Discussion on:

How to respond if a client asks you to lie

I did not even read the whole post, as it's that important. I explicitly will not lie. Period. My grandfather told me once that the only thing you take with you is your character. Enough said.

I agree completely.

Your lying right now.. It is impossible to get through your career and be successful w/o droping a little white lie in any of the billion sceniros.

I do not make a habit of lying, I do not lie just to throw one in the coversation so I can have the hot topic at the watercooler...

Anyone that consults or works an administrative role in IT has droped a little one here or there to keep the peace.

For one I don't believe in white lies. A lie is a lie. Also, I've never had to lie in order to keep the peace or be successful in my career. It's much easier to keep track of what you say if you always tell the truth.

... but I'd be lying if I said I have never stretched the truth. Not proud of it.

Everybody lies. EVERYBODY. And if you tell me you don't , you're lying! EVERYBODY LIES!!!!

... and difficult to prove, but I tend to agree with you based on experience.

"Does this make me look fat?"

"'Does this make me look fat?'"

There are three answers I might give to that, all honest:

1. "Yes." I have given that answer. I survived. Don't look at me like that -- I'm telling the truth.

2. "No." Sometimes it's because the person doesn't look fat while wearing it. Sometimes it's because the person looks fat regardless of whether she's wearing that or something else -- it's not the fault of the clothes.

3. "I don't answer questions like that when they're obviously being asked as a test. I don't like being tested like this." I've used that one exactly once.

1. I've never been brave enough for that one.

2. ROTFL -- I will have to remember that second reason. Answer "No" and just smile.

3. I've used that one, too. It usually ends in unspoken resentment, because what the other person hears is "I don't want you to talk to me about that, because you're fat and you know it." Whether or not they are.

For that second answer -- it's actually an obvious answer to me, because that's how I tend to think. The actual question was whether the clothes make her look fat -- right? Well, they don't. It sometimes takes me a moment to parse such questions for what someone is really asking (regardless of what was said), after an immediate (honest) response of "No."

As for the third . . . people have a tendency to catch on pretty quickly to the way I respond to certain situations, and probably understand what I mean when I say something like "I don't like being tested like this." Even if they don't "get" it, though, and assume I'm loading my statement with some kind of passive-aggressive thinly veiled meaning, I tend to just figure it's not my fault if someone can't simply listen to what I say rather than what they think someone must actually mean.

If someone's so thoroughly wrapped up in his or her own passive-aggressive behavior that they can't conceive of any response as being motivated by something other than matching passive-aggressive behavior, I usually have very little use for that person.

Perhaps it's another personal failing of mine. I'm sure it's part of the reason I'm not the most adept person in the world at office politics.

I don't think it's passive-aggressiveness that's to blame -- it's our own politeness.

Most people are too polite to answer "Yes", and most people who ask the question know that. So the interrogator must parse the response for any indication that "Yes" is what the respondent was thinking but was too polite to say. It's a good example of why lying hurts, even (or in this case, especially) when it's expected behavior.

"Does this make me look fat?"

No. No article of clothing can make a person look fat. The person's fat makes them look fat.

Hi Chip.

I have a very hard time lying. I can't lie when asked a direct question, and in other circumstances, only if I am prepared.

As a practice, I do not lie, as I found out early in life that the consequences were always higher than telling the truth.

I do not see the logic in it.

I can, if hard pressed, decieve.

At my mother's funeral, a co-worker whom my mother did not like came over to introduce herself and to say a few kind words.

I told her "Ah, yes, my mother spoke about you often".

That's usually as far as I can go...

You weren't required to indicate the manner in which she spoke.

I would have had difficulty suppressing a chuckle then, even at a mother's funeral.

My condolences on your loss, however long ago that may have been. I lost my father ten years ago, and I still miss him every day.

doesn't make lying a good thing. Everyone also dies, but that doesn't mean I have to feel that dying is a good thing.

That's one thing that gets so many high functioning autistics in trouble. Many don't lie.

I also know some very religious people who do not lie.

