Prairie View a & M Importance of Truth Telling and Trust Article Reaction Paper Not to exceed 5 sheets of paper front and back (include footnotes of source

Prairie View a & M Importance of Truth Telling and Trust Article Reaction Paper Not to exceed 5 sheets of paper front and back (include footnotes of sources).The goal is to show me that you read the assignment. Please don’t write something about the general topic; but fail to show me that you actually read the assigned article. THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUTH TELLING AND
TRUST
Kenneth J. Sanney, Lawrence J. Trautman, Eric D. Yordy, Tammy W.
Cowart, and Destynie J. L. Sewell

BS, Central Michigan University; MTS, Vanderbilt University Divinity School; J.D., Vanderbilt
University Law School. Dr. Sanney is an Associate Professor of Business Administration and Law
at Western Carolina University. He may be contacted at kjsanney@wcu.edu.

BA, The American University; MBA, The George Washington University; J.D., Oklahoma City
University School of Law. Mr. Trautman is Associate Professor of Business Law and Ethics at
Prairie View A&M University. He may be contacted at Lawrence.J.Trautman@gmail.com.

BS, University of Wyoming; M.Ed., Northern Arizona University; J.D., Cornell Law School.
Mr. Yordy is an Associate Professor of Business Law and Ethics at The W. A. Franke College of
Business at Northern Arizona University. He may be contacted at Eric.Yordy@nau.edu.

BS, Texas A&M University; J.D., Texas Tech University. Ms. Cowart is Associate Professor
of Business Law at The University of Texas at Tyler. She may be contacted at
tcowart@uttyler.edu.

BS, BA, MBA, The University of Nebraska Omaha; J.D., Creighton University School of
Law. Ms. Sewell is an Assistant Professor of Business Law and Ethics at the University of
Nebraska Omaha College of Business. She may be contacted at DSewell@unomaha.edu.
The authors wish to extend particular thanks to the following for their assistance in the research
and preparation of this article: Debra D. Burke, Lucien Dhooge, Shawna Meyer Eikenberry,
Timothy Fort, Jo Hannah Hadden, Sherri Harte, Dylan Hastings, Todd Haugh, Marianne Jennings,
Lora Koretz, Joseph Lakatos, Taylor Luibrand, Virginia G. Maurer, Josh Perry, Rebecca Peterson,
Robert Prentice, Lee Reed, Matthew Robbins, Madison Surrett, Tuyen Tram, John Trautman, and
Ting Zhang. We would also like to extend our gratitude to the anonymous reviewers and editorial
staff of the JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES EDUCATION for the constructive feedback and outstanding
editorial support. Any errors or omissions belong solely to the authors.
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3430854
THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUTH TELLING AND TRUST
I. INTRODUCTION
Few principles influence success as fundamentally as truth. Truthfulness is the foundation upon
which human relationships are built. Truth is the antecedent to trust and trust is the antecedent to
cooperation. Without truth, sustainable success is impossible in human dealings.1
Hence, the importance of truth has been the subject of theological and scholarly pursuit for
centuries.2 Since the latter part of the 20th century, the burgeoning fields of applied ethics has
joined in this pursuit.3 In business, for instance, executives and scholars alike have acknowledged
the value of truth. In his Owner’s Manual addressed to Class A and Class B shareholders of
1
SISSELA BOK, LYING: MORAL CHOICE IN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LIFE, 20 (1989).
2
See generally STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY, (Edward N. Zalta ed.) available at
https://plato.stanford.edu/ (the ideas of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Locke, Hume, and Kant have been
joined more recently by those of Moore, Russell, Wittgenstein, Peirce, Tarski, Field, Armstrong, Dummett,
Horwich, and Davidson). See also, VACA SUTTA: A STATEMENT (Thanissaro Bhikkhu trans., Access to Insight
2010), available at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.198.than.html (the third path of the
Buddhist Noble Eightfold Path is “right speech,” which belongs to the virtue category of the path, and consists of
five factors: it is true, it is kind, it is helpful, it is conducive to harmony, and it is spoken at the right time).
3
See U.S. v. Kontny, 238 F.3d 815 (2001) (holding that trickery, deceit, even impersonation do not render a confession
inadmissible, certainly in noncustodial situations and usually in custodial ones as well, unless government agents make
threats or promises); citing Frazier V. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 739, 89 S.Ct. 1420, 22 L.Ed.2d 684 (1969); Holland v.
