On the Morality of “Fake It Till You Make It” in High-Tech

Inflating Experience and Capabilities

There is the type in which organizations inflate their engineering experience and capabilities, for instance, to secure contracts with new clients for projects that appear attainable but should, in all fairness, be considered quite novel and, therefore, particularly challenging for the company.

This approach is typically chosen to help diversify services and move up the value chain, aiming to increase profit margins [20], [37]. It is the kind of inflation that your average job seeker preparing a resume will immediately recognize, but that, when done excessively on a corporate scale, might end up in painful lessons and financial disaster [25].

Overoptimism with Respect to Budgets and Time to Market

Then, there is the case of what we could euphemistically call—at least, that is what its users frequently call it—“overoptimism.” This phenomenon can be observed, for example, when research and development leadership teams begin to assert outlandish timelines and budgets for preparing new technology for market introduction, to win over skeptical executive decision-makers or financiers to support their plans [3]. Lead times for development of highly complex new systems are then claimed to take only a couple of years or even months, whereas comparable products took years or even decades to complete.

Overhyping Real-World Applicability of Scientific Research

There is the bold bluffing that occurs when otherwise interesting research or promising scientific results are presented as disruptive technological breakthroughs with enormous commercial potential—without any clear notion of how such breakthroughs would be implemented in practice or whether they would even be commercially feasible given the current state of the art. Such claims are especially questionable when considering the costs of adopting disruptive changes within established value chains [68].

We recognize this type of FITYMI when fundamental research is presented as if it were on the brink of large-scale commercialization. There is, obviously, nothing wrong with presenting fundamental research, such as quantum computing or nuclear fusion, as technologies that could have an enormous impact on society and one day become hugely lucrative; the problem arises when such research projects are linked to specific applications that are far from certain and have not been properly assessed, resulting in persuasive business cases intended to lure in largely uninformed investors.

Inflating Specs

Finally, there is the notorious practice of inflating product specifications or datasheets—think of cars’ fuel consumption or maximum range, or the interoperability of mobile devices—reaching a point where these pieces of information are no longer taken seriously by many [23], [53].

A common saying in technology companies, “Spec sheets are a product’s most effective marketing communication material,” must, therefore, perhaps be taken quite literally: what is written on the box or in the manual is meant to persuade rather than convey factual information. As a result, even mandatory compliance markings (e.g., CE, UL, and CSA) are sometimes no longer taken at face value [5]. Hospitals, for instance, often feel the need to rigorously test medical equipment in their own laboratories before adoption, particularly to verify interoperability and compatibility.

And who is truly surprised anymore when their pride and joy, fully charged or fueled up, fails to even travel half as far as the manual promised [36]?

Everybody is Doing It

A recurring central theme, I found during the many informal discussions I had over the years with practitioners of the various forms of FITYMI, was the argument that “everybody is doing it” [14], [60], [61] —that “it is just the way business is conducted these days.” Practitioners of FITYMI often downplay or sugarcoat it as “a little overselling,” warning that “if you refuse to play along, then you might as well give up and get out of this line of business, or perhaps leave business altogether and do something else, because you will never succeed.”

We Had no Other Choice

Another related argument often heard is, “We had no other choice; we simply had to do everything possible [to achieve the goals set: winning the contract, convincing financiers, launching the product, and so on] or else we would have gone out of business.”

At times, the justification is less dramatic, framed as, “How else were we supposed to succeed?” Faking it is then perceived as a last resort to avoid failure and all its painful consequences.

Alternatively, it can be seen as a practical necessity—or rather, abstaining from FITYMI can be seen as impractical [56]: “How else were we supposed to convince the client to go along with us given our limited track record in this line of business?”

Who is truly surprised anymore when their pride and joy, fully charged or fueled, fails to travel even half as far as the manual promised?

No One is Really Harmed

“No one is really harmed” is also frequently raised [56]. FITYMI is then, rightly or wrongly, perceived as a framework of little white lies benefiting all parties based on the assumption that since all competing sellers engage in similar practices, buyers would not be much better off, and perhaps even worse off, had they chosen another seller.

Even when potential harm is not inconceivable, such as in the case of faking product readiness for market release, the nonconformities found, along with the FITYMI to cover them up, are often rationalized—sometimes perhaps rightly—as posing no significant health threat or environmental risk.

In addition, relevant regulatory requirements are dismissed as mere bureaucracy or unfair barriers to market entry set up by industry leaders [7].

