Three Schools of Bargaining Ethics

     After reading the Three Schools of Bargaining Ethics, I believe my fit is more aligned with a "pragmatic idealist" when it comes to bargaining ethics.  I found myself fall somewhere between being a pragmatist and an idealist, or maybe a combination of both.  I certainly don't consider myself or ever see myself executing a negotiation as it were a "poker game".  In the business world, I find it quite dishonest to treat negotiations as a game and trying to bluff dealings.  I do not feel this is a trustworthy tactic and feel this could hurt my credibility and reflect poorly on me.  These types of negotiations would keep me from sleeping soundly at night.  Anytime you need to "bluff" to win a negotiation, it is not even worth negotiating anymore.  I feel I have more integrity and self worth than that.  Members of Poker School are selfish and are only worried with their own personal gain.  They put me to mind of vultures or predators.  Call me naïve, but I much rather have respect and dignity. 
     Members of Idealist School say bargaining is a part of social life, and it is wrong to lie or mislead in social encounters such as negotiations.  However, Idealists are guided by ideals and even though they don't blatantly lie, they will not volunteer information that will weaken their negotiation.  An idealist may decline to answer questions but prefer to be candid and honest even if it means giving up  their strategic advantage when bargaining.  Idealists follow ethical rules possibly through religion or philosophy. 
     Members of Pragmatist School are more practical and a matter-of-fact.  Pragmatists are concerned with negative effects of deception on relationships.  Not only do they feel lying is wrong, but it costs them more in the long run than they gain in the short run.  Pragmatists are more concerned with preserving working relationships and protecting their reputation.  However, a pragmatist will lie a bit more often than an idealist will.  Pragmatists are looser within the truth and use "blocking techniques" to avoid answering certain questions.  Blocking techniques are tactics used to avoid answering questions that threaten to expose a weak bargaining position where an idealist would refuse to answer the question and try to change the subject. 
     Although some may feel that being honest is a weakness when negotiating, I feel what gives me an advantage is that I'm also blatant, firm, and straight-forward.  Even though I have the characteristics of being both pragmatic and idealistic, my assertiveness, honesty, and reputation are far more important strengths.