McGinnis, 963 F.2d 1044, 1051 (7th Cir. 1992); United States v. Rutledge, 900 F.2d 1127, 1131 (7th Cir. 1990) (“far
from making the police a fiduciary of the suspect, the law permits the police to pressure and cajole, conceal material
facts, and actively mislead”); United States v. Byram, 145 F.3d 405, 408 (1 st Cir. 1998) (“trickery is not automatically
coercion. Indeed the police commonly engage in such ruses as suggesting to a suspect that a confederate has just
confessed or that police have or will secure physical evidence against the suspect. While the line between ruse and
coercion is sometimes blurred, confessions procured by deceits have been held voluntary in a number of situations.”).
See BARRON H. LERNER, THE GOOD DOCTOR: A FATHER, A SON, AND THE EVOLUTION OF MEDICAL ETHICS (Beacon
Press, 2014) (examining the conflict between physician-based paternalism and the more truth-oriented ethic of
informed consent). See Elletta Sangrey Callaghan, Terry Morehead Dworkin, Timothy L. Fort & Cindy A. Schipani,
Integrating Trends in Whistle Blowing and Corporate Governance: Promoting Organizational Effectiveness, Societal
Responsibility, and Employee Empowerment, 40 AM. BUS. L.J. 177 (2002); M. Neil Browne, Kathleen M.S. Hale &
Maureen Cosgrove, Legal Tolerance toward the Business Lie and the Puffery Defense: The Questionable Assumptions
of Contract Law, 37 SO. ILL. U. L.J. 69 (2012) (discussing the concept of mere puffery); Mark P. Gergen, A Wrong
Turn in the Law of Deceit, 106 GEO. L. J. 555 (2018) (discussing how the “requirement of justifiable reliance in the
law of deceit came to be turned into a requirement of reasonable reliance”).
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3430854
Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., Warren Buffett wrote: “We will be candid in our reporting to you …
We owe you no less. We also believe candor benefits us as managers: The CEO who misleads
others in public may eventually mislead himself in private.”4 Similarly, in a 1992 essay, Stanford
Business Professor Ronald A. Howard observed: “[t]he ethical dilemmas which my students and
business associates seem to face evolve around issues of truth telling.”5
From Wells Fargo’s creation of over 2 million fake accounts,6 to GM’s deadly ignition
switches,7 to the ten-billion-dollar fraud that was the healthcare and life-science company
Theranos, Inc.,8 today’s ethical dilemmas continue to evolve around issues of truth telling. How
truthful we choose to be with others has a significant bearing upon reciprocal truthfulness and
trust. Adherence to truthfulness and the subsequent development of trust are vital for meaningful
interpersonal relationships,9 healthy organizational cultures,10 and prosperous societies.11
Warren Buffett, OWNER’S MANUAL, (June 1996), http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/ownman.pdf (last visited Jul.
29, 2019).
4
5
Ronald A. Howard, Business Ethics: Tell the Truth, 11(4) J. MGMT. DEV.4, 5 (1992).
See Joseph Lakatos, Bethany Davidson & Kenneth Sanney, Calling Wells Fargo’s CEO: Drive Widespread Cultural
Change via Implementation of the Dynamic Organizational Model and Permeation of Servant Leadership throughout
the Financial Institution, 12 THE J. INT’L MGM’T STUD. 1, 6 (2017), http://ssrn.com/abstract=3428484.
6
7
See Marianne M. Jennings & Lawrence J. Trautman, Ethical Culture and Legal Liability: The GM Switch Crisis and
Lessons in Governance, 22 B.U. J. SCI. & TECH. L. 187 (2016), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2691536.
8
See Renee M. Jones, The Unicorn Governance Trap, 166 U. PA. L. REV. ONLINE 165, 180 (2017),
https://www.pennlawreview.com/online/166-U-Pa-L-Rev-Online-165.pdf.
9
BOK, supra note 1, at 19.
10
EDGAR H. SCHEIN, ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND LEADERSHIP, 115 (4th ed. 2010) (“As groups and organizations
evolve, the assumptions they develop about external adaption and internal integration reflect deeper assumptions about
more abstract general issues around which humans need consensus to have any kind of society at all … If we cannot
agree on what is real, how to determine the truth or falsity of something … society is not possible in the first place.”).
See Id. at 117 (explaining the formation of external physical reality and social reality “… as they relate to the correct
way for humans to relate to nature and to each other, the distribution of power and the entire political process ….”).
See also BOK, supra note 1, at 20.
11
Page 3 of 38
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3430854
This teaching perspective, therefore, is motivated by our sound conviction in the first-order
nature of truth, its status as a condition precedent to trust, and the importance of these ideas to the
lives of our students.12 Through this teaching perspective, we explore the importance of truth
telling and its relationship to trust as a pedagogical concern for the benefit of our students.
