to proselytize one way or the other. I had an opinion (that I'm not 100% confident in) to start with and I'd love for someone to prove me wrong (or right).

I think I would not accept because I have a vested interest in my friends not getting into trouble if they aren't supposed to be doing it. If the owners don't care then I'd accept for sure. If it was someone I didn't know who offered then I would accept.

What would you do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only read the first post and this.

Um, Texas? Well, I'd get in touch with the client himself and ask what he thought about it and see what happens after that.

No way I'd pay an employee of a valued client a bribe to keep a 8k comission, personally. It isn't about illegality, it's about honor. And that's always worth more than 8k a year to me.

Greed's well and all, but there's more fulfillment in acquiring it through noble means. Even if it means passing up on opportunities or losing them. I like looking in the mirror and knowing I do what's right by myself and what's expected of a gentleman. That's how it works for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, not sure if there was some confusion.. In this post I was replying to thremps question here (not really discussing the OP):

[ QUOTE ]
But the thinking in not allowing him to steal from his company means that you would not accept stealing from others who were doing the same thing regardless of size, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

My opinion on the OP is that as the seller I would pay (if not for the legal impediment) buy as a buyer I would never accept a bribe.

Also, if I thought it was not in the best interests of my employer (as the seller) then I wouldn't do it either. If my company had a policy against it or if I thought it would be harmful long term then I wouldn't do it either.

I think it is possible though, to consider a situation in which bribing him *would* be in the best interest of my employer (esp if it wasn't illegal). What would you do in this situation?

[FortunaMaximus]

In a practical fashion, hand in my two weeks' notice and move on.

To be fair, I've never understood the concept of work, so grain of salt. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

If I considered myself as operating on the same agenda of interests as my employer, and the aim was to get capital from buyers, I'd look at it as a reduced commission and treat it as a cost of doing business, as in a vacuum it is merely a reduced amount of revenue.

Losing a small percentage of something to assure a large percentage of an existing revenue stream is still an overall net gain compared to a bigger percentage of nothing.

[Thremp]

Yeah the analogy was from the seller's perspective. Much like bartenders giving free drinks etc.

FWIW I bribe him and sleep at night perfectly fine. Or instead mail him excessively nice Christmas gifts.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
In a practical fashion, hand in my two weeks' notice and move on.

To be fair, I've never understood the concept of work, so grain of salt. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

If I considered myself as operating on the same agenda of interests as my employer, and the aim was to get capital from buyers, I'd look at it as a reduced commission and treat it as a cost of doing business, as in a vacuum it is merely a reduced amount of revenue.

Losing a small percentage of something to assure a large percentage of an existing revenue stream is still an overall net gain compared to a bigger percentage of nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this is exactly what I was getting at. If it weren't illegal then you (and I) would bribe him.

I guess the question other people have raised with me is: "As the seller, do you have an ethical obligation to the buyers company to not bribe the buyer?"
To which I say no, unless I have previously agreed with them not to as a precondition of doing business.

[mindflayer]

Let me clarify the issues and question.
If there were no legal impediment,
Q. Is Offering/continuing to bribe Imoral?

IMHO
A. Depends on the discrepency between your offer
and the next best offer of the buyer.

I would have to say, all other things being equal
then it is NOT unethical for you to make the offer.

This means as long as the buyers company has several $200,000 options, your push for him to chose YOur
company is not unethical.
Wether it is a cash bribe or on the books as free
lunches/rounds of golf or tickets to the football
game you need an EXTRA reason for him to choose your
company. (the cash/ or expense account is not the
issue since we made this a moral issue, not legal)

If however your 200,000 offer is high and the buyer
has several 150,000 offers on the table, and you
know you have no/(or a very slim) chance of
winning the deal without the bribe, THEN it becomes unethical for you to make the offer, and immoral for
the buyer to accept.

Answer this question.
If your $200,000 deal was the best by far in
quality/service and price (the other offers
being to pay $300,000) then how unethical would
it be to give him a kickback of $750?
..or would you just call the salesperson (yourself)
stupid instead of unethical?

[ojc02]

I would offer it to him because if I thought it was what was best for my company (which it probably would be). It would be unethical of him to accept it because he is under contractual agreement to seek the best deal for his company.

IMO behaving ethically is behaving in my rational self-interest without resorting to force or breaking contracts I have signed. If I have no agreement with the buyer or his company to not bribe him then it's fine for me to do it.

Do you disagree with my definition of ethical behavior or my application of it?

[arahant]

My gut reaction is that it is 'unethical' to do anything other than report the crooked buyer to the customer's owner. Of course, this does great harm to you.

Simply blackmailing the buyer resolves any complicity you would otherwise have in his actions. Assuming your product and service is competitive with others, I would demand that he disgorge the prior bribes (to you) and pay, say...$300 extra per year to keep this under wraps.

If your company's products are substandard or overpriced, then just being a salesman is probably unethical.

Let's be real though. It's basically impossible to be an ethical salesman.

[ojc02]

lol, I assume you're joking, but just in case: How are you defining your ethical standard?

What's wrong with being a salesman?... I'm guessing you've had one too many telemarketers call during dinner...

[arahant]

I'd say it was a half-joke, half-truth.
I chimed in here even though the field of ethics isn't my forte. One of the problems i've always had is what to do in these sorts of situations...It just kind of makes me sad that this hypothetical is all too real.

Ethics to me is sort of like the famous definition of porn...'i know it when i see it'.

I would have tossed the situation up to my boss. Then I would have found out that this was standard practice. Then I would have made a stink. And then I would have been fired...

[ojc02]

Yeah, it's a pretty sucky situation to be sure. There are people in my class who've been faced with this situation at past jobs. They said that when they turned down the kickback requests their bosses were understanding.

Frankly, it's not worth getting in trouble with the law over.

[southerndog]

Is it unethical for you to pick up $10 worth of groceries at the store, have the cashier ring it up as $3, hand him a $5 and watch him keep $2?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]

Is it unethical for you to pick up $10 worth of groceries at the store, have the cashier ring it up as $3, hand him a $5 and watch him keep $2?

[/ QUOTE ]

Erm. Is that even in the same context, as the decision-making process is not in your own hands?

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]

Is it unethical for you to pick up $10 worth of groceries at the store, have the cashier ring it up as $3, hand him a $5 and watch him keep $2?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a reasonable analogy.. In both cases you know what's going on, however in both cases I believe that agent behaving unethically is the other person.

I have laid out my position before:
[ QUOTE ]
I would offer it to him because if I thought it was what was best for my company (which it probably would be). It would be unethical of him to accept it because he is under contractual agreement to seek the best deal for his company.

IMO behaving ethically is behaving in my rational self-interest without resorting to force or breaking contracts I have signed. If I have no agreement with the buyer or his company to not bribe him then it's fine for me to do it.

Do you disagree with my definition of ethical behavior or my application of it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Applying the same standards to the situation you suggested I would say it is not unethical. Whatcha think?


(I think I might turn him in because it is worth more in utility to me to know that he got busted than the worth of the $5 I could save.
In my original case, as the seller, I am under contract to try to maximize the profits of my company so I should bribe the seller.)