Faking it is a Win–Win

Regarding the alleged harmlessness of FITYMI practitioners often raise a consequentialist point: just because “a little faking” might benefit the user (having some utility) does not mean it could not also be beneficial for the company, its clients, or even society as a whole. It is presented as a sort of win–win situation for all involved.

It is Expected of Me

On a more personal level, practitioners told me that since “everyone is doing it,” and since “refraining could harm company interests,” FITYMI is somehow implicitly expected from its employees [38]. Thus, in a sense, abstaining could be perceived as “underperformance” or “a lack of team spirit,” essentially as “not doing one’s job” [34].

More straightforwardly, FITYMI is also used to avoid becoming the bearer of bad news, thereby protecting, at least in the short term, one’s career prospects within an organization that rewards success or even punishes failure. “Why should I be the one pulling the chestnuts out of the fire? Let somebody else take the heat.”

It was Not my Responsibility

“It was not only our responsibility to ensure and verify that what was purchased was actually fit for purpose” is another line of defense, especially relevant in business-to-business settings where professional buyers enjoy fewer legal protections than consumers (see, for example, [28]). This approach attempts to divert, or at least share, some of the blame for, and burden of, faking it.

FITYMI practitioners often raise a consequentialist point: just because “a little faking” might benefit the user does not mean it could not also be beneficial for the company, its clients, or even society as a whole.

In some cases, it is argued that upon the signing of the purchase agreement, responsibility for a product’s or system’s performance is legally transferred from the seller to the buyer. A similar argument is also applied to investment decisions in early-stage start-ups that turn out poorly: “it was the responsibility of the investor to carry out a thorough due diligence before deciding to invest” [24].

Sometimes, when the technology under consideration is so novel that regulatory or industry standards do not yet exist, manufacturers and engineering firms—while still legally obligated to deliver safe and environmentally friendly products—argue in their defense that what constitutes a safe and eco-friendly product is nowhere described in sufficient detail, and they have done everything realistically possible to fulfill their legal duty (see, for example, [48]). In such cases, the risk of the product not performing as intended is, at least partly, shared with the “victim” or subject of FITYMI.

It is for the Greater Good

Finally, there is the “greater good” argument [9], in line with the “everybody else is doing it” motivation, which suggests that FITYMI has become inherent to the business of technology; it is simply how business operates, like it or not [30], [70]. Abstaining from it means no business, which translates to no innovations, ultimately hindering technological progress for humanity.

(In defense of this view, the first attempts—along with all the FITYMI that went with it—at mobile telecommunication by device manufacturers and service providers worldwide had shortcomings that seem laughable by today’s standards, but they undeniably paved the way for the development of current state-of-the-art technology [1].)

This dynamic might seem a bit far-fetched to the general public, but, to enthusiasts who have dedicated significant portions of their lives to the development of certain technologies and who have come to believe almost religiously in their potential to change and better the world, the cause can feel like justification for actions that would otherwise be considered inappropriate or immoral—least of all, “a little exaggeration.” In short, adopting these practices is seen as potentially serving the greater good of humanity, as there is currently no other way than through business to gather the necessary expertise and capital to keep the wheels of innovation and technological progress turning, thereby ensuring mankind’s evolution and ultimate survival [49].

This pattern is especially evident in the Theranos-type of FITYMI, with science and technology entrepreneurs aiming at the pinnacles of research and development, which are undisputedly for the betterment of humanity, such as cures for deadly diseases, alternative sustainable foods, or carbon-free energy. One practitioner of this type of FITYMI tellingly put it like this: “The only difference between Tesla and Theranos is that in Tesla’s case, FITYMI succeeded in keeping people on board for the journey, while, in Theranos’ case, it did not.”

Underlying this is the conviction that with sufficient willpower, effort, and human and financial capital, anything can be accomplished, “anything can be fixed.” This willpower then translates into a determination to stop at nothing to keep one’s research and development endeavor afloat, even if it means resorting to more than just a little exaggeration.

Regarding the greater good excuse, those excusing or downplaying FITYMI also often point out that we need not worry too much since the practice is largely self-contained [26]. Were FITYMI really that widespread, successful, or impactful, we would, reminiscent of Isaac Asimov’s Foundation (1991), eventually start to notice it from major technological failures—planes falling from the sky, electric cars catching fire, IT systems spontaneously shutting down, science devolving into scams and superstition. Aside from a few exceptions here and there, this has not yet happened.

