A Matter of Trust: An Ethical Negotiation Guide

You’re in a high-stakes negotiation, and you need a better price. You know you don’t have a better offer, but you’re tempted to say you do. Is that a strategic bluff or an unethical lie? In those moments, a procurement professional’s integrity is on the line, and the right call isn’t always clear.

In the latest episode of Proc & Roll, hosts Natasha Gurevich, Conrad Smith, and Zachary Bachir provide a practical playbook for navigating these ambiguous, in-the-moment dilemmas.

Topics Discussed in This Episode:

• Bluffing vs. Lying: The hosts engage in a candid debate on the fine line between a strategic bluff and a lie. Natasha warns that if you bluff, you must be prepared to have it called.
• The Slippery Slope of Small Compromises: Conrad explains his theory that major unethical acts, like expense fraud, rarely start big. They begin as a “slippery slope” where small, questionable actions become normalized over time.
• The Third Party Test: Zach offers a practical framework for judging your actions: if an impartial third party were watching, how would they perceive your intent?
• The Mirror Test: Personal Values as Your Guide: The hosts conclude that your personal values and long-term reputation are the ultimate guide for making ethical decisions. Natasha notes that her long-term relationships are more important than the $17 billion in savings she’s generated, a principle she frames as “doing well by doing good”.
• Responding to Unethical Behavior: The discussion covers what to do when you see a supplier “playing dirty” or when you observe unethical actions from a senior leader.

Watch now or read the transcript below.

Transcript: Proc-N-Roll | A Matter of Trust: An Ethical Negotiation Guide

Zach: Hello, good morning, good afternoon, good evening, and welcome to Proc and Roll, your guide to practical procurement, where we make procurement rock and roll. As always, I’m with Tasha and Conrad. I think we’re going to pick up our conversation from last time, which was around ethics, and today we’re going to narrow it down a little bit and focus more on the negotiation side and what an ethical negotiation is. Last time we were discussing, when is it okay to lie? Is it ever okay to lie? Can you have a white lie, can you bluff?.

Conrad: What is the difference between a bluff and a lie? Like, where do you draw the line and say this is honest or this isn’t honest? It’s complicated.

Zach: Exactly. I’m okay with bluffing in a negotiation. I’ve done it before, and I feel like in transactional negotiations, I expect the other side to be bluffing as well.

Natasha: You have to be careful with a bluff because at some point, one of the sides will call you on it, and you have to be able to walk away. For example, if you’re offered a price of $10 but you need it to be $9, and you say, “I have someone who can give it to me for 8.50,” and the supplier tells you to go with them, what are you going to do then?.

Zach: I’m gonna say, okay. And then the next day I’m gonna call them and say, hey, my guy fell through, so 10 it is.

Natasha: Over my 25-year career, my teams have generated $17 billion in cumulative savings. Do I recall any situations where I felt it was unethical, or that I crossed a line that if the other side found out, I would be in moral or ethical troubles? I don’t recall those situations. 10 years from now, I probably won’t be proud that I saved $17 billion, but I will continue caring about the right relationships I’ve built while doing the right things for the company. It’s about doing well by doing good.

Conrad: It’s a complicated continuum. But it’s really important to sit down and figure out where those lines are for yourself, because it is a bit of a slippery slope. I’ve seen a number of people steal money from the company through things like travel and expense fraud. It starts with something simple that most people wouldn’t question, a little bit across the line, and then it starts to feel normal to them and becomes their common practice. You look at the person and go, how in the world do you think it’s okay to buy your groceries and have the company pay for them? Or your coffee every morning, or your gas for your car?.

Natasha: Ethical dilemmas happen every day. I’m having one right now: I learned my client’s chief of staff has a birthday this weekend, and we share a love for rosé bubbles. I’m thinking of bringing her a bottle on Monday, but then I think, “No, I can’t. She’s my customer”. Then I think, “Well, I can because I’m not selling anymore, I’m delivering, so it won’t be viewed as buying favors”. If you’re going through this way of thinking, it means you are trying to find an ethical way to do something that you are inclined to do.

Zach: You’ve got to think about the perceived intent and use the third-party test. If there was someone watching me do this, what would they think? Regardless of my intentions, what would they think my intentions are? And that’s maybe where you draw the line.

Conrad: I asked Gemini the difference between bluffing and lying. It said bluffing is a strategic move, exaggerating your position, and is an accepted part of the game; for example, a buyer might say they have other lower offers when in fact, they don’t have any other offers at all. Lying is making a false statement about a material, verifiable fact, like saying you have CEO approval for a deal when you haven’t spoken to them.

Natasha: Because there’s no clear definition, your reputation that you will carry with you throughout your professional career is your radar. Will you be proud to tell your mother about what you just did?. But what should people do when they observe unethical behavior from their higher-ups?.

Zach: If you’re working for somebody who’s unethical, get out of there as fast as you can. Long-term, that’s not going to serve you well. It’s important for companies to have things like speak-up and whistleblower hotlines.

Conrad: I agree. Being true to your values is my understanding of integrity. If your values are out of sync with the organization or the leadership you’re working with, that incongruity is going to be super painful. You need to be true to yourself.

Natasha: The fact that we’ve had three conversations on this subject shows the importance and ambiguity of it. If any of our listeners are struggling with an ethical dilemma, we would love to be part of your solution, so reach out to us.

Conrad: I would love for the community to punch back in the notes how you look at this bluffing versus lying thing and where you are drawing those lines as individuals. It’s great to be stuck between the two of you.

Zach: Well, thank you everyone for listening and yeah, see you next episode.

This transcript has been edited for clarity while maintaining all substantive content