A typical form of flawed reasoning that businesses fall into is the either/or conundrum. This flawed analysis finds us reaching a decision, because the pressure is great, the consequences even greater, and the justification compelling. Defining dilemmas in the either/or conundrum commit the ultimate flaw in logic by assuming the outcome. Defining the dilemma in this way also produces artificial choices that somehow ignore the ethics and values we brought with us before we run into the pressure of the moment. Many company CFOs fall into this trap-either I inflate the financials this quarter or 3,000 people will lose their jobs, including me. Sales employees often engage in practices such as shipping goods customers have not ordered so that they can meet their quarterly sales numbers. They box themselves into an either/or situation without realizing the dilemma will now never go away, "What will you do next quarter to make up the shortage?" In defining the issue by achievement of a predetermined goal, we fall victim to the either/or conundrum. Sometimes we reach the goal, but other times we find a wealth of experience that we use in reaching the summit or goal the next time or in understanding that we need to pursue a different summit or goal.

However, analyzing a decision by values rephrases the question from "Does our present need justify my departure from my values?" to "Is there a way to solve this problem that is consistent with my values?" For example, in 2000, the Swedish retailer Ikea was on the eve of the grand opening of its flagship store in Moscow. Government officials who run the public electric utility came requesting their personal payoffs for providing the retail store with electricity. One part of Ikea's code of ethics-indeed, its credo-is that it does not pay bribes anywhere it does business. On the other hand, Ikea did have commitments to vendors, creditors, and employees for the opening of the store. If Ikea phrases the ethical issue as "To bribe or not to bribe, that is the question," it will fall into the either/or conundrum. If, however, it phrases the question as "Is there a way to get the store open without compromising our values?" it will begin exploring alternatives rather than accepting the compromise of its ethics as the only solution. Ikea did come up with a solution; it rented generators to provide power for the store. Indeed, that approach to electricity has become its business model in Russia. Avoiding the either/or trap removes the blinders that moral relativism often imposes as we try to analyze an issue.......................

Discussion Questions 

1. Describe a time when you have fallen into an either/or trap 

2. In 2009, Ikea discovered that the Russian executive it had hired to manage its generator contracts was accepting kickbacks from the companies that wanted to do business with Ikea. What lessons should lkea and other companies learn from this experience?