Albert Carr: “Is Business Bluffing Ethical?”

In 1968, Harvard Business Review published a paper by Carr [11]—a well-known economist at the time—titled, “Is business bluffing ethical?” In this article, Carr answered affirmatively, sparking a debate among business practitioners and thinkers that continues to this day.

Many of the arguments in favor and opposed to the moral presumption against lying raised since can directly be extended to FITYMI in industry discussed here, which, after all, can be seen as a form of bluffing and is, thus, relevant to our examination.

Carr argues that business would operate “outside the usual moral framework” that applies, for example, to private life, and that such a business ethics framework would be bound by nothing but the law. Business could be compared to “a board game” governed only by the rules of the game, with lying and deception understood to be part of the game.

The game analogy works in more than one way for Carr since the ultimate goal of business, as he describes it, corresponds to that of any game: “winning.”

To Carr’s opponents, however, this argument represents a rather narrow view of the role and societal function of business. They believe—more in line with modern consensus—that business ought to do more than merely provide its participants with opportunities for “winning,” that is, for profit [63]. Businesses should also address society’s true needs and, as such, contribute to improving the human condition, for example by reducing human suffering, combating climate change, and developing alternative green energy sources or clean electric cars. Profits can remain a goal, but not at the expense of broader societal well-being.

The debate in the literature often centers around specific contexts, such as price negotiations and the disclosure of reservation prices (for example, [61]). Such a focus allows for the narrowing and particularization of arguments, making them more concrete and manageable.

Here, we will use similar arguments and apply them to our context of FITYMI in industry. The refutations of the main arguments in favor of allowing FITYMI, echoing Carr’s viewpoint, can be summarized broadly as follows (drawing primarily from [56], and the references therein):

• That everyone does “it,” or that it may seem practical, or that being truthful might risk losing a contract, the entire business, or even one’s career, does not mean that it is morally right [56]. By applying the rationality/consistency principle—an important concept in ethics [14]—if faking it were morally right, then it would also be right for others to use FITYMI against you for similar or other reasons. Such an attitude—accepting that anyone can, and therefore will or perhaps even should, freely lie to you when it benefits them—would set off a race to the bottom with respect to upholding truthfulness (or other virtues, for that matter). This erosion of honesty would eventually render all human communication meaningless, impeding cooperation and ultimately pushing humanity back into chaos and barbarism.1In addition, when FITYMI is done in self-defense, under the pretext that “everybody else does it,” one might counter that such self-defense essentially amounts to shooting with hail, as you can never be absolutely certain that your rivals have, in fact, engaged in it [56].While FITYMI in self-defense may be excusable, it is, therefore, not justifiable. Even if you were certain your rivals were practicing it, there is no guarantee that their FITYMI would be effective and therefore to your detriment. Thus, you would be engaging in immoral behavior needlessly.
• Business cannot be seen as a game in which faking is admissible because, while those engaging in business may anticipate the practice, that is not the same as consenting to it [56], [61].Moreover, unlike with a game, participants in business can genuinely get harmed—financially, privately, or personally. Hence, there is no special exemption for business that would generally excuse FITYMI.
• As to the practicality argument, there are different degrees of FITYMI. One could, for example, choose to avoid straightforward lying by withholding or underexposing some information (though one could question whether “persuasion” without disclosing the whole truth would be morally preferable to outright faking it) [13].Regardless, opponents assert that sticking to the truth and refraining from faking it—even if it might be disadvantageous in the short term—is always better in the long run, as it establishes one’s reputation as a trustworthy business partner or dependable employee. Thus, using FITYMI believing honesty would be detrimental is shortsighted and ultimately ineffective [56], or as it is sometimes framed, good business is moral business—though, admittedly, this can seem like wishful thinking given the many examples of seemingly immoral businesses that succeed regardless [22], [29], [50].
• Faking it because you feel it is expected of you should be judged the same as if you were doing it out of self-interest. In other words, faking it on someone else’s behalf does not make it right [9], [56].The fact that a job requires you to engage in immoral behavior cannot excuse that behavior; from the perspective of the victim, it does not matter that you were told to do so—they are still wronged through no fault of their own. Whether it is expected by anyone else changes nothing about the fact that it is still the free choice of the actor to engage in said practices.
• The moral duty to be truthful normally (in absence of extraordinary circumstances) surpasses any legal obligation to adhere to the law; in other words, what is legally right is not necessarily morally right, or to put it differently again, the legal regulations governing commercial interactions should be considered a minimum rather than a default standard of conduct (see, for example, [5]).Moreover, the fact that someone else has legal responsibilities (such as verifying the claims made) does not absolve one from their own duty to be truthful.
• As to the “greater good” argument—FITYMI for the sake of innovation and humanity’s betterment: there is no reason why innovation and even the business of innovation could not be conducted truthfully, that is, without faking it [56]. That something is so—that the business of innovation is undeniably rife with faking it—does not mean it ought to be so [70], or that it could not be different.Even if it would take more effort to convince, that is still preferable to effectively misusing the asymmetry in information to “trick” someone into accepting your plans.

