Diversity and the Workplace

I can't think of anything more annoying and closed minded then individuals who can not see past race, creed, or religion. I think is especially detrimental for people in a work environment. I don't see how any company can have any tolerance for not accepting diversity.

When I was working as an intern, one of my fellow interns came to me really upset. When I asked her what was wrong she had told me that OUR supervisor and other superordinate were mocking black males and acting like gangsters. Being that my friend was black she felt really upset by their narrow minded behavior and couldn't understand why they would even think that was acceptable behavior. I completely agreed with her and felt awful for her that it had happened in the first place. It was especially hard for her to handle, because she was the ONLY minority that we worked with, everyone else was white.

When this happened I never really thought that this company needs more diversity and understanding. Now after taking this class, I can look at how that company was not diversified enough and obviously did not make an effort to make my friend feel accepted. Even if the actions of our colleagues was only meant to be playful and non-offensive the bottom line is that it was and being our superordinate, they should have known better.

Armstrong Williams

As PR professionals we are taught to abide by the standard codes and ethics of the PRSA. However, when those lines are crossed and the codes are broken taking the right steps are crucial to the face of the organization.

Saving one's face can be handled in more ways then one, the cut throat way in which you call some one else out and eliminate their face or you claim responsibility for your actions and fix the problem. Williams and Ketchum decided that in order to save their faces they needed to own up to their mistakes and find a way to make it right. I think both Williams and Ketchum handled the problem with the No Child Left Behind Campaign with class and expertise. Both admitted to their wrong actions, after all no one is perfect and realizing this is the first step to making things right. I think that the heart felt apologies was the right thing to do. In doing so both Williams and Ketchum were able to show the public we screwed up and we are sorry and to ensure that this will not happen again here is what we plan to do in order to fix our mistakes.

This is a good PR move and more than likely saved the face of both Williams and Ketchum. I don't think this crisis could have been handled any other way that would have been as beneficial to the individuals involved.

Corporate Social Responsibility -- THE WIETA

This article is a huge sigh of relief. You never hear about these better practices in the news, in fact society is usually only informed of the sweat shops and slave drivers that force young children to work long hours and who treat their employees like dirt. The fact that there is an organization that is willing to stand up and put a stop to the injustice deserves applause and recognition. The WIETA, the Wine Industry Ethical Association, is taking a giant leap forward for third world countries who produce wine, particularly Africa.

One can only hope that more people will begin to put this organization's values and beliefs to action and eliminate the unfair/unethical treatment of workers in third-world countries. I think my favorite part about WIETA's standards and rules is that no child under the age of 15 will be forced to work and the children who are able to work choose to do so, and that the industry they work for can not interfere with the child's school schedule. I particularly encourage this rule, because so many children in third-world countries are having to leave school at such a young age and end up not only losing their education but also miss out on their ability to see the world in a different light and take hold of new opportunities that an academic education could provide them.

The Ethics Behind the A.D.A Choices

First I want to say that this was a tough article to read; I mean where do you really draw the line when you are deciding what is the best way to raise money for a charity that is trying to fight one of America's worst diseases? I firmly believe that raising money for a good cause is always beneficial, however, I do agree that there should be limitations.

I don't think it would have been a wise decision for the A.D.A to sign a sponsorship with Burger King and I was relieved when I saw that it turned the fast-food restaurant down. However, I don't see a problem with a company who is a producer of both high-calorie and low-calorie foods. Let's think about it logically, how many organizations do we really know that don't produce both kinds of foods? There are of course the organic foods, but that is still an up and coming change and not many people have adapted to it. But look at company's like Kellogg, they make excellent healthy food, but not all of it is healthy. For example, they make pop-tarts one of the most high in calorie, fats and sweets breakfast items there is.

Also, I think the A.D.A is taking steps in the right direction. It eliminated a sponsorship with Hershey as well as other companies and it turned down a sponsorship with Burger King. I mean the A.D.A is sacrificing a lot of money because they want to make sure people trust them and make sure that they are being as ethical as possible. To be honest I don't blame the A.D.A for not turning away Cadbury. I mean it brings in the majority of their sponsorship money and as long as it only promotes their healthy food products where is the harm?

