MSLD 634 Module 5 - Is Marketing Evil?

Is Marketing Evil?

     Marketing is the activity, set of institutions, and processes for creating, communicating, delivering, and exchanging offerings that have value for customers, clients, partners, and society at large (American Marketing Association, 2017). It is a key functional area in the business organization that provides a visible interface with not only customers, but with all other stakeholders. It is important when addressing marketing ethics to recognize that it should be examined from an individual, organizational, and societal perspective (Dincer, B. & Dincer C., 2014)

     For marketers, ethics in the workplace refers to rules governing the conduct of organizational members and the consequences of marketing decisions (Ferrell, 2005). In my perspective, companies do not need to choose between winning or making ethical decision. I believe there is room for both on the process of decision making.

     A poor example for marketing with integrity was the recent campaign of an Italian football club, which started an anti-racism initiative featuring paintings of monkeys. The sport in Italy has been blighted by racist abuse this season, and the artwork commissioned by Serie A was designed to stop fans directing monkey chants at players (Sinnot, J. & Mezzofiore, G., 2019). Although the espoused intention of the artist was good, the anti-racism campaign, in my opinion, not only dehumanized black people by the comparison with an animal, but also reinforced racism by a campaign with a strong message and poor judgement, which provoked a counterproductive result. It reminded me of the Gucci campaign at the beginning of the year, when in a tentative of fighting racism created a sweater which reminded black face. (O’Kane, 2019). I believe both campaigns lacked integrity because in order to cause a brand impact they missed the bigger picture, the holistic perspective that a marketing campaign should take in consideration. These companies, in fact, fed racism and possibly made it stronger.

     If I am in a position of a leader in charge of selling my service to a potential customer, the main consideration I will take is at which expense my argumentation and persuasion will be powerful. Gordon Brown (2009) touches on this point and included the term of global citizenship suggested by Chris Anderson. As mentioned at the beginning of this post, marketing, for its exposing platform and link with the service/product to be provided, must consider all parts involved and affected in the process from creation to publishing. 

     Although a campaign is created to achieve the customer, other stakeholders (internal and external) should not be neglected, neither the competition. One type of campaign that I believe to be unethical is the average political campaign. Instead of seeing candidates talking about their policies and ideas, I often (if not always) observe them mocking and diminishing their strongest competitors. A lot of marketing campaigns focus on the “adversary’s” weakness as a strong strategy. I think that if I reach this point, I need, in fact, review the quality and relevancy of my product/service. While creating an ethical campaign, my number one priority would be analyzing at what expense I am creating an impact. If a campaign is creating harm in any part involved, in my opinion, it means I am lacking integrity. Financial results shouldn’t come first on marketing campaigns. As a leader, we don’t need to choose between a successful or an ethical campaign. With responsibility and creativity, we can have both!

References

American Marketing Association (2017). Definitions of Marketing. Retrieved from https://www.ama.org/the-definition-of-marketing-what-is-marketing/

Brown, G. (2009, July). Global ethics vs national interest. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/gordon_brown_global_ethic_vs_national_interest

Dincer, B; Dincer, C. (2014). An Overview and Analysis of Marketing Ethics. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences (4)11, 151-158

Ferrell, O.C. (2005). A Framework for Understanding Organizational Ethics, in Business Ethics: New Challenges for Business Schools and Corporate Leaders. R.A. Peterson and O.C. Ferrell, (eds.) Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 3-17

Sinnott, J., Mezzofiore, G. (2019, December 2017). Italian soccer anti-racism monkey artwork condemned as 'outrage'. Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/16/football/serie-a-racism-artwork-spt-intl/index.html

O’Kane, C. (2019, February 7). Gucci removes $890 "blackface" sweater, apologizes after receiving backlash. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gucci-blackface-sweater-gucci-removes-890-blackface-sweater-apologzies-after-receiving-backlash/

MSLD 634 Module 4 - Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

Affirmative action is basically the practice of giving special consideration to minorities and women in hiring and school placement (LaFollette, 2007). First instituted in the 1960s and 1970s by employers and educational institutions in response to pressures from civil rights groups, federal legislation, and court rulings, preferential treatment programs seek to rectify the effects of past and ongoing discrimination. (Andre, Velasquez & Mazur, 1992).

LaFollette (2007) and Andre et al. (2007) presents some favorable and opposing arguments to affirmative actions (adapted with my words and opinion):

Against:

1.     Reverse discrimination: when distributing social benefits such as jobs or educational opportunities, recipients should be treated as equals unless there are morally relevant reasons for treating them different.

