Ethical Dilemma: When does a little white lie turn gray?
It’s been a rough year for your company, a manufacturer of special-purpose construction equipment. A competitor has come out with a line of machinery that costs half as much as yours and performs almost as well in most situations. You still have the edge in serving customers that operate in demanding environments like the South Pole and the Kalahari Desert, but for most applications, your superior performance features are irrelevant. You are discouraged by your inability to meet your sales quotas, which were established before the competition launched its new line. However, your disappointment is minor compared to your boss’s. He came into your office yesterday with a grim look on his face. “If we don’t start bringing in some orders, we’re finished,” he said. “Everybody in the sales department could get the axe. I’m counting on you to win the Simon job. I don’t care what you have to do to get it, just do it.” You are in the midst of writing a sales letter to Simon and Company, in which you analyze their particular construction environment and operating requirements. It occurs to you that if you revise your analysis to accentuate Simon’s problems, you might be able to win the job. Simon’s management might buy the idea that they need “more machine” to handle their “extremely demanding performance requirements.” You could then argue that your competitor’s equipment is not up to the job. True, in your heart you know that 99 percent of the time, the competitor’s machinery would be adequate for Simon’s needs, but what about the other one percent?
Should you revise your proposal to exaggerate Simon’s needs? Why or Why not?