Sellers are often under considerable pressure to meet their targets, and establishing a connection with the buyer or “decision-maker” is essential to improving the likelihood of closing a deal. However, securing a meeting with a decision-maker is rarely straightforward, as competition for business opportunities tends to be intense. As a result, sellers frequently turn to an intermediary—someone who knows the buyer—to influence the buyer or even facilitate an introduction. This, however, raises an important ethical question: Is it right to use connections to influence a buyer when you might not have succeeded independently?
The answer largely depends on the nature of the action taken. If your intermediary simply arranges a meeting with the decision-maker through their influence, without any underhanded payments or bribery, and you are given a fair opportunity to present your business proposal, this is generally acceptable. There is nothing unethical about seeking a bit of assistance.
However, if you ask your intermediary to bypass established norms, or if their actions go against the law or company policies, then this practice crosses into unethical territory and should be avoided. Using influence to accomplish tasks is a common approach, but securing contracts without merit or bypassing due process is generally regarded as nepotism and cronyism.
Let’s consider some examples from different contexts to clarify the distinction:
Example 1: You have attempted to arrange a meeting with an executive at Company ABC, but they haven’t responded. You then reach out to a friend who works there, who presents your case to the executive and successfully arranges a meeting. This is legitimate, and from a seller’s perspective, it’s a smart move. This would be referred to as “influence,” where everything is transparent and no corruption is involved.
Example 2: A student fails to achieve the grades necessary to attend university. The student’s father approaches a friend at the university and asks for assistance. This friend, either by leveraging their influence or by being the decision-maker, secures admission for the student. Here, merit has been ignored, and the standard admissions process has been overridden. This is considered corruption and must be avoided.
A classic case of nepotism was seen in the UK during Conservative Party rule, when it was publicly disclosed that by 2021, £3 billion worth of contracts were unethically awarded to donors and associates with political ties to the Conservatives [https://bylinetimes.com].
Using connections to influence certain decisions is ethical when done transparently, without breaking the law or company policies. However, when this involves “under-the-table” payments, bypassing due processes, or ignoring merit, it becomes corruption and should be avoided at all costs.
No responses yet