A colleague who writes about ethics, Nan DeMars, tells
the story of a vendor who, seeking to have his products used, left a large
bottle of scotch for the person in the office in charge of vendor selection.
That person, unsure of what to do with the bottle, went to see the head of the
firm who said: one bottle is a gift, two is a bribe.
Some cultures have what
social scientists call a gift economy, in which people give and receive gifts
without expectation of return. Such economies differ from the market economies,
where goods have prices set by supply and demand, and while such economies have
plenty of people who give gifts – indeed, some industries rely heavily on
people giving gifts around holidays – this remains a relatively small part of
the total economic output.
The key difference in this
situation has to do with the intentions behind the gift. In gift economies or
as happens in the holiday exchanges among family and friends, the giving occurs
without a quid pro quo. We give gifts in these situations as tokens of our
affection and appreciation, not to influence someone’s decision or to
personally benefit ourselves. When a gift is given with the latter in mind, as in
the case of this vendor, the difference between a gift and a bribe becomes unclear.
The receiver of this
bottle of scotch did the right thing in asking the opinion of his superior. Ethics
requires what the psychologist Daniel Kahneman calls “slow thinking,” in which
we should not trust our initial instincts or first responses and, instead, seek
the counsel of others as we deliberate what to do. Delaying a decision and
sharing the responsibility for it can help us arrive at better conclusions,
tapping what the writer James Surowiecki has dubbed “the wisdom of crowds.”
This is one of the gifts others can give to us.
It isn’t clear, though,
that keeping the large bottle of scotch is wise. While the supervisor sees a
clear line between a gift and a bribe – one bottle versus two – others might
not see it that way. Any “gift” given with even the appearance of influencing a
decision in favor of the giver can constitute a bribe in the minds of some, and
appearances matter in such situations. Accepting something that looks to some
like a bribe calls into question whatever decision gets made, especially if it
goes – legitimately or not – to the vendor who gave it.
The person who got the
bottle could share it with everyone else in the office, which may seem to dilute
the impact of it, but that can also implicate everyone else in influence that
the giver of the bottle may have intended. A much better course would be to get
rid of it. The receiver of the bottle could give it back to the vendor,
although that does seem uncharitable. Doing the right thing, ethically, should
not lead us to rudeness or to wrecking a relationship.
Giving the bottle to
charity or as a gift to someone else makes more sense. In gift economies, the
continual passing of gifts often happens since the act of giving matters much
more than the gift itself. And even in a market economy, the passing on of a
gift not wanted, for whatever reason, also remains the choice of the person who
received it initially. In situations where the gift casts doubts about oneself
or colors the perceptions of others about you, it is best to give it away. It
wasn’t a bottle of scotch; it was a hot potato.
No comments:
Post a Comment