Suppose you’re going after a job. It would be ideal for you in so many ways: it’s work that you really want to do, great company and setup, reasonable hours, no commute, having that job would enable you to complete a pending home purchase or marriage, etc. And, for whatever reason, you’re not having luck in other job offers – for now. Truth be told, you are desperate for this particular job.
It’s time to negotiate salary. You don’t want your employer to know your desperation. That would give them the edge. You want them to feel desperate. So, you drop hints about your many alternate offers and plans.
You don’t lie outright – for example, you don’t say “I have four other offers that I need to answer by Monday.” Because you know that would be false. You say things of a general nature whose implications could easily become true by next week or next month, such as “I have my shingle out there of course, and you can imagine some of the great responses coming my way.”
The distinction is that you’re saying things whose implications are not true at this moment, but not impossible either. You’re saying things that are potentially true, if you yourself were to invest more time or effort. Are such statements lies? Are you a fraud or sleazeball for making them?
I’m asking this for a political reason, not a personal one. After I see a few comments, I’ll write the second half of this post. 🙂
I appreciate the comments. Here’s the second half.
First off: The strict definition of lying is that you make a false statement with an intent to deceive; that is, an intent to have someone believe or do things that they otherwise wouldn’t believe or do.
It’s clear that some lies are worse than others. We can make a scale, from saying
- false things that could easily become true (and you are working super hard to make them true); to saying
- false things that could become true (and you might work to make them true – if you feel like it); to saying
- false things that could become true but it’s unlikely (because you won’t be working on it and/or it’s out of your control); to saying
- false things that can never become true (because reality makes them impossible, and you know it).
We all say “liar!” when people do 3 or 4. Ted B. pointed out that 1 and 2 are more of a gray area; people will make allowances for themselves or their friends to do 1 or 2, but will say “liar!” if an opponent or a stranger does 1 or 2.
All politicians lie, and some of their lies are worse than others.
- Hillary saying “there is no classified materials” on her bathroom email server was a 4. Reality contradicted it. (There were lots of classified materials on her bathroom email server. And she knew it. Oh wait, she scrubbed the materials with BleachBit – was it a 1, after all? 🙂 )
- President Obama saying “My plan will lower costs” and “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor” would seem like a 1 to his most persistent supporters. But it was a 4. Because his plan made it economically impossible for costs to go down or for very many people to keep their doctors. And evidence emerged, that he and the architects of his plan knew it all along.
Now, what about President Trump? Kurt guessed correctly that I had Trump in mind, with all this. I’ve been reading his 1987 book. The guy has made a career out of doing 1, with occasional forays into 2.
To give an over-simplified example: time and again in a construction project, Trump needed financing and approval. He told the banks that they should trust him and move quickly because the approval would be coming soon, and he told the approval people that they should trust him and move quickly because the financing would be coming soon. Neither was quite true; but he was working on them together and, if they both came through, he would get the deal and proceed to deliver on the construction.
It does make me wonder what he’s been up to, with various world leaders and Washington power players. But I don’t think he’s doing anything worse than Obama. Because, again, Obama was a colossal liar – and didn’t deliver on much. The difference with Trump is that so many world leaders and Washington power players perceive him as an opponent, and therefore won’t make the allowances that they made constantly for Obama.
As for Trump’s alleged “I hope” statement to Comey the Leaker: Sorry lefties, but from the book, it does seem that Comey was being a drama-queen Mind Reader. When Trump wants you to do something for him, he asks you in terms that are so definite, they’re almost an open threat.
Namely, he tells you what leverage he has to assure your compliance. He’s the kind of guy who would tell a waiter “I’d like that drink right away, and I’m know you’ll be good about it, because I can enlarge your tip if you are, or shrink it if you aren’t.” Explicitly, leaving nothing to the imagination.
Comey’s “I hope” story doesn’t begin to approach it. What I make of that story now, is that Trump was just trying to tell Comey “I hope you’re a decent human being, not a vindictive asshole like you’re beginning to seem.”
Trump’s book is an easy read and I recommend it, if you want to get a sense of who he is. Naturally, some critical “reading between the lines” will be required.
Talk about how to keep a idiot in suspense. Okay I’ll bite, are we talking. ” Showboat ” Comey?
Your final disclaimer makes me view your question in terms of what Scott Adams has been characterizing as Trump’s “master-persuader” approach, but even had you not said that, I would have answered the question the same, either way.
Ethically I don’t see any problem with the scenario you have presented because, as you say, the statements you are making are plausible realities, not outright falsehoods. Several years ago when I was interviewing for jobs, it happened that I had been applying for things for a long time, but all of a sudden I had a lot of interest from about four different employers around the same time, and a bunch of interviews within weeks of another. Things often can and do happen that way. So it is in your interest for the sake of negotiation to suggest what may happen, even if everything hasn’t fallen into place yet.
