After reading the article by El Sayed and El Ghazaly (n.d.), discuss your views on the following:
1. Do you feel ethical guidelines make a difference to marketers?
There is no such thing as ethics in marketing, if there were, we probably wouldn't buy anything based on an advert on TV. Let me just explain what I mean. For me, it is all about the small print. Car adverts are the case in point. Cars are pretty innocuous items - they probably are not going to kill you on the first try, we all know what they are, what they do and how to use them. They come in different sizes and colors and have different price tags, but essentially they are a mode of transport from A to B. But marketers don't want us to think like that. Marketers want us to think of cars as a status symbol, as the living image of a greener planet, as an extension of our personality, a lifestyle choice or the most technologically capable machine available. But the small print tells you a different story. You can never read it all, it's so tiny and lasts just a few seconds on TV. But when the voice over says "Enjoy 0% finance for 60 months" the small print at the bottom says "not all people will qualify, 0% based on credit scoring, offer does not exist in CT, NY, DE and NV, Some restrictions may apply". On the radio it says all those things so fast you better have a tape recorder.
In other words - good luck getting 0% from us sucker. We have a get out of jail card for every eventuality. And lets face it, with the business model they have set up in commissions etc, it is in no salesman's interest to be giving everyone 0% finance. So you can put as many ethical guidelines down as you like - the game of marketing is about finding a way around those guidelines, and attracting customers. Luring them in is the job of marketing. Period. Landing them in the boat is the job of Sales. If the general populace had the attitude that everything they saw in a piece of marketing was somehow not really true and were more skeptical, perhaps then marketing departments would work harder on gaining trust; but while the guidelines are self enforced, expect more of the same.
2. How can companies balance the need to win with being ethical?
By telling the truth. The one asset that consumers hold, that is the most underrated by marketing departments - is intelligence. People with intelligence can spot a poor deal most of the time, and so sometimes, not telling us the whole truth is as bad as lying to us outright. It's concealment, and those with intelligence never buy into concealment. The fact is, either you have a good product or you don't, and never has the phrase "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" been more appropriate. Your marketing may get you the sale once, but then you are dead to me from that point on. Marketing departments rarely care - especially if their product is essentially rubbish. There have been things I have bought that have turned out to be a waste of time. I once bought gold coins from a newspaper article I read all about gold. I kept the article, I ordered the gold coins. I kept both for many years and then when the price of gold was very high I went to sell them. Turned out these were not gold coins - they were gold plated replicas! After seething, getting angry, feeling robbed and then slight depression, I reread the article, and sure enough, in very very small print was the hint (not the actual words, but the hint) that this wasn't an actual article, but an advertisement, and that the coins may not be 100% pure gold. Never again. They won - but they only did it once, and frankly, probably well within the ethical guidelines.
3. Is it ethical to track your buying habits or web visits to target you for marketing purposes?
Yes. I may not be like most consumers, but I accept that advertising is a reality. Nothing I do is going to stop advertising, so I would rather receive adverts for the things that I am interested in than a slew of adverts for things that are totally irrelevant. What hasn't been sorted out yet is when to show me these adverts. For example: If I am walking down the street or in a mall, and marketers knew I had been looking at DVD reviews for a certain movie, then just as I passed the local FYE store an advert came up on my phone that said if I bought that particular movie right now they would give me a 10% discount, then I would probably buy it - and I would be grateful. Of course, this would mean they would have access to my phones GPS and my phones search history - but I have nothing to hide, have at it. If my phone chimed every 20 paces for an innocuous advert for women's underwear or a special offer from Re-Bath, I'm going to get rid of the phone. Marketing departments need to change the world of marketing themselves and see the bigger picture. Phone manufacturers need to help them before we dump their phones for the equivalent of a Google search engine (remember why we all started googling stuff? It's because Google search had no adverts!) Right now, what they are good at is the equivalent of carpet bombing; what they need to get perfect at is the targeted and precise strike. The push back they get on ethical boundaries and privacy is because carpet bombing isn't helping anyone. My guess is that precision advertising (ie: adverts at the right time and place) will actually be welcomed, and laws will change to suit the marketers. Unfortunately, giving marketing the access to this is right now akin to letting the wolf watch your sheep. Nobody trusts them to do the right thing.
