DR2

Reply to Discussions

D1: Pragya sharma

Business conduct is usually based on the ethical standards and practices. It becomes necessary to share the relevant and required facts with the customers, stakeholders, and others. Unless this is not done, the management will not be able to attract the interest of the stakeholders towards the business performances. In a poker game, the player always works on understanding the opponent’s strategy and prepares a game plan accordingly. This is the key factor that helps in winning the game. However, this policy cannot be usually and always followed in the company, as the management is expected to share the relevant and required facts with the external and internal stakeholders (Based et al., 2016). 

Bluffing is done, and it is acceptable to a limited percentage. Sharing of inaccurate and improper information with the investors on a large scale would mislead the investors. Thus, the management has to follow the ethical standards and practices that would be needed for properly and positively conducting the businesses. 

In the case of Goldman Sachs an investment of $1 billion was needed and this was done by selling the hedged funds to the clients. The cost of the moorage later on reduced in the future, and this increased the profit for the company. Ethically this was not right as the clients or the investors were misled and motivated to do something that was not acceptable. This is what was explained or included in the Albert Car’s theory of the poker game, where the investors were misguided and the profit margin for the company were increased. At the time of providing wrong information the clients or the investors, its impact on the business and the future goals has to be clearly decided. This would help in providing the relevant information that would be useful in attracting the clients (Guidice et al., 2008). 

References

Based, D.K., Smith, K.G., Grimm, C.M., Rindova, V·P., & Derfus, P.J. (2006). The impact of market actions on firm reputation. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 1205–1219. 

Guidice, R., Alder, G., & Phelan, S. (2008). Competitive Bluffing: An Examination of a Common Practice and its Relationship with Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 87, No. 4, pp. 535-553.

Reply:

D2: kaveri

This disciple is about the remembrance of the Goldman Sachs $550 million settlement with US exchange and securities commission. This settlement seems to be a great deal as the value was low as the organization was capable to make this money within three weeks.

This settlement relies with the Albert Carr’s theory which says business similar with the poker game and we all must bluff at some point of time. We cannot deny the fact that this bluffing is legal and expected. Together Goldman and Carr agree that business and poker are part of the competition and anyone can make advantage from it. So, the moral is if you are not breaking the laws and conducting business, then it is a bluff (Staff, 2010).

So, as per the Carr, he believes that ethics is related to personal issues and matters as business has no room for it. Business is a game of strategy and craftiness and no matter how ethical the situation can be, you should be able to win the deal. At the point of doing business, people no need to be act civilized. It’s just liked a game of poker where you have to hide your expressions and feelings in front of others. Goldman Sachs was able to crack this deal with the help of same strategy and ultimately able to settle down this big amount.

However, there are many critics who do not agree with this behavior as it doesn’t comply with the ethical nature. Despite following business ethical rules to improve and building relations, Carr only foresee solution as measures placed by the organizations to control the profit and practices followed in the business (Staff, 2010).

Reference-

Staff, R. (2010). Goldman Anger is Misplaced. The Great Debate.

Allhoff, F. (2003). Business bluffing reconsidered. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(4), 283

Ralph Nader. (1967). Business Crime. The New Republic, July 1, 1967, p.7.

Reply: