I’m a student that’s constantly being told to “network” but was wondering about the ethical implications of doing so. More specifically, the practice of people (especially in business) talking to colleagues or professionals not just out of interest or for a quality conversation, but under pretense that they will get something out of the interaction (for example, the phone number/email of an esteemed professor).
In my mind this has been something of a moral/ethical dilemma. Is it ok to talk to people under the false pretense? And to what extent? And is there any way to “be moral” if you’re genuinely interested in what they have to say and their work, but also want to connect with these professionals to further your own career? Could it be a situation where the mentor is morally “obligated” to help younger students on their journeys?
This is something I’ve wondered for a while, and would greatly appreciate it if you could either explain your own line of thinking with this or point me to some papers with more information. I’d imagine it’s something that comes up regularly in business settings but I don’t see many talking about it.
Contributed by anonymous.
To comment on this dilemma, leave a response. For anonymity, omit your email address and website, and use a screen name.
Ethical Decisions 
Thanks for raising this issue, which I suspect is on the mind of many people – even though, as you say, we rarely talk about it.
Probably the most famous statement on the topic was made by the philosopher Immanuel Kant:
“Act so as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, at all times also as an end, and not only as a means.” (Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, 2nd ed.).
It’s a way of saying, “Don’t use people,” or more adequately, “Don’t relate to people simply by using them.” Kant thought this was one way to formulate the basic moral law that underlies all ethics. The sentiment is superb, but it’s rather vague.
One way to make it more precise is to apply the generalization principle (another version of Kant’s law). It says (roughly) that an action is ethical only if it would achieve its purpose if everyone were to act the same way. This means that deceiving people about one’s intent is unethical, because it would no longer work if everyone did so. Everyone would suspect ulterior motives.
So, if I network with someone to promote my career, this is OK so long as that person knows what is going on, either because I say so outright, or the other person is savvy enough to see what I am up to. However, misleading someone about my purpose is not OK.
What if I don’t know whether the other party is misled? Ethics says that I must be rational in believing that there is no deception. The simplest way to accomplish this is to be up front about what I am doing. For example, I can say to a Google employee, “I wanted to contact you because I would love to work at Google, and I thought you might give me some advice.”
This may seem impractical. If I am up front with my contacts, they will be offended, and I won’t get anywhere. This brings in the utilitarian principle, which basically says that I should make a positive contribution to the world. I can’t make much of a contribution if I am sitting at home unemployed. But it is far from clear that being politely honest will stymie one’s career. Most people are impressed by individuals who are genuine, and are drawn to them as someone who can be trusted.
There is also a deeper issue at stake. Human society, to the extent it is tolerable, runs on trust. This is more obvious in relationship-based cultures (i.e., most of the world) where people get things done primarily through personal relationships. In much of east Asia, for example, people are on the lookout for insincerity, and they may call you out if they suspect your motives. In much of the Middle East, associates are alert to hints of dishonesty even in trivial matters, because it can be disastrous in important matters. The role of trust is less evident in Western cultures that rely more on written agreements and legal remedies, but in the end, everything rests on it. Even the existence of money depends on trust. Ask any economist.
The generalization principle therefore re-enters the picture. One who abuses trust, by putting up a false front, engages in behavior that cannot be generalized. The trust on which one relies to accomplish almost anything would not exist if it were routinely abused.
What is the conclusion? Networking is fine, so long as we level with others in the process.
LikeLike