Social Networking

http://www.adweek.com/aw/magazine/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003654896

To me social networking isn't necessarily a terrible thing. I mean there are some ethical issues that surround it but overall one has to accept that not everyone will agree with you and not everyone will share your morals or ethical beliefs.

For some companies using social networking can be a plus. For example Target achieved success and great reviews when it posted a page on Facebook. College students all over praised the site and really found it helpful. I personally think this was a great move by Target because it helped them to achieve one of their goals, which is to relate to a more trendy and younger community.

However, this is not always the case. For instance Wal-Mart experienced some negative feedback and scrutiny from the public. First of all Wal-Mart is not known for its trendy styles, but for its cheap prices. For many college students posting a page on Facebook is pointless and stupid. Also, Wal-Mart has already been mixed up in a social networking scandal so posting a page on Facebook could appear as another one of their ways to promote their own well-being.

These two cases show us the fine line between when it may be okay to social network and when it may not be okay. For some I think it is just a matter of current reputation and community status.

Glengarry Glenn Ross

After watching Memet's play I walked away feeling a little overwhelmed, probably because I have never heard the "f bomb" dropped so much in two hours in my whole life. But aside from that I couldn't believe all the backstabbing, manipulation and unethical behavior that was going on throughout the whole play.

It is clear to see how Mamet views the ethics of the business world. If I had never known anything about the business world and I never knew anything about ethics and morals in the business world, I think I would have walked away from the play thinking to myself "Is this really how the business world is suppsoed to operate?" I don't personally believe that all organizations are cut throat like this. However, I do believe that some may exist. I also don't think that currently sales people and organizations do not need to be so cut throat. I mean the sales world is competitive, we all know that, but taking it to the extreme that Mamet took is in my opinion a little over the top and outdated.

It is really disturbing to think that there are probably some businesses out there that are really like that. There was nothing but bribery, blackmail, stealing, cheating, etc. I mean you name anything unethical and it was portrayed in this play. I think the only ethical decision that was made by anyone was when the boss turned in the guys who robbed the place, and still he didn't even do it for the right reasons -- he did it cause he didn't like the guys.

I realize that there is competition in the sales industry and keeping the numbers high is what keeps you in the business, but doing it unethically is not the direction you should take. Just take this play as a prime example of everything that is done wrong in sales.

Corporate Apologies and Southwest Airlines

One would think that the rule of thumb when an organization is accused of being unfair or accused of mistreating its consumers that the first response would be to apologize. However, this is not the case with all organizations. In fact some organizations will wait to make any type of apology, even if it is informal. I think this is bad PR. I believe that as an organization you are supposed to consider the client. I mean one must be realistic and think that the client or consumer is not always going to come first, but in the Southwest Airlines case this should have been the issue.

When Southwest Airlines kicked Kyla Ebbert off the plane because of her short mini-skirt there was an immediate uproar. The media was eating this up, saying that Southwest Airlines over reacted and the only reason why Kyla Ebbert was asked to leave the plane was because she was an attractive young woman. Personally, I didn't find her outfit that offensive, I have seen much worse in Wal-Mart. Southwest Airlines didn't even attempt to make an apology especially when Ebbert made it perfectly clear that she was offended and couldn't understand why she was being asked to leave the plane. Intially the airline refused to make an apology to Ebbert, it wasn't until Ebbert appeared on numerous talk shows that Southwest finally decided to make the apology, but they shouldn't have wasted its time.

As quoted from the so called apology the CEO stated "we were caught with our pants down and we were looking for the naked truth..." so where dose the apology come into play. I mean yes the airline apologized, but where was the sincerity? I mean really, if you are going to apologize, don't be smart ass' and do it for the right reasons. If a company is only going to apologize to get the media off its back then don't bother. Finally, this so called apology did nothing but enrage the public even more and it certainly didn't make Ebbert feel any better.