4. As a leader, how will you manage the ethical aspects of your marketing efforts?
I won't, because what's the point? I'm not saying that I will deliberately flout the ethical considerations of the product - but the marketing department is paid to be the people that help sell a product - and they should know under current conditions how to best do that. After all, they have the guidelines, the support of the marketing community and they know the laws. My concern as a manager is to make sure that what they do doesn't tarnish the image of the company, and balance that with making sure the company provides shareholders with the lifestyle they have become accustomed to. I'll overview to make sure that they don't break any laws - but really, if you can't beat them you should join them. Will I be encouraging them as much as I can to change the system like I just described above? Sure will. Will I be the guy that the world credits with the way we see adverts in the future, all precise and targeted? I doubt it.
April 23, 2014
April 16, 2014
A634.4.4.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Use Chapters 5 and 6 (LaFollette, 2007) as the foundation for your reflections regarding if affirmative action is ethical. Be sure to include external sourced content. Present your opinion, support your opinion, and opposing viewpoints.
There are many scholars, LaFollette (2007) is one of them, who will try to convince you that indeed, affirmative action is ethical: "If affirmative action programs usually benefit deserving blacks and rarely hinder meritorious and relatively disadvantaged whites, then that ought to be enough - especially considering the extent to which blacks have been systematically deprived of the full benefits of American society for so long" (Lafollette, 2007, p. 98). So basically, the argument here is, we put in a rule, and seeing as that rule isn't causing harm to the majority of whites, who really cares?, lets leave it alone.
My argument is that there is no need for the rule in the first place. Here's the rub. I understand that Native Americans were forced off their land and didn't get much choice in it. I get it, that in the race for industrialization, slavery hindered a whole race of black Africans that has left them starting the race from way behind the rest of the 'white' pack. Women didn't get to vote at all until the 1950's. The problem it seemed was 'solved' when race conscious politicians invented affirmative action to give these disaffected groups a leg up in the race. But despite all the good intentions, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action, after all, have not been the economically disadvantaged blacks and Native Americans, but middle and upper-class women (Kohn, 2013).
Instead of being affirmative action, what seems to have happened is that the all encompassing legislation has now fueled arguments between the minority groups and therefore grown the division between them and the rest of society.
From an ethical standpoint, what is really of concern is not perhaps the actual legislation, no matter how well it intended it was at formation, but the deceit and corruption that now surrounds the individual cases that the Supreme Court hears. Equal Opportunity is really not an equal opportunity for everyone - it's the preference for one particular race or gender over another. White people can't question this because they get labeled as a racist - if anything, all of the programs to make us a more modern, sensitive and understanding multi-cultural society just pigeon holes us into groups of "dominant white oppressors" vs "dominated ethnic minority" and serves no ethical purpose whatsoever.
The purpose of Affirmative action was to make sure that minorities and women were equally represented in all levels of the workplace - but that hasn't happened, so what is the point? If anything we are circling the drain as minorities become more disenfranchised and slip further and further down the path of regulated oppression. Something has to stop the downward spiral. The problem with government intervention programs is that they encourage a dependance, instead of educating the populace about what is ethical and moral. As the population of the United States grows in education, surely people see the wrong in discrimination and sexism? If allowed the freedom to choose, wouldn't a business choose the best person to increase shareholder value and not just the best white person? This notion of ingrained racism to me is as alien as the affirmative action policies from a different decade. Like unions, they forced us to think, but are now an outdated structure that needs to be dismantled, regardless of the plethora of excuses for keeping it in place.
In conclusion, what is really disappointing here is the lack of evidence. Theories as to how well or how poorly the affirmative action is doing are great. Having LaFollette tell us that actually the argument that black people are stigmatized by affirmative action does not hold water - frankly doesn't hold water unless you can back it up with evidence.; but he offers no empirical evidence at all. If anything, as we stated earlier, if affirmative action worked, we'd see proportional representation of minorities in all walks of life, but we don't. Some proper research - maybe through the census would help. Some measurement of the pro's and con's would be great. Simply putting out the same few arguments for and against merely keeps the lawyers in business and the minorities circling the drain.