That something is so—that the business of innovation is undeniably rife with faking it—does not mean it ought to be so, or that it could not be different.

Never-Ending Debate: Idealism Versus Realism

This list is far from exhaustive. There are numerous (often highly technical and detailed) arguments on both sides of the debate, each attempting to refute the latest points made in the ongoing exchange about excusing lying in specific situations (see, for example, [8], [13], [14], [33], [60], [61], and [63]).

The common-sense consensus on the morality of lying—FITYMI being a specific form of lying—is that it should generally be avoided, unless there are extraordinary circumstances justifying it, such as when telling the truth would cause (greater) foreseeable harm [9]. Therein lies the obvious difficulty: the assessment of which circumstances precisely justify the practice—what is considered harmful, to whom, how to balance different harms—is often ambiguous, even in hindsight. It largely depends on the specifics of the situation and its context.

Consequently, the debate about the morality of FITYMI often takes on the quality of a clash between deeply held convictions about “what should be” versus “what is”—that is, a dispute between “isms,” idealism versus realism, which cannot be settled.

The reason the dispute cannot be settled is that the underlying views are not necessarily mutually exclusive; both can be—and, to some extent, often are—valid simultaneously.

The idealist is correct in arguing that society would be more trustworthy and business more effective from a societal perspective—adding more “value,” wasting less scarce resources, and so on—if all forms of deception were rooted out; that lying should not be necessary for advancing technology for the betterment of humanity; and that upholding morality—through education, leading by example, and so on—might one day bring that world within reach or at least prevent society from spiraling back to the animal-like cohabitation of a “war of all against all” [40] by upholding some standard of morality.

The realist, in turn, is also correct when he points out that in a world rife with faking—which the business world undeniably is2—it would be virtually impossible to stand one’s ground and survive even a single day on the job without at least minimally playing along.

Moral philosophy, as has been duly noted long ago [21], is no science. What may scientifically or logically be questionable may make perfect sense ethically: lying can indeed be “wrong” in general while simultaneously being “the right thing to do” under certain circumstances. When considering edge cases, such as Kant’s well-known test case of the murderer at the door [69], the absolute presumption against lying breaks down, as do the justifications of practicality and the greater good at the other end of the spectrum.

However, this has no implications for the general validity—or better, the usefulness, as we are not engaged in scientific deduction—of the common-sense premise for the majority of practical cases in between.

At one extreme, we find outright deception or fraud, as seen in the cases of Theranos or FTX, where the morality is obviously not in question. At the other extreme, we find a researcher discovering a likely cure for cancer or malaria, who exaggerates his findings to secure funding and, thereby, rid the world of a deadly disease—an action that also appears morally clear-cut.3

But what about the average research and development employee or manager working on next-generation consumer gadgets without a clear benefit to mankind? How should they navigate the everyday conflicting demands placed upon them, weighing whether to go along with the faking to benefit themselves or their employer?

The matter of the morality of FITYMI clearly cannot be settled by focusing solely on the act itself [9], [41], maintaining, for example, that all forms of FITYMI, or lying for that matter, are inherently wrong. Similarly, assessing the morality purely based on foreseeable consequences (“the end justifying the means” [59]) is also unfeasible. Some intangible “unscientific” ethos or sense of “virtuousness” appears to be necessary to arrive at a sound judgment [46].

Taking the greater good argument as an example, we find that the idealist is correct; often, as evidenced by my own conversations, FITYMI was not used with the greater good in mind. Instead, actors predominantly employed the argument as an excuse to justify what they themselves felt was wrong or objectionable. They were effectively engaging in self-deception [70].