Morality, Ethics and Values... All for one and one for all!!

For so many people the thought of morality develops for many reasons, personally I believe that our morals are a learned process that take time to develop. Which would explain why some people have conflicting morals. But you have to ask yourself where do you draw the line between morals and values and what about your ethical stance? If I tell you that I believe it is morally wrong for a large organization like Apple, for instance, to drop the price of the iphone only after two months, would you agree or disagree? And if you were to look deeper into this statement, one would have to ask what are the values of Apple? If this does not seem to make since let me try and explain my thoughts.

When we are born we are molded to be accepted by society, for instance, in western societies girls are praised for being thin and beautiful while men are praised for being strong and handsome. However, what happens to the people that do not fall under this category, is it morally wrong not to accept them as part of society just because our society values attractive physical appearance? Personally I think it is extremely morally wrong.

So now lets get back to high dollar corporations. For many large corporations money is the answer to all problems... sell, sell, sell that is what workers are trained to do. But to what extreme do we finally take a step back and ask ourselves is the right? Does this go against my morals? Is this ethical and if not what actions should I take to change it? Would I want someone to do this to me? It is hard for individuals within a company to stand up and say this is morally wrong, and that this is not ethical. Why? Well because everyone wants to be accepted by society or a group within society and going against the group is not always the easiest choice to make. It is at this point that people should say because I do not believe this is morally acceptable or ethical I am going to embrace my values and speak my mind. It is a wonder why more organizations do not take a step back and take these very steps. I mean what did Apple achieve in dropping the price of the iphone? Obviously they value money, innovation, quality, technology, etc. However, when the price of the iphone was dropped the loyalty of Apple consumers went down while the hostility against Apple went up. And in the long run Apple ended up having to give money back to the enraged public and all they could say was "Oh sorry, that's the way it is!"

So what exactly did they achieve? Because Apple didn't take the time to consider other the values of others and only thought of what could best benefit them it is a good possibility that they lost a large number of loyal followers. And when they develop a new product, it would be acceptable to speculate that society will think twice about purchasing an Apple product as soon as it hits the sale rack because of this debacle. Therefore, one should always consider not only their own values, morals and ethics, but those of society and the individuals within society.

Apple's Mistake

Appiah's idea of "a saving truth" was obviously overlooked in the case of the Apple iphone and the $200 price cut that was given to the product, merely two months after it was released for sale. As PR professionals their are certain strongly held beliefs that should not be compromised, such as truth, justice and humanness, to name a few. None of these beliefs were strongly held in the case of the iphone and the dramatic price cut.

First of all the iphone was given so much hype and was only going to be distributed through AT&T. So many loyal Apple consumers switched their cell phone service over to AT&T just so they could be the proud owners of this high tech item. So where exactly was the justice, or righteousness, in lowering the price only after two months? This was not fair to the loyal customers who switched their phones plans just to purchase the Apple iphone. This injustice was what caused the uproar and the chaos just continued to unfold from there.

The second largest mistake Apple made was that their so called "apology" give by CEO Steve Jobs, was one of the most dry, sarcastic and unrealistic apologies ever. In my personal opinion the people who spent the full price on the iphone had every right to be upset and to have felt betrayed by Apple. There was so sympathy or humaneness in the apology that Steve Jobs gave, it seemed more like a stop your whining speech and if that isn't good enough then here take this $100 toward some more Apple merchandise. So where was the humaneness in this? When I read the "apology" from Steve Jobs on the Apple website, I didn't feel any better about people purchasing this phone and then being screwed over.

The third mistake that was made was that the Apple company was not truthful in their price cut. I don't recall reading anything in the paper about Apple making a general announcement that there was going to be a price cut. I mean yes it is a reality that eventually prices will drop, but it is not usual that these prices are dropped within the first two months of distribution. I also find it hard to believe that this was not Apple's plan from the very beginning. This was how Apple was not truthful to their customers, who had a right to know that this was going to happen.