References:
Kohn, S. (2013) Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone. Time. Retrieved from: http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
There are many scholars, LaFollette (2007) is one of them, who will try to convince you that indeed, affirmative action is ethical: "If affirmative action programs usually benefit deserving blacks and rarely hinder meritorious and relatively disadvantaged whites, then that ought to be enough - especially considering the extent to which blacks have been systematically deprived of the full benefits of American society for so long" (Lafollette, 2007, p. 98). So basically, the argument here is, we put in a rule, and seeing as that rule isn't causing harm to the majority of whites, who really cares?, lets leave it alone.
My argument is that there is no need for the rule in the first place. Here's the rub. I understand that Native Americans were forced off their land and didn't get much choice in it. I get it, that in the race for industrialization, slavery hindered a whole race of black Africans that has left them starting the race from way behind the rest of the 'white' pack. Women didn't get to vote at all until the 1950's. The problem it seemed was 'solved' when race conscious politicians invented affirmative action to give these disaffected groups a leg up in the race. But despite all the good intentions, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action, after all, have not been the economically disadvantaged blacks and Native Americans, but middle and upper-class women (Kohn, 2013).
Instead of being affirmative action, what seems to have happened is that the all encompassing legislation has now fueled arguments between the minority groups and therefore grown the division between them and the rest of society.
From an ethical standpoint, what is really of concern is not perhaps the actual legislation, no matter how well it intended it was at formation, but the deceit and corruption that now surrounds the individual cases that the Supreme Court hears. Equal Opportunity is really not an equal opportunity for everyone - it's the preference for one particular race or gender over another. White people can't question this because they get labeled as a racist - if anything, all of the programs to make us a more modern, sensitive and understanding multi-cultural society just pigeon holes us into groups of "dominant white oppressors" vs "dominated ethnic minority" and serves no ethical purpose whatsoever.
The purpose of Affirmative action was to make sure that minorities and women were equally represented in all levels of the workplace - but that hasn't happened, so what is the point? If anything we are circling the drain as minorities become more disenfranchised and slip further and further down the path of regulated oppression. Something has to stop the downward spiral. The problem with government intervention programs is that they encourage a dependance, instead of educating the populace about what is ethical and moral. As the population of the United States grows in education, surely people see the wrong in discrimination and sexism? If allowed the freedom to choose, wouldn't a business choose the best person to increase shareholder value and not just the best white person? This notion of ingrained racism to me is as alien as the affirmative action policies from a different decade. Like unions, they forced us to think, but are now an outdated structure that needs to be dismantled, regardless of the plethora of excuses for keeping it in place.
In conclusion, what is really disappointing here is the lack of evidence. Theories as to how well or how poorly the affirmative action is doing are great. Having LaFollette tell us that actually the argument that black people are stigmatized by affirmative action does not hold water - frankly doesn't hold water unless you can back it up with evidence.; but he offers no empirical evidence at all. If anything, as we stated earlier, if affirmative action worked, we'd see proportional representation of minorities in all walks of life, but we don't. Some proper research - maybe through the census would help. Some measurement of the pro's and con's would be great. Simply putting out the same few arguments for and against merely keeps the lawyers in business and the minorities circling the drain.
References:
Kohn, S. (2013) Affirmative Action Has Helped White Women More Than Anyone. Time. Retrieved from: http://ideas.time.com/2013/06/17/affirmative-action-has-helped-white-women-more-than-anyone/
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
April 13, 2014
A634.3.5.RB_LloydPayneDamien
Using concepts from the Kramer (2003) article as a baseline, share your insights on dilemmas that happen in society, work, and in your life.
