Marketing is ethics: It is nourished and must be circumscribed by the same
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2024 9:10 am
Professor of Business Decision Evaluation at the University of the Pacific
The slogan of our university says: “We train responsible leaders for the world.” It is a common theme in all of our university’s syllabuses: “Our graduates will be socially responsible leaders in various organizations.” My syllabus says: “Business evaluation includes the coherent ordering of concepts accompanied by creativity, persistence, and ethics.” There is a prevailing prejudice that marketing is the most perverse area of the company, since it is the one that deceives in order to sell ─perhaps─ even snake bait. There is no technique that is worth anything if it is not guided by ethics; there is no lasting leader if he is bc data vietnam not honest (the most valued quality according to studies). I want my students to be exemplary leaders, technically and personally. Thus, my classes are also debate classes to find out the best option when faced with a delicate decision.
Business decisions should pursue transparency, fair treatment, consumer welfare and not sell a pig in a poke even if it causes us a loss. The same goes for personal decisions. Ethics always pays off. And here we discuss some examples like the following: A few weeks ago I read on social media a news item shared with joy by the community of a university: authorities, workers, graduates and students:
“Former student is named manager of 'X'. Before he worked as manager of 'Y'”. (To take into account: both companies are direct competition and are fighting for the same position).
While the applause of the note resounded in cyberspace, what reverberated in my mind was a devastating aftertaste for the decision of the contractor, the contractor and the community of that university (the same one that boasts, spreading the correct training of its students). Two questions to contrast:
1. Should he accept the position and use the privileged information of the other organization for his own benefit?
2. Should graduates of that university, who are certainly part of the Board of Directors of the contracting company 'X', endorse/suggest the hiring of this person?
I believe in the free market and in mobility in the workplace, but in certain positions this does not apply. I think that the reliability of the person hired, the contractor and those who applauded on social media is questionable. I also deduce that company 'X' would not have liked to go through the same episode.
It seems that there could be mitigating factors to justify the move: being fired, feeling undervalued, being the victim of hostile moves, company 'Y' not caring that he migrated to 'X', not having a career path or not being satisfied with his fees. However, in no case is it justifiable given that he made a decision that was convenient for him and not the right one, since he was not free; which implies that in order to choose well he should not have favoritism for any alternative and thus reach the best one without being influenced. That is to say, it should have been the same for him whether or not he had that new position, since he was not subject to either of the two possibilities.
Let me explain with a concrete example: I have the alternative of bribing and not bribing. The correct thing to do is clearly not to do it, but if I do it for these reasons: so as not to lose my job or to continue having benefits in the future; because everyone does it; because that is “how things work” and because later I will no longer have the pace and standard of living that I have, etc.; it is because I am coerced by that option ─I will not be detached from it─ and I will decide what is convenient for me and not in favor of the greater good. To do the right thing you have to be willing to lose. The end should never justify the means. Finally, if he does not do well in the new position, the probability of being recruited by another company in the same sector will tend to be zero (although other companies in a different field will also take into account his questionable nobility), unless we find people of the same caliber on the new Board of Directors.
The slogan of our university says: “We train responsible leaders for the world.” It is a common theme in all of our university’s syllabuses: “Our graduates will be socially responsible leaders in various organizations.” My syllabus says: “Business evaluation includes the coherent ordering of concepts accompanied by creativity, persistence, and ethics.” There is a prevailing prejudice that marketing is the most perverse area of the company, since it is the one that deceives in order to sell ─perhaps─ even snake bait. There is no technique that is worth anything if it is not guided by ethics; there is no lasting leader if he is bc data vietnam not honest (the most valued quality according to studies). I want my students to be exemplary leaders, technically and personally. Thus, my classes are also debate classes to find out the best option when faced with a delicate decision.
Business decisions should pursue transparency, fair treatment, consumer welfare and not sell a pig in a poke even if it causes us a loss. The same goes for personal decisions. Ethics always pays off. And here we discuss some examples like the following: A few weeks ago I read on social media a news item shared with joy by the community of a university: authorities, workers, graduates and students:
“Former student is named manager of 'X'. Before he worked as manager of 'Y'”. (To take into account: both companies are direct competition and are fighting for the same position).
While the applause of the note resounded in cyberspace, what reverberated in my mind was a devastating aftertaste for the decision of the contractor, the contractor and the community of that university (the same one that boasts, spreading the correct training of its students). Two questions to contrast:
1. Should he accept the position and use the privileged information of the other organization for his own benefit?
2. Should graduates of that university, who are certainly part of the Board of Directors of the contracting company 'X', endorse/suggest the hiring of this person?
I believe in the free market and in mobility in the workplace, but in certain positions this does not apply. I think that the reliability of the person hired, the contractor and those who applauded on social media is questionable. I also deduce that company 'X' would not have liked to go through the same episode.
It seems that there could be mitigating factors to justify the move: being fired, feeling undervalued, being the victim of hostile moves, company 'Y' not caring that he migrated to 'X', not having a career path or not being satisfied with his fees. However, in no case is it justifiable given that he made a decision that was convenient for him and not the right one, since he was not free; which implies that in order to choose well he should not have favoritism for any alternative and thus reach the best one without being influenced. That is to say, it should have been the same for him whether or not he had that new position, since he was not subject to either of the two possibilities.
Let me explain with a concrete example: I have the alternative of bribing and not bribing. The correct thing to do is clearly not to do it, but if I do it for these reasons: so as not to lose my job or to continue having benefits in the future; because everyone does it; because that is “how things work” and because later I will no longer have the pace and standard of living that I have, etc.; it is because I am coerced by that option ─I will not be detached from it─ and I will decide what is convenient for me and not in favor of the greater good. To do the right thing you have to be willing to lose. The end should never justify the means. Finally, if he does not do well in the new position, the probability of being recruited by another company in the same sector will tend to be zero (although other companies in a different field will also take into account his questionable nobility), unless we find people of the same caliber on the new Board of Directors.