In the long run, it seems very apparent that Apple only cared about themselves in this matter and because of it many of their loyal customers may not continue to be loyal. It is a shame when successful companies like Apple, forget what their vales should be and let go of the "saving truth" that launched them to success in the first place.

Utilitarian or Communitarian... good question

In the Dallas Cowboys article the football team is involved in a major crisis and the way they handled the crisis, in my opinion was not the best way to do it. According to the newspapers there was a fight that broke out between two players, Irvin and McIver, which lead to a deep cut in the throat of McIver. The immediate response that was given from the Dallas Cowboys head coach and the NFL was the that this occurred on accident after the two players were "horsing around." However, this was not the picture that the broadcast and print journalist painted for the community.

According to the article, written by Lambiase and Dempsey, there are two ways to communicate this confrontation to the public. The Cowboys took the utilitarian approach, which was for everyone to keep quite about the situation because that was what was best for the team. However, once the media started receiving inside sources who were telling a different story, the NFL and the head coach found themselves "screwed." Even though, the NFL and the Cowboys were facing skepticism from their community as well as the media they never faltered from their original story, claiming it was all an accident.

As public relations professionals we are supposed to pride ourselves in being the truth tellers and communicators to the public. Grant it every situation, especially delicate situations, must be handled with caution. In my opinion if the Cowboys team kept more of a communitarian approach, which focused more on the well-being of the injured player, as opposed to covering up the story the media would have been more receptive. And then once all the information was gathered and the situation/confrontation was affirmed, they could have expressed that the fight was a result of "horse play," which turned tragic and that both players would be penalized and be forced to sit out during the pre-season game.

If this approach was taken it would have discredited any doubt in the community and it would have shown the Cowboys team to be fair and partial in the sentencing of these two players.

Cosmopolitanism and Public Relations

According to Appiah's model of cosmopolitanism everyone must look outside their own beliefs and morals and take a deeper look into the lives of people different from themselves. By doing so you are able to view more of the world and have a better understanding of the world around you and the people in it.

This is very important in the world of public relations, especially for international PR. In the world of international PR you must understand the culture of the client you represent, which is where cosmopolitanism comes in. You can not effectively perform your job as a PR professional if you do not understand the culture of your client. For instance, you would not attempt to shake hands with a Japanese culture when introducing yourself, instead you would bow. By not taking the time to look into that aspect of the Japanese culture you could cause many communication problems or even possibly offend someone.

Therefore, it is very important to consider Appiahs model of cosmopolitanism in order to make sure you don't make any mistakes and that you are capable of understanding your client.

So who matter's anyway??

According to the cosmopolitan beliefs, everyone matters, at least everyone appears to matter. The catch is that not everyone needs to agree with everyone else. For instance, I am a non-practicing Catholic, there are some things about my religion that I just don't agree with, but I am not going to judge people who are strong following Catholics, just like I do not criticize Jews for practicing their religion.



I believe that every person on earth has a write to be here and that every person needs to feel accepted and loved by society. However, it is a reality that in some religions and some beliefs there are certain people who have more of a "purpose" in society. Even in corporate America there are people who have more power or more significance than others. For instance, lets look at corporate America has a hierarchy, starting from the top and working its way down. You have the "top dogs," such as the chief executive officer, president and/or vice president, etc; then you have the top management, such as general manager, team director, marketing director, etc; then you have the middle management floor manager, supervisor, etc; then the lower level employees, such as the cashier or to-go drivers. All of these people matter in making the business run smoothly, but how many of these people consider where their product or merchandise is coming from... or do they care?

I think it is unfortunate that their are sweat shops in the countries who create the product for American society. Young children sewing, hammering, slaving away for 12 or more hours a day getting no breaks and are paid $.25 a hour is something that expresses my statement earlier that in the eyes of some people these young children just don't matter. I mean without them there would be no product or merchandise to be sold, but the fact that these young children work the hours they do and are paid practically nothing proves that in some peoples eyes they simply do not have as much "status" in society as others. I wonder if it will ever change...