For a person to rise to the top of the corporate ladder, to be in charge, to have the company at their control, they must be a star performer, they must be a risk taker, and they must have the drive to move up. But when they get to the top, have they seen too much? All of the experience one gains as they make their way up the corporate structure may have some unintended negative consequences. Do the good ideas and the individuals they worked with stay with them? Or do the negative bosses and co-workers, the tough decisions made, and the policies that pushed the boundaries on worker well being force a pessimism about the leading individual? Power certainly is a fickle friend. To quote historian and moralist Baron Acton in 1887: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men". But is this true? Does this have to be so? The Kramer article proceeds to give several tales of woe regarding people who have given up much to rise up the ladder, only when there to fall mightily as they fling aside the moral and ethical stances that perhaps contributed to getting them there in the first place.
Finding a leader in the workplace that is not in some way corrupted by the power they can wield I believe is not only rare, but almost non-existent. I personally would love to work for one! Even the CEO of my own company, espouses the budget cuts that everyone has to make - being frugal with the company money - yet god forbid that he 'downgrade" his own expenses and stay in a hotel less costly than the NYC Regis Hotel! Some people, I guess, find it hard to release the perks, especially after they have possibly spent a long time trying to get them.
I have seen in my own work environment the personality change that advancement can create. Someone I was once was very close to now has little time for me. I would like to think it is because of the additional responsibilities she has and not because of the ‘perks’ that are coming with her position. I fear along with other pilots it is due to the speedy advancement she made in the industry. She is very young, pretty and has a lot to offer, but I feel if she were to step back and look at those she has left behind she would realize errors and reorganize her thoughts. I’ve often heard ‘it is lonely at the top’ and until she experiences that scenario she will continue her quest to become number one in the organization. Will she be number one or the one left out in the cold? Only time, experience and self-examination will tell.
Unfortunately, it's not just at work. You can almost take any social group and spot the power hungry social climbers. The CYO basketball coaches board that I am involved in has them, so to do those that espouse to be doing the 'most good' for the church. The vestry positions for some are very important, and releasing that position at the end of one term is unheard of. Kramer sets out some interesting suggestions on ways to keep your head out of the clouds and make sure the moral and ethical rights and wrongs are not abandoned. Staying grounded through sweating the small stuff, keeping life simple and self reflection are all tools to use to prevent the other path of being "on the pavement, looking up and wondering what all went wrong" (Kramer, 2003, p. 58)
One final conclusion is the motivating factor of being a leader. I would propose that many leaders seek positions of leadership for very outwardly selfish motives that allow them the ability to dominate and control others. My philosophy of leadership is to use the position to help others be successful in their own work performance and professional goals. I have always gain more satisfaction from seeing others succeed than from any of my own successes, something that took me a long time to learn, but was cemented in teaching other pilots to fly. There is no better feeling than having a student you have taught go on his first solo.....if you have never done it you should try it.
Reference:
Kramer, R. (2003). The Harder They Fall. Harvard Business Review. 81(10), 58-66
For a person to rise to the top of the corporate ladder, to be in charge, to have the company at their control, they must be a star performer, they must be a risk taker, and they must have the drive to move up. But when they get to the top, have they seen too much? All of the experience one gains as they make their way up the corporate structure may have some unintended negative consequences. Do the good ideas and the individuals they worked with stay with them? Or do the negative bosses and co-workers, the tough decisions made, and the policies that pushed the boundaries on worker well being force a pessimism about the leading individual? Power certainly is a fickle friend. To quote historian and moralist Baron Acton in 1887: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men". But is this true? Does this have to be so? The Kramer article proceeds to give several tales of woe regarding people who have given up much to rise up the ladder, only when there to fall mightily as they fling aside the moral and ethical stances that perhaps contributed to getting them there in the first place.
Finding a leader in the workplace that is not in some way corrupted by the power they can wield I believe is not only rare, but almost non-existent. I personally would love to work for one! Even the CEO of my own company, espouses the budget cuts that everyone has to make - being frugal with the company money - yet god forbid that he 'downgrade" his own expenses and stay in a hotel less costly than the NYC Regis Hotel! Some people, I guess, find it hard to release the perks, especially after they have possibly spent a long time trying to get them.
I have seen in my own work environment the personality change that advancement can create. Someone I was once was very close to now has little time for me. I would like to think it is because of the additional responsibilities she has and not because of the ‘perks’ that are coming with her position. I fear along with other pilots it is due to the speedy advancement she made in the industry. She is very young, pretty and has a lot to offer, but I feel if she were to step back and look at those she has left behind she would realize errors and reorganize her thoughts. I’ve often heard ‘it is lonely at the top’ and until she experiences that scenario she will continue her quest to become number one in the organization. Will she be number one or the one left out in the cold? Only time, experience and self-examination will tell.
Unfortunately, it's not just at work. You can almost take any social group and spot the power hungry social climbers. The CYO basketball coaches board that I am involved in has them, so to do those that espouse to be doing the 'most good' for the church. The vestry positions for some are very important, and releasing that position at the end of one term is unheard of. Kramer sets out some interesting suggestions on ways to keep your head out of the clouds and make sure the moral and ethical rights and wrongs are not abandoned. Staying grounded through sweating the small stuff, keeping life simple and self reflection are all tools to use to prevent the other path of being "on the pavement, looking up and wondering what all went wrong" (Kramer, 2003, p. 58)
One final conclusion is the motivating factor of being a leader. I would propose that many leaders seek positions of leadership for very outwardly selfish motives that allow them the ability to dominate and control others. My philosophy of leadership is to use the position to help others be successful in their own work performance and professional goals. I have always gain more satisfaction from seeing others succeed than from any of my own successes, something that took me a long time to learn, but was cemented in teaching other pilots to fly. There is no better feeling than having a student you have taught go on his first solo.....if you have never done it you should try it.
Reference:
Kramer, R. (2003). The Harder They Fall. Harvard Business Review. 81(10), 58-66
April 2, 2014
A634.2.4.RB_LloydPayneDamien
In Chapter 2, LaFollette (2007) discusses Consequentialism and Deontology. Discuss your thoughts on these two theories.
Consequentialism is best expressed in a practical example. In a scenario where 5 children are trapped on one train track and just one child on another and a train is approaching. You have the choice to throw the switch and have the 5 die, one throw the switch so the train moves towards the one. In other words, consequentialism is about the good of the many over the few. The justification in this is that you are still being ethical in your decision and you are doing so for the greater good. According to LaFollette (2007), consequentialists must do three things. Firstly, decide which consequences count, secondly, how much weight or consideration is to be given to each of those consequences and finally, how do we should use these considerations when reflecting on them (p. 25-26).
So what does this mean? In this situation then, I would (according to consequentialism) look at the train situation and decide if the situation affected me directly. Did I know the children, would it be a problem if one set died over the other? Even if the answer were yes, how much weight should I give to that? I may still feel that the sacrificing the few for the good of the many is just. When I am considering this how should I make my decision based on all the information I have? Using the train example I have to decide finally can I live with that decision?
Consequentialists have to decide which consequences are significant and which are not. everything has to be taken into consideration to make a valid and moral decision, if it is not significant then my action is to do nothing as it won’t have enough of an impact either way. With consequentialism there can be a certain justification for my actions (killing one child to save five children) in most courts would be upheld, the responsibility for such a choice is one most societies hope we never have to face.
Now we turn to Deontology. This theory is more of a set of rules that must be followed that starts when we are children; our parents give us all the 'do not's' in life, “Don’t touch the stove”, “Don’t play on frozen rivers” etc. As we grow older these rules with change according to who we are as adults; “Don’t drive to fast”, “Don’t steal from work”. Much less about ethics, deontology is more about our rights and our obligation to others, so in other words Deontology is more based on what you are doing and not so much on the consequences of your actions. I person who believed wholly in deontology would say that the rules are not to lie, therefore you do not lie regardless. If someone asked if they looked fat in those jeans, and they did, you would tell them so. You may hurt the feelings of the one asking, but that consequence is meaningless in Deontology.