C’mon, ILC:
of course those are a sort of lies, but, AFAICT, quite inconsequential — I wouldn’t feel bad about that.
(Much more serious would be to lie on the resume, or faking it up completely. Not at all the same story. Very bad idea.)
Besides, it’s fair game — as much excited and hopeful you can be about the job’s ptomises for your skills and ambition, don’t forget:
every company also sugar coats more or less what they can offer to the future hires.
It’s just part of the job hunt/hire hint game.
Best wishes. Go for it if you’re already excited.
Thank for the good wishes Cyril. But this post really is going to be about politics. I just wanted to frame it initially in terms of people’s everyday lives.
I’ll probably finish it tomorrow – would love to keep hearing people’s thoughts about the ethical question.
Hillary-ous Clintonyte has a new job prospect?
Now that becomes unethical.
Tell that poor employer how many people finished six feet under after doing business with her!
I heard a guy once say, “Don’t cover the truth with that which is true.”
It can be a tough standard. Ex: You’re late for work because you overslept. You give the excuse that you got stuck behind a school bus–which you were, but it pulled over and let you pass. It only held you up for two minutes. You were ten minutes late. It’s true that you got stuck behind a school bus, but the truth is you were late because you overslept.
My vote: it’s a lie, because it’s an attempt at deception.
IMHO;
If it’s you, “Sure, why not. Needs must as the Devil rides…”
If it’s a friend; “Well, I guess it’s OK.”
If it’s someone else, “You unethical lying bastard!”
From the company’s point of view: Companies see these kinds of manoeuvres day in day out ad nauseam . They have already assumed that if you’re talking with them you’re probably talking with other companies, too. Mentioning it clearly signals your desperation, the very thing you were trying to conceal. They may also interpret your innuendo as a propensity to jump ship for an extra buck, also weakening your case. So, maintain your dignity and give it your best shot without the cheesy cuteness. And also learn to lie better.
Young Spock: “You mean you lied?”
Old Spock: “I implied.”
FWIW
You have a person who wants x-amount of money out of a company negotiating with someone (or more than one) who represents the interests of that company who can help you get that money, but also want to consider their bottom line. You should know what you’re worth and ask for it with the confidence that you can what you want somewhere else. You’re free to use whatever tactics you want. But if you know your worth, your body language will reveal all, especially in the presence of someone who understands body language. If it’s a great company, you want to work there, and you’re worth what you think you are, then no amount of deception is necessary.
Probable vs. possible is not easy to discern by yourself or even others. Deception is made of “sterner stuff.” Furthermore, if ethics is reduced to why the box of Wheat Thins always “settles during shipping to the 2/3rds full level, we have reached the gates of Nirvana.
On the other hand, laying a trap by asking for ethical judgement on one set of circumstances in order to apply the societal standards reached to an entirely different set of circumstances is not “ethical” so much as “rhetorical.”
If you go from the private sphere to the public sphere of politics, “things” change. This vexed St. Augustine to no end.
As an attention getter, You have hit a home run. Take the risk of being coy if you believe it will improve your chances of a higher salary and you can afford to lose the job offer. Otherwise, see what they are offering and be an adult about it.
All fair comments, thanks guys!
I’ve posted the second half.
If you can believe it, I read his 1987 book when I was fourteen and proudly toted it around school. All I recall is the bit about when he goes to visit an artistic painter. I think the painter splashes a bit of paint on the canvass and tells Trump how much money he can get for it all because of his reputation. But I’m probably remembering it wrong. I have a poor memory.
No, that’s correct. Trump says, I better not reveal the artist’s name, haha. Although I’m sure it came out somewhere in the last 30 years.
Hi ILoveCapitalism,
“It does make me wonder what he’s been up to, with various world leaders and Washington power players.”
I don’t find the example you use compelling. Why? Telling one group its in the bag while telling the other separate group it is in the bag, and it being in the bag if both groups come through (whew!) requires that the two sides he is playing don’t ever really talk to each other or engage each other. I can imagine that in a arena where they do, where they know each other well and have history together… well in that case it just looks the crude manipulation it apparently is. I don’t think it ends so well there.
I think you missed the point: I’m agreeing that Trump is manipulative.
I’m just also putting it in context, with the rest of Washington. Many manipulative people do it for power. I think Trump is a little different; he does it to get a successful project. He does it to uphold his self-image as a “success” who makes good stuff happen. Contrast to Obama who does it to feel important, or Hillary who does it for the joy of bending or breaking people.
Hi ILoveCapitalism,
I wasn’t focused on the manipulative nature of Trump. I was suggesting that his approach is not likely to work in Washington since everybody talks to everybody… I am sorry I did not make that clear