In Section II, we examine the challenges cultural relativism presents, the connection
between truth and relationships, and the damage inflicted by the absence of truth.
In Section III, we examine the behaviors and choices that lead to deceit and why otherwise
good people sometimes do bad things. The difficulty of bringing bad news and the dangers of
covering up for colleagues are examined in this section’s analysis.
Section IV takes a case-method approach to truth telling and trust by exploring both
positive and negative exemplars. The purpose of this section is to provide our readers with readyto-use examples to assist in demonstrating these concepts in the classroom.
In Section V, we explore the unacceptable costs incurred from acts of deceit. This section
continues the use of examples to assess such costs. The assessment of costs inherent with deceit
demonstrates the value inherent in truth and the effect each has on competitive advantage in a
marketplace.
Lastly, we have provided an appendix with pedagogical materials that include a learning
objective, assignment prompts, and a rubric. The prompts may serve as classroom think-pair-share
exercises, classroom discussions, online discussion boards, or research assignments.
II. INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS
12
See Debra D. Burke & Kenneth J. Sanney, Applying the Fraud Triangle to Higher Education: Ethical Implications,
35 J. LEGAL STUD. EDUC. 5, 14 (2018) (arguing that the academy and has an ethical responsibility to minimize the
impact of dishonesty in the academy for the sake of its students).
Page 4 of 38
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3430854
We begin our analysis of truth telling and trust by exploring some initial considerations regarding
our understanding of truth. In this section, we will examine what it means to tell the truth, the
reciprocal nature of truth and trust, and the damage inflicted upon trust by the absence of truth.
A. Truth in a Global Economic System
Philosophers, theologians, anthropologists, and psychologists have all wrestled with truth and
deception, with most theories falling on a continuum as opposed to a dichotomous choice. The
interaction of truth and social norms often present a moral dilemma of competing interests. In one
particular study, researchers found that when a friend is in trouble, some individuals lie not because
a lie can help the friend, but because it is expected of them by the friend.13 In a broader context,
telling the truth may not be in agreement with the social norms of some cultures.14 Complicating
matters further, many societies are multicultural.
There are many definitions for “culture.” Merriam-Webster defines culture as “the
customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group.” 15 Other
texts have more deeply defined culture as “the learned and shared beliefs, values, and life ways of
a designated or particular group that are generally transmitted intergenerationally and influence
13
Hye Jeong Choi, Hee Sun Park & Ju Yeon Oh, Cultural Differences in how Individuals Explain Their Lying and
Truth-Telling Tendencies, 35 INT’L J. INTERCULTURAL REL.749, 749 (2011) (This study’s findings present business
ethics instructors with a wonderful way to highlight the concept that an individual’s or organization’s long-term
effectiveness often involves moral dilemmas between two or more legitimate competing interests such as the honesty
versus loyalty (as found in this study) or accountability for failure versus encouragement of innovation. Such
discussions are also ideal for comparing and contrasting legitimate competing-interest dilemmas and illegitimate falsechoice dilemmas.).
14
BOK, supra note 1, at 21.
15
Culture, Merriam-Webster (2018), https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture (last visited Aug 2, 2018).
Page 5 of 38
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3430854
ones thinking and action modes.”16 Professor Ed Schein takes an anthropological approach,
defining culture as “…shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems of
external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be considered valid
and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in
relation to those problems.”17
Regardless of the definition you chose to use in your classroom, cultural understanding is
of foundational importance for an examination of truth and trust. Professor Schein examined the
powerful nature of culture in social and organizational contexts and warned that “if we don’t
understand the operation of these forces, we are bound to become victim to them.”18 Culture is,
therefore, vital to address in preparing our students to face the ethical dilemmas that evolve around
issues of truth telling in a global economy.
To demonstrate the impact of culture to our students, we suggest an exploration of cultural
differences as either lecture material or an assigned research project. The following three examples
are suitable as a starting point for such pedagogical purposes. We also provide prompts for either
in-class use or out-of-class assignments in the Appendix.
In our first example, research has shown that Canadians and Chinese view deception
differently in modesty situations.19 Canadians are more likely than Chinese to consider a
16
See Pernilla Pergert & Kim Lüzén, Balancing Truth-Telling in the Preservation of Hope, 19 NURSING ETHICS 21,
23 (quoting LEININGER, MM, & MCFARLAND, MR. (eds). TRANSCULTURAL NURSING: CONCEPTS, THEORIES,
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 3d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, Medical Pub. Div. 3–43 (2002)).
17
SCHEIN, supra note 10, at 18.
18
Id. at 7.
