Change is frightening for many. It removes us from our comfort zones and challenges us to think of new ways of doing things. Hopefully change is something that happens to all of us, but as we know it is often avoided and we do so with a variety of excuses.
1. How do you react when you hear colleagues using some of the excuses listed
in the 50 Reasons Not to Change graphic?
My personal pet peeve is hearing "we've always done it this way." It really does drive me nuts. My initial resonse is to ask "does that mean it cannot be done more efficiently?" It is rare that things cannot be improved upon, but even if the examination determines that a particular system component is working correctly that does mean that it should be exempt from future examination. The world is constantly changing and what works today might not work tommorrow. There needs to be constant feedback and examination of processes.
"It needs committee study." I hear this and I know that nothing will be done...ever. Languishing in committee is the death knell of any proposed change. Yes I get that topics need to be discussed and data gathered but to consistently refer to committee tells me that you are unable to make a decision.
2. Do you ever use any of these excuses yourself?
I am often hampered by lack of equipment so I have avoided some change by using that excuse. In my defense the proposed changes did not include the equipment and support needed to carry them out. I can only devise so many workarounds before the change is worse than the problem it was meant to fix.
3. How can you overcome the thinking that creates those responses to change
efforts?
It can be very difficult to overcome these entrenched mentalities. Often cognitive dissonace sets in and the target becomes even MORE resistant to change. In many ways this has to be overcome before the change process really starts. In other words, the target has to see a need for change. In the private sector falling sales or monetary losses will often drive change. Even then, there will be resistance and you will probably lose some people depending on the scope of the change.
Once change is in progress it may be that you have to employ coercion techniques, persuasion, compromise, or even outright directive approaches to overcome entrenchement. I prefer reasoned discussions but often people become emotionally invested in their positions, then I find it useful to explore the whats-in-it-for-them portion of the equation. That way they are able to transfer emotions to the new concept.
4. Do you agree with Seth Godin’s concept that change is driven by tribes?
A bigger discussion can be found here where a comparison of Godlin's Tribe Theory and Watt's approach to Influence can be found. Tribe theory is based on a interlocking relationships and those relationships are not always clearly defined. As with any tribe there are a mulitude of variables in play among those relationships such as politics, friendships, romances, and any other human to human interaction possible. This isn't particulary new but it does help frame the discussion in a way that stops setting such clear views boundaries of leadership and influence. And THAT is something with which I can agree. Leading people takes more than strategy (thought that has to be there) it takes an understanding of the relationships and connections among the followers.
5. What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?
I work for an organization that can be very slow to change. There aren't a great deal of external motivators in play to force change. This has led to a great many entrenched managers. Understanding how these paradigms of resistance have been put in place has been instrumental in trying to change my small corner of the world.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Monday, February 16, 2015
NASA Culture Change
For those of you that want an hour of CSPAN here you go! Grab your popcorn, grab the kids, make a night of it. All kidding aside it is important to understand cultural change in NASA as it pertains to culture change in organizations. Also, it isn't a bad speech from a business perspective and I think it is a great example of a how an organization has hit the reset button and accepted responsibility for how their culture has failed
NASA's employees needed to hear how leadership was accepting responsibility for the failure in culture. He will need the support of the organization's people in order to execute change. It also sends a message that this is a priority for leadership.
2. Was he believable? Is it important whether he appeared to be believable?
I think he was but I also have not had much experience listening to O'Keefe's prior speeches. In some ways managers lose credibility when they repeat themselves over and over yet take little action. I think for a culture that has gone awry actions will speak far louder than words. That being said I think he said things that many people needed to hear. His words on climate and being able to "speak up" were very important and they do send a message. Couple those with action and I think that the cultural will go a long way towards being improved.
3. Why did he talk about NASA values?
It is helpful to remind people of shared values. Not only for the people listening but for himself. Value systems need to be consistent throughout an organization and throughout their partners and when leadership is not only sending the message but acting the message those values percolate throughout the various levels of the organization. However NASA is a large organization with many layers and the message, while consistent in a speech, won't be applied evenly throughout those layers without much effort on the part of Mr. O'Keefe.
1. Why did NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe address NASA employees to describe the plan to
bring about proposed changes to NASA's culture?
bring about proposed changes to NASA's culture?
NASA's employees needed to hear how leadership was accepting responsibility for the failure in culture. He will need the support of the organization's people in order to execute change. It also sends a message that this is a priority for leadership.
2. Was he believable? Is it important whether he appeared to be believable?
I think he was but I also have not had much experience listening to O'Keefe's prior speeches. In some ways managers lose credibility when they repeat themselves over and over yet take little action. I think for a culture that has gone awry actions will speak far louder than words. That being said I think he said things that many people needed to hear. His words on climate and being able to "speak up" were very important and they do send a message. Couple those with action and I think that the cultural will go a long way towards being improved.
3. Why did he talk about NASA values?
It is helpful to remind people of shared values. Not only for the people listening but for himself. Value systems need to be consistent throughout an organization and throughout their partners and when leadership is not only sending the message but acting the message those values percolate throughout the various levels of the organization. However NASA is a large organization with many layers and the message, while consistent in a speech, won't be applied evenly throughout those layers without much effort on the part of Mr. O'Keefe.
Saturday, February 7, 2015
How Companies Can Make Better Decisions
You have to love the Harvard Business Review great information without all the glitz and glamour of PBS. This week's video is an interview with Marcia Blenko of Bain & Company. She is discussing decision making as the building block of leadership effectiveness. This means that ultimately that change management will also need to be build on effective decision making.
To put it bluntly and in non-academic terms...people know when their leaders haven't a clue. There can be a tendency for managers to exist in a fog where they think their ineptitude is some how transparent to the people at the bottom of the organization chart. In my personal experience the people at the bottom of the chart are often more in tune with how the company is living and breathing than the people at the top. It is my firm belief that productivity follows morale. Poor morale makes people work just hard enough not to be fired. That link will be the best part of this blog. However, when people feel that effective decisions are being made, even if they are not always in line with what a given person wants, they are more motivated and engaged. This may mean that leaders need to actively listen to what their people are telling them. People are generally wanting to be heard so badly that they are willing to pay for the privilege.
What are some impediments to good decision making?
Blenko suggests that there are four elements of good decisions: quality, speed, yield, and effort. In your opinion, is there anything missing from this list?
Good decisions are no bigger than they need to be in order to get the job done. I would argue that precision would be a fifth element of decision making, and no I am not going to link to two movies in one blog post.
Marcia Blenko argues that decision effectiveness correlates positively with employee engagement and organizational performance. How do you think that employee engagement relates to decision effectiveness?
To put it bluntly and in non-academic terms...people know when their leaders haven't a clue. There can be a tendency for managers to exist in a fog where they think their ineptitude is some how transparent to the people at the bottom of the organization chart. In my personal experience the people at the bottom of the chart are often more in tune with how the company is living and breathing than the people at the top. It is my firm belief that productivity follows morale. Poor morale makes people work just hard enough not to be fired. That link will be the best part of this blog. However, when people feel that effective decisions are being made, even if they are not always in line with what a given person wants, they are more motivated and engaged. This may mean that leaders need to actively listen to what their people are telling them. People are generally wanting to be heard so badly that they are willing to pay for the privilege.
What are some impediments to good decision making?
Marcia lists a few in her interview and I could just refer back to that but instead I will give an example from my own organization.
Leadership in an organization is a learned art. There are very few natural, charismatic leaders that also make effective decisions. Within my organization there are very few trained managers. Sure they are highly educated doctors, psychologists, and the like but having a PhD in psychology doesn't always equate to effective leadership. Add in a healthy does of bureaucratic tomfoolery (family friendly blog here) and you have a recipe for completely ineffective decision making. I feel that being properly trained to handle managerial tasks is crucial and lack of that training is an incredible roadblock to good decision making. I often use the argument that in order to manage three doctors I would need to have a great grasp of doctoring. In order to manage a healthcare system I need to know how to lead.
Leadership in an organization is a learned art. There are very few natural, charismatic leaders that also make effective decisions. Within my organization there are very few trained managers. Sure they are highly educated doctors, psychologists, and the like but having a PhD in psychology doesn't always equate to effective leadership. Add in a healthy does of bureaucratic tomfoolery (family friendly blog here) and you have a recipe for completely ineffective decision making. I feel that being properly trained to handle managerial tasks is crucial and lack of that training is an incredible roadblock to good decision making. I often use the argument that in order to manage three doctors I would need to have a great grasp of doctoring. In order to manage a healthcare system I need to know how to lead.
Blenko suggests that there are four elements of good decisions: quality, speed, yield, and effort. In your opinion, is there anything missing from this list?
Good decisions are no bigger than they need to be in order to get the job done. I would argue that precision would be a fifth element of decision making, and no I am not going to link to two movies in one blog post.
To elaborate I feel that some decisions can be too sweeping in scope. In order to overhaul an entire system one must fully understand all the variables in play. It may be that smaller, more targeted decisions towards one variable can have bigger ramifications down the road. The Law of Unintended Consequences should always be considered when making decisions. There are times bold strokes may be needed but careful leadership will always encompass the downstream effect of decisions. In other words, make a change, measure results, make a change, measure results. Rinse, Repeat. If one does not measure the results of an action before taking another you can wind up chasing the gauges to what can be called an unintended air-frame/ground interface.
Sunday, February 1, 2015
A Day in the Life
Another video! I rather enjoy these as I tend to learn something from each one. This video isn't a reflective as others but it was interesting to see how Southwest keeps morale up among their crews as well as promote a culture. As a bonus this video starts with some sweet 90's corporate music. Enjoy.
Is the Culture Committee at Southwest effective in establishing cultural norms?
Southwest is known for having a unique corporate culture. I think the Committee is doing an excellent job as exemplified by this hilarious attendant. If you watch nothing else you should watch video to see how Southwest's culture is personified. With that I can move on.
From what you can tell, what is the purpose of the culture committee at Southwest?
From just the initial video I would say the purpose of the Culture Committee is to promote the welfare and moral of the crews on the aircraft. However, it is probably safe to say that the committee has more than one function such as designing new programs to keep morale high and ensuring that needs of the crews are being met.
From just the initial video I would say the purpose of the Culture Committee is to promote the welfare and moral of the crews on the aircraft. However, it is probably safe to say that the committee has more than one function such as designing new programs to keep morale high and ensuring that needs of the crews are being met.
What would you see as a viable mission for a culture committee in your place of work (or your last place of work if you are not currently working)?
Patient care can be a demanding field and there are many ways that culture committees can be useful. However, the hospital does endeavor to provide regular gatherings as well as food and drink for the staff. In addition, the union often does cookouts and bar-b-ques outside in the common areas where staff can gather for a a free lunch. It isn't always possible to promote a uniform culture in an organization as large as the Department of Veteran's Affairs but locally the union does a fantastic job of providing those little thank-yous that go a long way.
Patient care can be a demanding field and there are many ways that culture committees can be useful. However, the hospital does endeavor to provide regular gatherings as well as food and drink for the staff. In addition, the union often does cookouts and bar-b-ques outside in the common areas where staff can gather for a a free lunch. It isn't always possible to promote a uniform culture in an organization as large as the Department of Veteran's Affairs but locally the union does a fantastic job of providing those little thank-yous that go a long way.
What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?
I have always thought that a positive and fun culture can go a long way towards keeping employees happy. A happy worker is a productive worker. Within my unit we try to keep things as light as possible but that carries with it the danger of seeming flippant to outside observers. It is a careful balance!
With that in mind I am going to go watch the Super Bowl.
I have always thought that a positive and fun culture can go a long way towards keeping employees happy. A happy worker is a productive worker. Within my unit we try to keep things as light as possible but that carries with it the danger of seeming flippant to outside observers. It is a careful balance!
With that in mind I am going to go watch the Super Bowl.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
21st Century Enlightenment
Another video! This is one of my favorites and I highly recommend it. Below are the questions that came with the assignment and I will attempt to answer them but I hope that you, the reader, take away something of your own from the above video
1. Why do you think the talk is titled 21st Century Enlightenment?
Global societies are undergoing quite a bit of change and not all change is always good. 21st Century Enlightenment means that as people we need to change the way in which we think and interact within the societies that sustain us. One-tier concepts such as freedom, progress, or technology are great for breaking down complex concepts but they carry with the the trap of simple answers. Quite frankly, getting your philosophy from a bumper sticker means that you lack the relationships needed to be aware of your overall place in society. Additionally, this trap of simple thinking disconnects the individual from the society that provides the individual with the tools for success. Nothing ever happens in a vacuum and enlightenment is no different. 21st Century Enlightenment means that we govern ourselves with empathy and self-awareness and not just concerning ourselves with the individual. It will be a profound shift in thinking for many.
2. What does Matthew Taylor mean when he says "to live differently, you have to think differently"?
We cannot solve new problems with old thinking. Any fundamental shift in society comes from new modalities of thought. In order for us to create a more empathetic society we need to start to think in more empathetic ways. It isn't enough to ask "is this right for me" but to look past ourselves to how others view the world and attempt to reach across those boundaries.
3. At one point in the video (4:10), Taylor argues that we need "to resist our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is only strange". What is he talking about? Can you think of an example within your company or your life that supports this point?
To make something right that is merely familiar means to ascribe logical fallacies to things that make us feel better. Some call this confirmation bias. You see this quite a bit in arguments such as gun control. Person A defended his home from an invader therefore we are safer with weapons in our homes. However the math does not support this argument. It just makes a person feel better to have a weapon in the home; thus it is true because it is merely familiar. On the other side of the coin we can look at the current gay-marriage debate in the US for an example of people attempting to make wrong what is merely strange. Current attempts to modify the Constitution to ban these marriages are people taking this argument to its absurd ends.
In my areas of patient care there are those that subscribe to the idea that things are wrong for being different and it can be rather infuriating to overcome. When it comes to addiction rehabilitation certain amounts of empathy are called for however this does not mean that there cannot be natural consequences for actions. For example, being intoxicated at work could lead to termination and this is a natural consequence. Empathy does not mean shielding those effects but to understand why one would see their actions as justifiable.
4. Taylor argues that our society should eschew elements of pop culture that degrade people and that we should spend more time looking into what develops empathetic citizens. Would this be possible?
I think we should but I am not so sure that it is possible. I've largely dropped most of pop culture from my life; I don't even have cable or antennae service. This allows me to pick and choose my entertainment through streaming or getting out and enjoying the arts. However, I have reached a point in my life where I can afford to make those choices. Not everyone is that fortunate or has that freedom. For many, entertainment is taken where it can be found and it would be understandable for peoples that are disenfranchised to experience a certain amount of schadenfreude over other's suffering. I wager most of you reading this has taken a fleeting pleasure at watching a Lindsay Lohan-type meltdown. Sure, we might feel guilty afterwards and the thoughts themselves are most likely fleeting but they are there.
I do believe that is a goal towards which we should all strive. There can be no harm come from less degradation and more empathy. If everyone already thought this way we wouldn't need an enlightenment in the first place.
5. At the end of the video, Taylor talks about atomizing people from collaborative environments and the destructive effect on their growth. What is the implication of these comments for organizational change efforts?
Overall organizations must seek collaborative environments. Even simple change mechanisms such as Lewin's Model state that collaboration and buy-in are key to successful change. The simple fact remains that we all need something from each other. Simplistic thinking and rugged individualism often leave out that a person's success is dependent on using the protection and resources the group provides. People cut off from adequate protection and resources do not grow as well as those that are provided those tools. Go to any impoverished school district and see how growth is stunted in areas cut off from the fruits of society. This paradigm can be scaled to sub-units in an organization and even down to the individual. Without support people are doomed to fail.
6. What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?
This has re-enforced my need for a global perspective. The myth of rugged individualism is just that...a myth. We live in an increasingly global environment, we cannot isolate from it. It affects everything we do and buy. Typhoons in China raise prices on goods in the US. Shady investment practices in the US cause bankruptcies in the United Kingdom.Faster communication means we are more aware of the world around us than ever before. Hiding from this change does not make it go away, it just means you get left behind.
1. Why do you think the talk is titled 21st Century Enlightenment?
Global societies are undergoing quite a bit of change and not all change is always good. 21st Century Enlightenment means that as people we need to change the way in which we think and interact within the societies that sustain us. One-tier concepts such as freedom, progress, or technology are great for breaking down complex concepts but they carry with the the trap of simple answers. Quite frankly, getting your philosophy from a bumper sticker means that you lack the relationships needed to be aware of your overall place in society. Additionally, this trap of simple thinking disconnects the individual from the society that provides the individual with the tools for success. Nothing ever happens in a vacuum and enlightenment is no different. 21st Century Enlightenment means that we govern ourselves with empathy and self-awareness and not just concerning ourselves with the individual. It will be a profound shift in thinking for many.
2. What does Matthew Taylor mean when he says "to live differently, you have to think differently"?
We cannot solve new problems with old thinking. Any fundamental shift in society comes from new modalities of thought. In order for us to create a more empathetic society we need to start to think in more empathetic ways. It isn't enough to ask "is this right for me" but to look past ourselves to how others view the world and attempt to reach across those boundaries.
3. At one point in the video (4:10), Taylor argues that we need "to resist our tendencies to make right or true that which is merely familiar and wrong or false that which is only strange". What is he talking about? Can you think of an example within your company or your life that supports this point?
To make something right that is merely familiar means to ascribe logical fallacies to things that make us feel better. Some call this confirmation bias. You see this quite a bit in arguments such as gun control. Person A defended his home from an invader therefore we are safer with weapons in our homes. However the math does not support this argument. It just makes a person feel better to have a weapon in the home; thus it is true because it is merely familiar. On the other side of the coin we can look at the current gay-marriage debate in the US for an example of people attempting to make wrong what is merely strange. Current attempts to modify the Constitution to ban these marriages are people taking this argument to its absurd ends.
In my areas of patient care there are those that subscribe to the idea that things are wrong for being different and it can be rather infuriating to overcome. When it comes to addiction rehabilitation certain amounts of empathy are called for however this does not mean that there cannot be natural consequences for actions. For example, being intoxicated at work could lead to termination and this is a natural consequence. Empathy does not mean shielding those effects but to understand why one would see their actions as justifiable.
4. Taylor argues that our society should eschew elements of pop culture that degrade people and that we should spend more time looking into what develops empathetic citizens. Would this be possible?
I think we should but I am not so sure that it is possible. I've largely dropped most of pop culture from my life; I don't even have cable or antennae service. This allows me to pick and choose my entertainment through streaming or getting out and enjoying the arts. However, I have reached a point in my life where I can afford to make those choices. Not everyone is that fortunate or has that freedom. For many, entertainment is taken where it can be found and it would be understandable for peoples that are disenfranchised to experience a certain amount of schadenfreude over other's suffering. I wager most of you reading this has taken a fleeting pleasure at watching a Lindsay Lohan-type meltdown. Sure, we might feel guilty afterwards and the thoughts themselves are most likely fleeting but they are there.
I do believe that is a goal towards which we should all strive. There can be no harm come from less degradation and more empathy. If everyone already thought this way we wouldn't need an enlightenment in the first place.
5. At the end of the video, Taylor talks about atomizing people from collaborative environments and the destructive effect on their growth. What is the implication of these comments for organizational change efforts?
Overall organizations must seek collaborative environments. Even simple change mechanisms such as Lewin's Model state that collaboration and buy-in are key to successful change. The simple fact remains that we all need something from each other. Simplistic thinking and rugged individualism often leave out that a person's success is dependent on using the protection and resources the group provides. People cut off from adequate protection and resources do not grow as well as those that are provided those tools. Go to any impoverished school district and see how growth is stunted in areas cut off from the fruits of society. This paradigm can be scaled to sub-units in an organization and even down to the individual. Without support people are doomed to fail.
6. What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?
This has re-enforced my need for a global perspective. The myth of rugged individualism is just that...a myth. We live in an increasingly global environment, we cannot isolate from it. It affects everything we do and buy. Typhoons in China raise prices on goods in the US. Shady investment practices in the US cause bankruptcies in the United Kingdom.Faster communication means we are more aware of the world around us than ever before. Hiding from this change does not make it go away, it just means you get left behind.
Saturday, January 17, 2015
A630.1.4.RB - Board of Directors
Ahhhh...good to be back. I keep these informal rather than academic though I do link references and after such a lengthy absence I can only imagine my tone will be more conversational than ever! Well let's get to this shall we?
For those of you that aren't my instructor it may be beneficial to view this video before continuing.
This week we are going to be discussing a situation in my organization similar to what is portrayed in the cartoon linked. As I work for the Department of Veteran's Affairs you would think that I would have no trouble finding areas where pessimism and resistance to change left obstacles unconquered; and you would be correct...but only to a point. The VA patients seem to enjoy their service almost as much, if not more, than their private sector counterparts. That survey may not have accounted for patients that have no other choice but to use VA hospitals, healthcare being what it is in the US, but it still can lead to the conclusion that administrative bungling and in-fighting is largely transparent to the patient. Even the recent black-eye the VA received in the Phoenix patient deaths was only at the result of a "contributing" though not causal factor. While that statement reeks of bullet-dodging it also has a small kernel of truth. The point isn't to rehash that debate to clarify that even in its darkest moments the VA ranks above private healthcare outright killing people by the thousands simply from not being able to afford care. Comparing the two gets really close to a straw-man argument but it is still fair to say the VA isn't killing en mass due to lack of access.
However, for those that work in the VA, the in-fighting is severe and resistance to change is quite severe. "We've always done it that way" seems to be the motto I most hear in meetings and it drives me up a wall. In my corner of patient care we teach life skills and vocational development to addicts, alcoholics, and to people suffering from mental illness. Usually they have all three. As just one of our tools we utilize internal contracts with departments such as housekeeping or medical supply to place patients in paid roles where they can gain stability and practice using life skills in a structured and sober environment. This allows us to transition the patient back into the community. Sounds great right? However the recidivism rate is very high. In many cases patients see these jobs as quick way to gain cash rather than be genuinely ill. So in essence there are a few bad apples that cause a great deal of work for the staff and therefore divert our attention from those that need care. A small group of us have proposed adding a step to our assessment process that would allow us to ask a few simple questions to those requesting admission that would screen patients, or at least give us information to help hold them accountable. However, the powers that be are resisting this change as it is a departure from standard procedures. There are some legitimate concerns that this information could be used to deny care and while in certain situations it is ethical to deny care in the current climate it is a public relations nightmare. In any patient care scenario one must accept some "bad apples" in order to serve the greater body of patients. In truth, the worst cases are often the people that need the most care (even if these patients refuse to see it). In short, there is a great deal of grey area in which a compromise could be found however it seems that resistance to explore these options leads to no change at all.
As it stands, some small progress is being made within the program by tightening our controls where we are able. We've implemented processes that don't need larger approval in order to apply a uniform admission process as well as allow us to better develop personalized treatment plans. These plans hold both the providers and patient accountable for success and allows for more outcome control. Through this we hope to see our patient outcomes improve and early indications are that it is working. However much more time will be needed to fully appraise our progress.
Wednesday, July 2, 2014
A634.5.4.RB - Is Marketing Evil?
This week's entry is a question and answer so let's dive in!
1. Do you feel ethical guidelines make a difference to marketers?
This is an interesting question. Of course marketing ethics exist; there are whole schools of management that teach ethics. A quick Google search turned up 11 million hits regarding teaching ethics in marketing. The question is asking my opinion on if those ethical lessons matter to marketers. I think the answer largely lies in the attitude of the person answering the question.
Above we see two advertisements that would be considered unethical by today's standards. These were taken from a marketing paper I had written for my undergraduate. I knew they would come in handy one day. A trip to a website these days may offer a multitude of advertisements for cheap insurance, wrinkle prevention, or the promise of great riches simply by clicking a link. Clicking said link may leave the unwary with plenty of time to be angry at unethical practices as their computer is being raided by malware.
However, there are millions of advertisements on any given day at any given time. From billboards, to taxi cabs, to buses, to TV, radio, banner ads, or the ever-popular blimp there are advertisements everywhere a potential customer can be found. How many of these are actually unethical? I would question the accuracy of any study that seeks to measure ALL marketing. Such a herculean task would be susceptible to a great number of statistical errors. So, strictly opinion, I would say that ethical guidelines matter less than legal guidelines. Abercrombie and Fitch is a great example of a modern unethical marketing campaign (Lutz, 2013). Social media has also given rise to a great number of unethical media campaigns but in my opinion these are largely unintentional. (Paul, 2013)
2. How can companies balance the need to win with being ethical?
Constant vigilance. The Internet has given voice to millions of people they aren't afraid of using it. This voice can be used to hold marketers accountable. In the last article referenced above those campaigns were largely social media. The uproar is quick, loud, and damaging. Companies need to stay aware of the global impact of their campaigns; especially social media campaigns. Self-awareness is key to a large part of success and this is no different in marketing. That being said, highly competitive markets give rise to the desire to skirt the line ethically. This is not a justification but it is a reality that must be examined. How one stays within those boundaries is answered in question four.
3. Is it ethical to track your buying habits or web visits to target you for marketing purposes?
4. As a leader, how will you manage the ethical aspects of your marketing efforts?
1. Do you feel ethical guidelines make a difference to marketers?
This is an interesting question. Of course marketing ethics exist; there are whole schools of management that teach ethics. A quick Google search turned up 11 million hits regarding teaching ethics in marketing. The question is asking my opinion on if those ethical lessons matter to marketers. I think the answer largely lies in the attitude of the person answering the question.
Above we see two advertisements that would be considered unethical by today's standards. These were taken from a marketing paper I had written for my undergraduate. I knew they would come in handy one day. A trip to a website these days may offer a multitude of advertisements for cheap insurance, wrinkle prevention, or the promise of great riches simply by clicking a link. Clicking said link may leave the unwary with plenty of time to be angry at unethical practices as their computer is being raided by malware.
However, there are millions of advertisements on any given day at any given time. From billboards, to taxi cabs, to buses, to TV, radio, banner ads, or the ever-popular blimp there are advertisements everywhere a potential customer can be found. How many of these are actually unethical? I would question the accuracy of any study that seeks to measure ALL marketing. Such a herculean task would be susceptible to a great number of statistical errors. So, strictly opinion, I would say that ethical guidelines matter less than legal guidelines. Abercrombie and Fitch is a great example of a modern unethical marketing campaign (Lutz, 2013). Social media has also given rise to a great number of unethical media campaigns but in my opinion these are largely unintentional. (Paul, 2013)
2. How can companies balance the need to win with being ethical?
Constant vigilance. The Internet has given voice to millions of people they aren't afraid of using it. This voice can be used to hold marketers accountable. In the last article referenced above those campaigns were largely social media. The uproar is quick, loud, and damaging. Companies need to stay aware of the global impact of their campaigns; especially social media campaigns. Self-awareness is key to a large part of success and this is no different in marketing. That being said, highly competitive markets give rise to the desire to skirt the line ethically. This is not a justification but it is a reality that must be examined. How one stays within those boundaries is answered in question four.
3. Is it ethical to track your buying habits or web visits to target you for marketing purposes?
I think it is safe to say marketers have tracked customer usage since the first guy traded three goats for a cow. In any market there will be a need to see how customers shop and how they spend their money. This, in and of itself, is not unethical. I feel the line needs to be drawn regarding tracking search histories and personal data such as phone numbers and addreses but I see no problem tracking clicks on a webpage. This is no different than tracking which shoes a customer tries on in a traditional brick and mortar store. Digital stores are still stores and stores have a vested interest in knowing how their customers shop.
Targeted marketing is the next logical step in this form of marketing. I feel it is a bit creepy seeing targeted ads based on theater tickets I've purchased online, but how is it any different than my favorite shoe store sending me advertisements based on shoes I've bought in the store? If you walked into a store that you frequent and the proprietor says, "Mr. Smith I've gotten some great hats in stock that I think you will like seeing as how you bought a fine watchcap last week" is that so much different than Amazon tracking your purchases and recommending new buys?
4. As a leader, how will you manage the ethical aspects of your marketing efforts?
In much the same way I mange the day to day ethics of my life. I have a vision of how I think the world should operate (compassion, good of the society, honest, integrity) and I make choices to match that vision. This isn't to say that I always make the correct choice however it does mean that I feel I have an ethical value system that provides a framework in which I can make choices. This can be translated to marketing or any business endeavor. When you have an ethical corporate culture and a consistent set of values you can make choices that support those values and reinforce that culture.
Lutz, A. (2013, August 22). 13 Reasons Why People Hate Abercrombie & Fitch. Business Insider. Retrieved July 3, 2014, from http://www.businessinsider.com/abercrombie-and-fitch-worst-controversies-2013-8?op=1
Paul, R. (2013, December 13). The Worst Marketing Disasters of 2013 | Search Engine Journal. Search Engine Journal. Retrieved July 3, 2014, from http://www.searchenginejournal.com/worst-marketing-disasters-2013/80679/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)