I can, and on rare occasions do, but I detest the practice.

... of both verbal and non-verbal cues. Autistics and many geeks who have not been diagnosed share an inability to read and manufacture those cues. It's easier by far to tell the truth, though it often gets one in trouble socially.

I agree with "alaniane". As consultants, we have to protect our image and making false statements, even small, will never be beneficial! We have an obligation to the client, the consulting community, and to ourselves to ALWAYS take the ethical high road.

Suppose you find a major problem with the
system.

You know you can probably fix it in time for the delivery.

Suppose also that you are customer facing and asked whether there are any big problems.

If you say "There is a big problem but it's probanly fixable in time" you know the customer will cancel the order and your client's company goes down the drain, together with the jobs of 5,000 people
(hey, it's a thought experiment !!!)

You know that if you say "NO" and cannot fix the problem the customer will "merely" apply penalty clauses and the company will survive.

So do you tell the truth and condemn 5,000 people to the dole, or do you lie and hope you fix it.

Both strategies are ethical in different ways


I came across this when considereing the British convention that Government ministers do not lie to Parliament.

I envisaged a scenario where if asked a direct question the truth would cost 1,000 lives and 10,000 jobs, but a lie would give time for the problem be resolved with no adverse consequences. Would it then be ethical for a Minister to lie and apologise later if found out?

Bottom line: If you are going to talkj about ethics you need to consider the consequences of your actions a bit more carefully.

I've highlighted extreme cases in order to point out that the ETHICAL situation may be less clear cut than you think.

Clearly it is best to avoid telling lies as much as possible.

There are always going to be exceptions to every rule -- perhaps even less drastic than the one you've outlined. The point is, if you will lie merely to gain an advantage for your client, you damage yourself in the eyes of your client -- and perhaps in your own eyes as well.

The answer is to ask for the request to bve put in writing, on client's headed
notepaper and signed by a responsible person.

Excellent plan: document their involvement.

But even so, I think you have more integrity if you refuse.

Some of us have lost jobs over the truth.

... that you wouldn't go back and do anything differently. Or would you?

. . . but I wouldn't change the fact I told the truth, and I'd probably have ended up losing the job anyway as long as I was as straightforward and truthful.

some of us have. I am curious to know whether or not you knew, as I did, what the truth would cost you in that situation?

. . . but I suspected it might cost me, and it wouldn't have changed what I said even if I did know in advance.

that (but...) should have probably been in my initial question. I have been in that situation also, as well as the one in which I have no clue that telling the truth will cost me my job.

I often hear people say that if they had known what it would cost to truth tell, they wouldn't. Hence my question.

It's entirely possible that my behavior in such circumstances is more a matter of a defective survival instinct than of ethical perfection.

Okay, so I'm kidding. Mostly.

... I've found that on the occasions when I spoke the truth knowing it would harm my career, those were some of the finer moments of my life. That kind of integrity is something you can always look back on and gain courage from -- to know that that's the kind of stuff you're made of.

In many cases, the harm done to your career only opens up new opportunities to pursue something better, anyway. The fear of losing the known routine is what keeps us from reaching for the exciting unknown.

Don't regret it for one minute though.

that plan to be around for a while learn it is best to NOT lie, because it will come back to haunt you. If you don't lie, you don't have to keep track of your lies, didn't your mother ever teach you that?

The country of Finland has the reputation of being the most 'honest' people in the world. However, even though lying is something that is ingrained in their personalities as something 'not to be done' almost from birth -- they are still human.

I've often seen their 'solution' being to either not answer questions (no matter how directly asked), or to launch a diversion, or to simply 'work around' the rules and take advantage of the smallest loophole.

This report from Transparency International is always interesting: http://transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2007

Seems reasonable from what I've seen in Europe.

I find it interesting that France barely beats the US, and that the UK and Canada fared much better than both.

At one point several years ago, the Finnish government produced a "how-to" handbook on the 'process' of how Finnish businesses should bribe Russians customs officers at the border to get their goods through (and to avoid paying duty).

