The ethical divide: Keeping 'business' and 'life' separate

I've always tried to live by a consistent set of rules. It doesn't matter whether it's at work or with my friends or at home. I tend follow the same ethical principles.

Free IT resource Hear how top CIOs turn change into a competitive advantage. Sponsored by HP Free IT resource TechNet: More ways to know it, share it, and keep it running. Sponsored by Microsoft

So I was intrigued recently when a reader of this column suggested in an e-mail that we should have one set of ethics for business and another for "life." His words, to be exact, were: "I like to partition business from the rest of life -- business is not life, and should not be judged under the same rules that life is judged by."

Despite my personal feelings, I figured the proposition was worthy of at least some consideration. Is it possible, I asked myself, that other people have different rules for "business" and "life"? Or is it even possible that some people act that way, but say they don't? Very often people will say one thing -- the popularly correct thing -- and then do something totally different.

For example, I have an acquaintance who works in sales. He has fallen out of love with his product and thinks it is past its prime. The company has nothing coming down the pike to replace it. He is desperately looking for a new job. In the meantime, he still beats the bushes, trying to get strangers to buy a product he wouldn't recommend for his friends.

It's not that the product has no merits. And it's not dangerous or harmful. It's just not the best thing on the market, although he has to pretend daily that it is. I suspect he's not alone. After all, not every salesperson can work for the company that has the best product. Is this the sign of an ethical split between "business" and "life"?

What about seizing a competitive advantage? We do that at work all the time. In fact, in most jobs it's expected. If, as a reporter, I were to get an exclusive story, my boss would be less than pleased if I were to call up the competition and offer to share it with them. In the area of marketing or sales, the whole idea is that you get people to buy your product instead of someone else's.

In "life," however, we're more likely to share with our friends and family. And, in some cases, we might even step back and let someone else get ahead for no other reason than that we feel good about doing it. And we might not let our family members buy things that we would readily sell to strangers.

So maybe there is something to this idea that there are two sets of rules governing "business" and "life," and that we need to keep the two separate.

But even as I write this, I find I'm not convincing myself. The arguments in favor of two sets of rules are much weaker than even they appear here -- and the arguments against are much more compelling.

For starters, it's very difficult -- as someone pointed out to me -- to draw neat little lines around "business" and "life" to keep them from bleeding into each other. They intersect and overlap at so many places that keeping them separate is virtually impossible. Trying to work with two sets of ethical books would take so much effort that it just wouldn't be practical.

I remember reading once someone's tongue-in-cheek advice that you should make it a habit to always tell the truth or to always lie. Deciding each case on its merits, the writer said, just wasn't worth the effort. I think the same idea applies here.

In the examples I gave above, the ethical principles are the same, although they play out differently in various situations. When I am in competition, whether in business or with friends, there is nothing wrong in exploiting a competitive advantage. So the rule is the same in both cases. It's just that, playing games aside, I'm rarely in competition with friends and family. In business, we're in competition all the time.

But in neither case do I feel it's right to do something that's unfair. In the journalism business, schmoozing a contact to get an exclusive interview is a bona fide competitive advantage. Letting the air out of competitor's tires so he can't get the story is unfair -- and unethical.

As far as advising friends or family members not to buy something we'd let strangers buy, it would depend on many factors. If the product were dangerous or fraudulent, I'd have a responsibility to both friends and strangers to warn them. Again, the rule is the same. But if the product falls within the range of acceptable choices, then strangers need to do their own due diligence in figuring out which to buy. With family and friends, I would be part of their due diligence and might have a responsibility to steer them in another direction. Again, the rule is the same; it's just that I play a different role in each situation.

In the case of my acquaintance who's promoting a product he thinks is less than ideal, it's not clear he's doing anything unethical. His job is to promote the product sold by the people who are paying him. Potential customers should be aware of that, and their responsibility is to evaluate all products and make their own decisions. If they don't realize that each salesperson is trying to make his or her product seem like the best, then they are ill-suited for making such decisions.

So despite what my reader claimed, I don't think there are two sets of rules. The rules may apply differently according to the scenario in which we find ourselves and our relationship to the people involved, but I think the rules -- however we formulate them -- should be consistent. And if "business" isn't "life," then what in the world is it?

But maybe I'm blinded by my own suppositions. As I said at the beginning, I had some strong feelings about it. What do you think? Let me know at ethics_matters@infoworld.com or join in our Ethics Matters forum at www.infoworld.com/forums/ethics .