Is being smart, being right?
Though they often tell us that being ethical is about choosing right over wrong, it ain't as simple as that. Right over wrongs are easy. Its right over just' a li'l less right that's difficult.
In Management its said, you have to work 'smart'. Pray, what's smart all about? And do ethical issues arise when you take the 'smart' way? Take the case of a brand that doesn't tell you that the claim it bandies about is a result of research on a skewed sample. For example, a fairness soap that claims 98 percent of its users felt fairer in two weeks, makes a 'smart' claim. Not a 'right' one. If broached, the brand will point to some flawed research. Note, reality is otherwise. Again, take the case of media publications. They all claim to give us the 'truth'. What they really mean is, their version of the truth. That's again 'smart'.
So in tom-toming 'researched' claims or telling us they tell us the truth, or that they care for us consumers, etc., brands do what's smart. Just like at work, when people go with the boss' dumb idea, they do exactly the same. In pointing out the weakness of an idea, far from earning the boss' approval, they risk his wrath. Maybe even promotion up the hierarchical ladder. So they shut up, and play along. The boss is pleased, They get their ride up; its all round win-win. Though how far the organisation's benefited is any one's guess.
Doing the 'real' right things, and not the 'smart' right things, calls for courage. Because in doing so, there's bound to be a loss. And if some one's not up to that loss, I'd say the smart route's the best route. That goes for brands too. Stating that as a media magazine, you will always give us the truth is 'smartly' right. Not 'real' right. And as mentioned when I started, the choice here is not between right and wrong, its between 'smart' and 'right'.
Smart 's better.
Though I reserve my admiration for losers who don't go smart, but right. The ones who 'lose', who sacrifice, for the sake of what's 'right'. Without qualms. Without complaints.
In Management its said, you have to work 'smart'. Pray, what's smart all about? And do ethical issues arise when you take the 'smart' way? Take the case of a brand that doesn't tell you that the claim it bandies about is a result of research on a skewed sample. For example, a fairness soap that claims 98 percent of its users felt fairer in two weeks, makes a 'smart' claim. Not a 'right' one. If broached, the brand will point to some flawed research. Note, reality is otherwise. Again, take the case of media publications. They all claim to give us the 'truth'. What they really mean is, their version of the truth. That's again 'smart'.
So in tom-toming 'researched' claims or telling us they tell us the truth, or that they care for us consumers, etc., brands do what's smart. Just like at work, when people go with the boss' dumb idea, they do exactly the same. In pointing out the weakness of an idea, far from earning the boss' approval, they risk his wrath. Maybe even promotion up the hierarchical ladder. So they shut up, and play along. The boss is pleased, They get their ride up; its all round win-win. Though how far the organisation's benefited is any one's guess.
Doing the 'real' right things, and not the 'smart' right things, calls for courage. Because in doing so, there's bound to be a loss. And if some one's not up to that loss, I'd say the smart route's the best route. That goes for brands too. Stating that as a media magazine, you will always give us the truth is 'smartly' right. Not 'real' right. And as mentioned when I started, the choice here is not between right and wrong, its between 'smart' and 'right'.
Smart 's better.
Though I reserve my admiration for losers who don't go smart, but right. The ones who 'lose', who sacrifice, for the sake of what's 'right'. Without qualms. Without complaints.
Comments
but still management colleges are wasting our time by teaching us subject business ethics.
in which they taught us bear losses at the cost of following ethics.
being in a position where you can change something for your customer's good but still not doing it is ethical or unethical or smart or right?
but i guess , subordinate not able to give his opinion due to hierarchal structure is definitely a big loss for organization.
best example is - google which has a flat structure.