I wish I'd have kept a copy because it isn't available anymore.

One need not look far to see the so-called 'moral authority' countries say one thing and do something completely different themselves when they think they can get away with it outside their own country.

International consultants have to deal with these kind of moral and ethical issues on a regular, daily basis. I could fill a book on what I've seen in Russia... At least in the USA you are relatively unlikely to get killed for standing your ground.

#1 - is pretty typical. "Enterprise" class customers always think that ONLY Enterprise class can support them. It's total bunk, but that feeling it out there.

#2 - ug, support contracts. I understand why they are there (I work for a vendor that provides excellent support, but it does cost to provide that), however, most support folks understand when a consultant is working on a project, it's a proxy kind of thing...I know that it's a pretty typical rule bending thing, just because it makes sense

#3 - I don't know what else to say...it's lying and it's dirty. I don't think I could continue to contract with that company.

#1 is not too bad if the statements are true (in a certain perspective). Your examples
If there was more than 1 person working on developement -- then it can be considered a 'team'.
If there is more than 1 office (home offices may count) then it is not untrue either.

However, I would refrain from doing this because ii is not hard to find this type of information -- if a client were to look for it. And that may backfire.
This is a 'sneaky' tactic that I am sure happens often (salesman scumbags (not to be confused with Scummy)..

... that many people expect the behavior. Which also leads to a lack of respect for integrity. Which means that they can tell you white lies about when they sent the check...

My experience shows that the IT Consultant debacle starts at scenario #1.

It can be painful, but I never crossed the line of scenario #1. In my last consultancy I was required to tell some "white lies" concerning to the compliance with SarbOx Act. Things related to business continuity and disaster recover. My reply was that it would be futile because any audit would expose the lie.

Morale: the guys didn't get the contract and I was expelled. Bad for me? No, not at all. I discovered that they're running into Article 180 of our Criminal/Penal code and also into Art. 12 of law 6368/76...

... that sort of business.

Yes, I think even the most innocent of white lies starts you down the road of "acceptable" deception. It can snowball from there.

An accountant at a big hotel. The owner wanted them to sign fraudulent accounts or something similar. The owner had friends in government so whistle blowing would have bene ineffective and was not a safe option - as I understand it the accountant could have had a fatal accident quite easily had they taken that route.

They made the same analysis I would have. If caught the owner would have sacrificed the accountant to the authorities and denied all knowledge.

So the accountant resigned.

... you have to be careful they don't take you with them -- alive or dead.

I found some numbers that didn't jibe...

I was shortly thereafter told that my services would no longer be required.

The company later went down in flames.

I would do the same thing again.

Back in the early days of my consultancy, I took on a job setting up an accounting package for a client. After we got all the data entered and ran some statements, it was apparent that the company couldn't last much longer at their habitual rate of expenditures versus income. I told them so, but the CEO didn't want to hear it. Their products were very popular and pricey, so how could they go wrong?

Well, cash doesn't lie. They were out of business within the year.

You got paid, right? In that case, it doesn't much matter for you if the company went out of business, I guess. You did your best: the failure's on the executives who refused to listen.

Autodeception is far too common. I think that a tendency to lie to others and a tendency to lie to oneself are highly correlated, though. I generally find it's best to trust most those who are most honest with themselves, and trust everyone else not at all.

Good point, apotheon. When the mind becomes accustomed to framing alternate realities, it soon becomes difficult to remember which combination of facts represents truth. Or maybe it begins to become irrelevant. In either case, the liar begins to believe his own lies.

It's cost me a bit from time to time.

BUT, I find that it's also good as a screening method.

If any perspective client or employer thinks that one is foolish for being honest....


RUN AWAY!!!! RUN AWAY~!!!!

... then why should they blink about being dishonest to you?

Here is a biggie. . ."give me a letter for the insurance company that says this has to be replaced because it is too expensive to fix." or "can you see if you can get this fixed under warranty even though we both know I dropped it.'