19
Genyue Fu, Fen Xu, Catherine Ann Cameron, Gail Heyman, and Kang Lee, Cross-Cultural Differences in
Children’s Choices, Categorizations, and Evaluations of Truths and Lies, 43 DEV. PSYCHOL. 278, 279 (2007)
(referring to Michael Siegal et al. research study in, Michael Siegal, Luca Surian, Carol J. Nemeroff, and Candida C.
Page 6 of 38
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3430854
misleading statement within a social context to be deceptive, unless that statement was intended
to help the listener.20 When the misleading statement was made altruistically, 21 Canadians were
more reluctant to categorize it as deceptive.22
For our second example, research has found that Koreans are less likely than Americans to
consider an ambiguous message to be deceptive, as Koreans rely more on context when
communicating.23 In Korea, “kibun” is highly important.24 While there is no direct English
translation for this term,25 kibun loosely translates into mood or feelings26 and focuses on
maintaining harmony and goodwill.27 Not only is maintaining one’s own kibun important, but it is
Peterson, Lies, Mistakes, and Blessings: Defining and Characteristic Features in Conceptual Development, 1 J.
COGNITION & CULTURE 323 (2001)).
Choi, supra note 13, at 752 (referring to Fu et all’s study which reports that almost 87% of Canadian participants
over 52% Chinese participants categorized a deceptive statement within a pro-social context to as a lie. Fu, G., Lee,
K., Cameron, C., & Xu, F. 32 J. CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCH. 720 (2001)).
20
For definitional purposes, it is worth taking note that we distinguish between “lies” (false statements made with
the intention of misleading a target and for the benefit of either the person making the statement or a third party),
“white lies” (false statements made with the intention of misleading a target about something trivial), “prosocial
lies” (false statements made with the intention of misleading and benefitting a target), “altruistic lies” (false
statements that are costly for the liar and are made with the intention of misleading and benefitting a target).
Eschewing the more rigid dictates of a deontological approach, we adopt a teleological perspective, and, therefore,
we view only the former as ethically blameworthy for our purposes of analysis.
21
22
Fu, supra note 19, at 279.
See Choi, supra note 13, at 752 (referring to Park & Ahn ‘s study reporting that 69.7% of American participants
perceived an ambiguous message to be deceptive over 35.1% of Korean participants. Hee Sun Park & Ji Young Ahn,
Cultural Differences in Judgment of Truthful and Deceptive Messages, 71 WESTERN J. COMM. 294-315 (2007)).
23
24
Song Yong-Jin, Claudia L. Hale & Nagesh Rao, Success and Failure of Business Negotiations for South Koreans,
11 J. INT’L & AREA STUD. 45, 54 (2004).
25
Dinker Raval & Bala Subramanian, Effective Transfer of Best Practices Across Cultures, 10 COMPETITIVENESS
REV. 183, 185 (2000).
26
Id.
27
Yong-Jin, supra note 24, at 54, n1.
Page 7 of 38
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3430854
also a priority to ensure a positive kibun for all parties involved in a relationship.28 To candidly
and directly address another’s dishonesty, incompetence, or mistakes is viewed as uncivilized.29
Therefore, it is socially acceptable, and maybe even expected, to promote a positive kibun by
saying what you think the other party wants to hear, as opposed to directly addressing a negative
issue.30
Our third example parallels our second. Japanese culture developed within three
philosophical/faith traditions: Shintoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism.31 Each of these traditions
shaped a group-oriented society and management system that emphasizes the need to preserve
harmony within the group, the individual’s dependence upon the group, and a benevolent attitude
toward others.32 In Japanese culture, the notion of right or wrong is more situational and not as
firmly anchored in a priori rules and procedures as it is in America. Unlike Americans’ belief
systems which often focus on “unvarying, universal code of ethics,” in Japan right or wrong is
based “upon time, place, the people involved, and other circumstances.”33 Japanese, therefore,
strive to achieve situational outcomes through mutual cooperation while their American
28
See Raval, supra note 25, at 185.
29
Paul Carroll & Balbina Hwang, Doing Business in Korea and Taiwan: Cultural and Marketing Hints, 113 BUS. AM
8-11, 8 (1992).
30
Carol Kinsey Goman, Where the Truth Lies Across Cultures, FORBES, Aug. 06, 2013,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolkinseygoman/2013/08/06/where-the-truth-lies-across-cultures/#73df720d12ac
(last visited Aug. 6, 2018).
31
K. Praveen Parboteeah, John B. Cullen, Bart Victor, & Tomoaki Sakano, National Culture and Ethical Climates:
A Comparison of U.S. and Japanese Accounting Firms, 45 MGMT. INT’L REV. 459, 465 (2005).
32
Id.
33
Id. at 466.
Page 8 of 38
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3430854
counterparts strive…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment