Virgil Rupert N.

Villarosa October 4, 2019

Corporate Governance and Social Responsibility

WHAT DO WE TELL THE CUSTOMERS?

Marketing is a tough job and it is not for the faint of heart. It is always a toss between doing the

right things and getting the things done. When push comes to shove sometimes ethics gets

thrown out of the window. Adding insult to injury, getting things done trumps doing the right

things in the eyes of management. There is a caveat though, as long as there will be no complaints

or complications from the customer.

On the other hand, doing the right things lets you keep your integrity. In the long run your

customers will value your honesty and there is the potential of building friendships. This

relationship will last for a lifetime. Long after you have resigned from your job. Many people, in

their pursuit to make a living forget the real essence of life – to love. To love our customers is the

right thing to do.

Such is the dichotomy of life. One is often left to wonder what is the best option to take.

Whatever the decision will be, one has to take responsibility and accept the consequence.

However, there is another way, one is not left to choose between doing the right things and

getting things done.

It starts with having the abundance mentality. Adopting the 250 strategy. Coupled with the

passionate execution. Abundance mentality believes that there is enough for everyone to achieve

individual targets. The 250 strategy is the identification of the number of customers and referrals

needed to achieve the target. Passionate execution is the commitment to oneself of doing the

formulated strategy and never doubting the possibility of success.

Let this be my answer, somewhat a “Workable understanding of the Truth.”

1. Is it fair to miscommunicate to the customer in this way? Are we being accurate, unambiguous,

and clear? What’s the harm if the customer opens all the accounts?

There will always be two sides of the story. What was being presented was just one side of it. It

is still unclear whether it was the first time that the customer and the employee met. Probably

the employee met with the customer before, outside the bank, then they just finalized everything

on that day. Also, the employee has already identified the actual needs of the customer during

their initial meeting outside the bank that they just agreed to term it as a package. What is unfair

is to think otherwise until all facts have been known.

Presuming that all the facts are correct, the employee is at fault only for not explaining everything

to the customer at that time. However, as a seasoned employee and that the customer trusts the

employee of the bank fully, then probably the employee really knows what is best. Adding to the

fact that if there were no complaints or issues in the past from the customers of the said

employee then perhaps that employee really knows what is best for the customer. As one

method of sales presentation, the employee may have used the “elevator approach.” That is

presenting as quick as possible to get the agreement of the customer especially if pressed for

time. It may have been unclear and inaccurate from the point of view of the other employee but

we can’t assume that it was so on the part of the customer.

It will only be wrong for the customer to open all the accounts if certain accounts are not actually

needed. Yet, let the past be the judge. Since there were no complaints against the employee of

the bank previously then this supports the trust given by the customer to the employee of the

bank, so there’s no harm if the new customer to open all the accounts. Opening all the accounts

would be advantageous for all parties concerned, the bank, the customer and the employee.
2. Should I have gone over to my coworker’s desk while he was with the customer and stopped

what was going on and made sure the customer got the correct information? Or, should I have

waited until the customer leaves and then go to my coworker and tell him that what he had done

is wrong and unethical?

There is a saying that washing the dirty linens in public is not a good idea. Prudence dictates that

it is best to wait until the customer leaves and then clarify with the coworker as to the accuracy

of what was overheard. It is noble not to assume, rather, one must listen to the side of the

coworker first before passing judgement. Most probably the coworker can shed light as to the

reason of what was overheard. Instead of trivializing the coworker as the “evil” in the good vs

evil, the wrong-doer in right vs wrong, perchance the coworker may have a reason behind his

actions. Then allowing the coworker to be really as the word implies, “coworker” working

together for the common goal of the company, as in this case the bank. Then again perhaps the

coworker can also be of helped and share a good strategy as to reaching the daunting target.

One must avoid the temptation of being righteous in the guise of being envy. It is important to

check one’s motive first and to give the benefit of doubt to the coworker. One must also analyze

and understand the bank’s recognition of the coworker’s efforts and achievements. It is also

imperative to validate as to whether the customers were really placed at a disadvantage by the

coworker by looking at the previous transactions and complaints filed against the coworker for

the so called “unethical” actions.

On the other side, if after validating that the coworker did not really follow the guidelines, one is

morally obligated to remind the coworker not to do it again. If the coworker will not listen then

inform the immediate head of the whole incident for proper resolution of the said issue.
3. Is this misinformation given to the customer important enough for me to approach my

manager and tell her everything I heard even though the manager pushes us to sell accounts and

do whatever it takes?

One must first validate the overheard misinformation before elevating the issue to the

immediate head, as in this case the manager. Aside from the obligation of each employee to

follow the rules and policies, it is also essential to keep a good working relationship with

coworkers. Regrettably, in this cut-throat world of business, many are tempted to do whatever

it takes to be ahead of everyone, not only in terms of performance but also to be on the ‘good

side’ of the manager at the expense of coworkers.

It is important to seek understanding before judging. Only until all the facts have been known

that one can make the wisest decision on the best action to take. If there is a disagreement

between the coworkers as to the appropriateness of what the coworker did, only then can both

coworkers approach the manager to elevate the issue. Otherwise, it should be resolved between

coworkers.

4. Is it possible the coworker felt pressure from management to meet unrealistic goals and that

this pressure was behind the deception?

Again, the “deception” is still argumentative for only one side of what happened is known,

specifically it was just overheard. One must ascertain that it was really the first meeting of the

customer and the bank employee at the same time validating the accuracy of what was

overheard and only then can the coworker decide whether it was a ‘deception’ or not.

As to the possibility of feeling the pressure, yes, everyone who wants to achieve the target do

feel the pressure. However, it is how one addresses the pressure that is essential to the outcome.