2.     Hurts those who have done no wrong: impose the burden of compensation on white males who seek jobs or higher education. These individuals are no more responsible for past injustices; therefore, it is unfair that they should bear the full burden of compensation.

3.     The qualification argument: The relevant criteria are an individual's qualifications and skills, not race or sex.

4.     Stigmatizes minorities: devalue minorities achievements, possibly leading to feelings of inferiority, self-doubt, and incompetence.

5.     Victimizes minorities: encourage dependency and reward people for identifying themselves as victims providing them no incentives to become self-reliant or to develop the skills necessary to succeed in the workplace or classroom.

6.     The rights of employers: those who may be more qualified are overlooked while others only minimally qualified are chosen, resulting is reduced productivity and efficiency in the workplace

7.     Neglects others’ needs: ignore the claim of need, denying benefits to disadvantaged white males while lavishing benefits on minorities who aren't in need of them.

8.     Poor target: only persons who have been discriminated against should be given preference. Most of the victims of past discrimination are no longer living, so the issue of just compensation is moot.

9.     Feeds segregation and tensions: as white males are denied positions going to less-qualified minorities and women, they will become increasingly resentful, heightening animosity and tension among groups.

10.  Opens for all types of discrimination: as racism and discrimination affects several groups and not minorities, preferential treatment will spur claims from all groups who feel they have been victims of injustice. For instance, non-minorities are already charging employers and universities with reverse discrimination due to quotas and other formulas used for hiring, promotion, and admission, bringing us back to point number one.

The circle of harms is created!

Favor:

1.      Continuing racism: as a result of past discrimination, women and minorities have been denied their fair share of opportunities. Racism continues to permeate businesses and educational institutions, ranging from prejudice in job classification and minority systems to biases in college entrance exams.

2.      History: Throughout generations, race and sex have been used to deny individuals equal treatment in employment and education. While many of today's minorities and women may not have been themselves the victims of discrimination, they have been victimized by its effects

3.      Domino effect (the minority saga): as descendants of those who were denied jobs or relegated to low-paying positions, they have grown up deprived of the resources, opportunities, and education necessary to develop the skills and confidence needed to compete on equal terms with white males.

4.      Domino effects (the majority saga): while today's white males may not themselves have been perpetrators of discrimination, they have benefitted most from its effects. Racial and sexist policies have given white males an unfair advantage in competing for jobs and college slots. Preferential treatment programs help neutralize this unfair advantage.

5.      Equality of opportunity: preferential treatment programs aim to achieve equal opportunity and provide a more equitable distribution of social and economic benefits.

6.      Cost-benefit: preferential policies redirect jobs and educational opportunities to those who are most in need of them, leading to a reduction in poverty and its associated social costs. And the real cost for the initiative are a fraction of its impacts.

7.      Eye opener for diversity: different perspectives and experiences that minorities and women bring to the workplace and to colleges and universities is an advantage for educational and corporate environments.

8.      Backslash on stigma: any stigmatizing that might concur with affirmative actions is no worse than that resulting from the absence of minorities in positions of influence and power.

9.      Backslash on the productivity factor: in cases in which candidates are equally qualified, productivity will not be affected and in cases in which qualifications do differ, the differences are unlikely to be significant enough to affect productivity.

            While reflecting and inputting my opinions above, I believe that affirmative action programs are only temporary solutions. This doesn’t mean I am against affirmative action, but I believe that other factors should be taken in consideration, in hiring and admission, as:

            1.   Qualification, based not only hard but also soft skills

            2. The hiring and admission requirements should not only look at skin color, geographic                       background or sex, but educational background and family income

                  3. A deep look at criminal background (if any)

                  4.  Quota should allow some flexibility

                  5.   Results after hiring and admission should be a measurement tool on keeping individual or   not., however results should not be limited to numbers but a deep analysis of effort and     contribution.

          I believe a more powerful way to make affirmative action really works is having programs inside corporations and universities that empowers the minorities. There is a high chance the domino effect of the disadvantages from the past will affect the present of individual in minority groups. If the goal of the programs is not only a façade, but it is founded on its espoused intentions, then affirmative actions should be systemic, meaningful and focus on mid and long-term results. Lastly, I defend the idea of affirmative actions at a very early age. Only by working on the cradle of injustice we will see powerful and long-lasting effects.