In the train example, and if the one child was your own, you do nothing or your save your child without regard to the others because you are duty-bound to the safety of your child. This is because according to the theory of Deontology, it is wrong to kill. That fact overrides all others, even if you would save more lives by sacrificing the one. The difficulty with Deontology is that it doesn't make a clear distinction between telling the truth and telling a lie because the result of telling the truth would be worse. Deontologists suggest that we all follow moral rules, but believe that "even when following the moral rules does not have the best consequences, we should adhere to them"(LaFollette, 2007, p.24). For example, if experiments on other humans produces benefits for the masses, we should be OK with doing them.
The real problem with both the theories is that we are relying on humans to make the decisions, and everyone knows, that in times of stress, in times of war or oppression or abject poverty or any other stressful situation, humans will not always make the right decision. Making the right decision I believe takes training. When an explosion happens, most people run away - it's a natural instinct. The ones that run towards are often trained police, firefighters, EMS, soldiers etc. Yet even when they try to do no harm, sometimes the decision they make is the wrong one, and not always is that decision made with a great deal of thought and consideration. Humans are very fallible, and given the right set of circumstances, can be made to be totally incapable of making a well reasoned and thought out decision.
Reference:
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Consequentialism is best expressed in a practical example. In a scenario where 5 children are trapped on one train track and just one child on another and a train is approaching. You have the choice to throw the switch and have the 5 die, one throw the switch so the train moves towards the one. In other words, consequentialism is about the good of the many over the few. The justification in this is that you are still being ethical in your decision and you are doing so for the greater good. According to LaFollette (2007), consequentialists must do three things. Firstly, decide which consequences count, secondly, how much weight or consideration is to be given to each of those consequences and finally, how do we should use these considerations when reflecting on them (p. 25-26).
So what does this mean? In this situation then, I would (according to consequentialism) look at the train situation and decide if the situation affected me directly. Did I know the children, would it be a problem if one set died over the other? Even if the answer were yes, how much weight should I give to that? I may still feel that the sacrificing the few for the good of the many is just. When I am considering this how should I make my decision based on all the information I have? Using the train example I have to decide finally can I live with that decision?
Consequentialists have to decide which consequences are significant and which are not. everything has to be taken into consideration to make a valid and moral decision, if it is not significant then my action is to do nothing as it won’t have enough of an impact either way. With consequentialism there can be a certain justification for my actions (killing one child to save five children) in most courts would be upheld, the responsibility for such a choice is one most societies hope we never have to face.
Now we turn to Deontology. This theory is more of a set of rules that must be followed that starts when we are children; our parents give us all the 'do not's' in life, “Don’t touch the stove”, “Don’t play on frozen rivers” etc. As we grow older these rules with change according to who we are as adults; “Don’t drive to fast”, “Don’t steal from work”. Much less about ethics, deontology is more about our rights and our obligation to others, so in other words Deontology is more based on what you are doing and not so much on the consequences of your actions. I person who believed wholly in deontology would say that the rules are not to lie, therefore you do not lie regardless. If someone asked if they looked fat in those jeans, and they did, you would tell them so. You may hurt the feelings of the one asking, but that consequence is meaningless in Deontology.
In the train example, and if the one child was your own, you do nothing or your save your child without regard to the others because you are duty-bound to the safety of your child. This is because according to the theory of Deontology, it is wrong to kill. That fact overrides all others, even if you would save more lives by sacrificing the one. The difficulty with Deontology is that it doesn't make a clear distinction between telling the truth and telling a lie because the result of telling the truth would be worse. Deontologists suggest that we all follow moral rules, but believe that "even when following the moral rules does not have the best consequences, we should adhere to them"(LaFollette, 2007, p.24). For example, if experiments on other humans produces benefits for the masses, we should be OK with doing them.
The real problem with both the theories is that we are relying on humans to make the decisions, and everyone knows, that in times of stress, in times of war or oppression or abject poverty or any other stressful situation, humans will not always make the right decision. Making the right decision I believe takes training. When an explosion happens, most people run away - it's a natural instinct. The ones that run towards are often trained police, firefighters, EMS, soldiers etc. Yet even when they try to do no harm, sometimes the decision they make is the wrong one, and not always is that decision made with a great deal of thought and consideration. Humans are very fallible, and given the right set of circumstances, can be made to be totally incapable of making a well reasoned and thought out decision.
Reference:
LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)