Moreover, even in cases where self-deception was absent, many involved in FITYMI—whether as practitioners or as those impacted—experienced it as a hindrance to effective communication. It sowed distrust and conflict, leading to inefficient use of scarce resources on less promising initiatives than would have been the case had straightforwardness prevailed.

Similarly, the realist is also correct when he grapples with his role in a team or department where FITYMI is normalized and even openly practiced and encouraged by his superiors who annually review his performance—and where the FITYMI he or she needs to engage in to maintain his position seems trivial, amounting to, say, exaggerating product performance by 10%.

But when does faking start to become objectionable or morally wrong? At 20%? At 50%? At 100%? Or never?

Indeed, could a company be excused for engaging in obviously immoral practices if they help develop a new technology that enables clean energy, clearly benefiting humanity as a whole? Should we applaud the corporation that upholds the highest moral standards and prioritizes corporate social responsibility yet utterly fails to advance technological progress, consuming sparse capital and resources while occupying highly skilled workers that could otherwise have contributed to more promising disruptive alternatives?

Transparency is Key

The first step is recognizing the issue for what it is, acknowledging it, and addressing it openly as a collective. Talking about morality without coming across as moralistic can be challenging. After all, to be immoral at times is to be human. However, the goal here is not to preach, but to foster awareness of the moral implications of one’s actions and to facilitate decision making, both on a personal level and on a leadership level [64].

As an example, I found on several occasions that when engineering and research and development team members were confronted with FITYMI—especially when they felt pressured by company culture or leadership to comply—they often became quite demotivated, even if they went along out of concern for their job or career prospects.

Addressing the issue promptly by identifying the reasons behind it and examining its morality sometimes worsened this demotivation and led to quicker resignations but, in other cases, also helped retain valuable scientific and engineering talent.

Openly addressing these concerns can also quell unrest within teams that may, due to limited access to information—such as the details of commercial agreements with third parties—mistakenly interpret certain negotiation tactics or selective withholding of information as instances of FITYMI. The sentiment often heard is, “I am not going to lie!” or “I am not going to commit fraud!”

Situations like this can arise, for example, when commercial negotiations were handled by team members who have since left the company, leaving the history and precise agreements unknown to the departments involved, leading to assumptions and misunderstandings.

Silencing the issue in such cases only makes matters worse, depriving the company of essential elements for moral reflection that could prove beneficial in the long run [66]. This opens the door even wider for individuals, for instance, willing to sacrifice ethics for success, or for those indifferent to moral considerations altogether, ultimately leading to a company culture that drifts away from its aspired core values.

We examined various forms of FITYMI in the technology business, along with the main motivations, arguments for, and counterarguments against the practice. Deciding upfront which variations of FITYMI should be condoned or justified, and which should be condemned as immoral, based on factors such as context, setting, intentions, and foreseeable consequences, proves cumbersome and impractical. A more effective approach to addressing FITYMI in real-world scenarios, and improving both personal and business decision-making, is through training and education in moral philosophy. For this to be truly effective, it must be accompanied by open acknowledgment of the practice.

The first, and often most difficult, step is to bring the practice into the open, encouraging those engaged in it, as well as those affected by it, to discuss it openly. Next, its causes can be analyzed, along with the actors’ intentions, the foreseeable consequences of their actions, and so on, to arrive at some form of judgment—of the practice, that is, not the individuals involved. If the issue turns out to be mistakenly identified as an instance of FITYMI, this can help calm tensions and realign everyone, reinstating trust. However, if there is a genuine issue that requires change, it can be addressed using well-known best practices (see, for example, [67]), such as establishing a clear code of ethics and ensuring its enforcement.

This could involve making the topic of FITYMI a key agenda item in recurring meetings, integrating moral compass or ethos into leadership selection criteria, prioritizing honesty, fairness, and open communication, focusing on long-term relationships with customers, and committing to targeted markets. In addition, making ethical business practices a strategic goal, utilizing long-term or permanent contracts for engineering and research and developement employees to encourage retention, rewarding transparency alongside success and timeliness, training leadership teams to lead by example, ensuring all teams have access to the latest and most accurate information to eliminate assumptions in interactions with third parties, and providing training and coaching for employees on recognizing and dealing with FITYMI can be effective strategies to reinforce a positive company culture.

Disclaimer: No specific companies are identified, and the cases mentioned here are purely illustrative. The practices described do not necessarily reflect the actions or policies of the author’s clients listed in other professional materials.