References

Andre, C; Mazur, T; Velasquez, M. (1992). Affirmative Action:
Twenty-five Years of Controversy. Retrieved from https://legacy.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v5n2/affirmative.html

LaFollette (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing

MSLD 634 Module 3 - The Harder They Fall

The Harder They Fall

            Overall, being ambitious is a positive quality, however positive consequences of setting and achieving high goals is not always the reality. In fact, in some cases, extreme ambition may end up doing more harm than good. If you believe you're the type of person who is overwhelmingly ambitious, you'll need to watch out for some dangerous side effects (DeMers, 2017).      “In their brilliant and rapid ascents, star leaders repeatedly demonstrate the intelligence, resourcefulness, and drive to go the distance”. They look adept at overcoming whatever obstacles they encounter along the way, however the same leaders “demonstrate uncharacteristic lapses in professional judgment or personal conduct” (Kramer, 2003).

            What Kramer (2003) defends is my strong belief that the higher one climbs, the harder can be (not necessarily is) the fall. This statement has no correlation with risk taking, neither neglect the importance of ambitiousness in corporate and personal success. It simply alerts the precautions necessary to climb safely to the top and know your grounds when you are there. A blind ambition, the aversion for rules and for failure, the prioritization of efficiency over effectiveness, and the down and upward omission to unethical behaviors can lead a star leader (in a personal, professional and public scope) to drastic and almost irreversible collapse.

            Thinking in the societal scope, the ambitiousness of governmental leaders can lead to objective and subjective consequences. In one hand, unethical ambitious can negatively impact on tariffs, taxes, laws, quality inspection of governmental agencies, employment, social services, for instance. On the subjective side, depending on how influential a leader is, it can impact on the society’s behavior and approach to habits and aversion to diversity, for example.

At work the consequences are more explored and explicit, as we have seen several scandals in the past decades being uncovered, leading to radical and spread outcomes, as the great recession of 2008. Unethical ambitious in a small business perhaps affects only the employees and the community around, but usually this trait is rooted in mega corporations, as power has often the last say on the decision-making process. In the latter case, as Kramer (2003) says, the harder is the fall. The consequences achieve once an unimaginable precedent, if was not for the recession. Mega corporations has often equal or more powers than governments, even in developed countries (Kohls, 2014; SPERI, 2019; Ketchell, 2018; Vanbergen, 2016).

In my life, on an individual level, I am often reminding myself of where I came from and the real value of money. Although I am not a high ranked leader, the lifestyle my company provides to me and my fellow colleagues causes confusion and often illusion and distraction from reality. A simple example can illustrate it: my way to work. My salary easily affords a driver on my way to the company. In fact, going to work by taxi or driving is the most common type of transportation of majority of my colleagues. But here follows the math: if I go by taxi, I will spend an average of 50 dollars (return trip) and I will be ready in the office in 25 minutes. Going with my own car will cost me around 25 dollars and will take me around 40 minutes as I need to find a public parking spot. However, if I go by metro, it will take me one hour and fifteen minutes, but it will cost me 5 dollars   (return trip). When my colleagues ask me why I decided for public transportation, if in a month I would spend an average of only 5% of my salary on private transportation, I instantly say: “because I need to keep my feet on the ground”.

The reality of the country I live in, especially the city where I reside and the lifestyle, I can have access of, often deludes people, who struggle to adjust when they need or decide to shift careers and place of residence. It also reflects on uncontrolled expense and perception of monetary devalue. I constantly policy myself of the traps that a blin ambitious life can lead me too. While climbing to the cliff of my career, I triple check the straps and the safety gear, and I keep skeptic about the pleasures of the view and the breeze of the tip point!

References

DeMers, J. (2017, September 7). Can Excessive Ambition Actually Ruin Your Chances of Success? Retrieved from https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/299222

Kramer, R. M. (2003). The Harder They Fall. Harvard Business Review, 81(10), 58-66.

Ketchell, M. (2018, July 11). Who is more powerful – states or corporations?

Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/who-is-more-powerful-states-or-corporations-99616

Kohls, G. G. (2014, March 4). The Powers and Abuses of America’s Mega-Corporations. Retrieved from https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-powers-and-abuses-of-americas-mega-corporations/5371901

SPERI (2019, January 3). Corporate Power & the Global Economy. Retrieved from http://speri.dept.shef.ac.uk/2019/01/03/corporate-power-the-global-economy/

Vanbergen, G. (2016, June 21). The Rise of the Corporatocracy. Retrieved from https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-rise-of-the-corporatocracy/5532097