Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Annika Lindburg
4/13/16
MSCM 335
Case study 1
Summary
Randall recently finished graduate school with an M.A. in advertising and works
at a major agency in account services. His job requires him to work as an assistant
account executive for a client that is introducing a new sports car. His responsibility
would be to drive the new sports car for six months while selling the car and hand out
supplementary materials to whomever was interested in the car. Randall would not be
able to tell the individuals that the car was not his and this promotion seemed deceptive to
him.
Virtue Ethics
In order to best analyze this case; I will use virtue ethics to help decide what
Randall should say and to whom. Randall is clearly smart and educated, yet when
presented with a promising job, Randall has difficulty figuring out what to do. It makes
sense, as the question of ethics becomes blurred in this situation. Attributes of virtues for
advertisers are truthful, loyalty, and tactfulness (Bivins, 79). Randall has an M.A. in
Advertising, so if he were to follow the virtue traits of truthfulness, he would talk to the
account team and let them know how he is uncomfortable with the situation. If Randall
practices virtue ethics habitually, the traits of good character can make him a good person
(Bivins, 79). Randalls hesitation towards the promotion shows that he has traits of a
good character but needs more guidance on ethical decision-making. Using virtue ethics,
2
potters box, Grunigs linkages, and Ross prima facie duties should help Randall see that
he should talk to his employer by informing him that this promotion is unethical and
Potter Box
utilize Potter box to aid Randalls decision making. Potter box has four components:
facts, values, principles, and loyalties. Randall is posed with a dilemma of whether to do
something ethically right, i.e. declining the promotion due to wanting to be a good
person, or ethically wrong, which means staying with the company. It is important to
distinguish the values of the stakeholders involved, in order to help Randall make an
informed decision. The stakeholders involved are the company, Randalls team, and the
major automobile client. One could speculate that Randall wants to please his team
members and boss by deciding to sell the cars. The car company has professional values
in which they are more concerned with making money than the ethics of their actions
which in turn contribute to questioning their virtues. The potential buyers of the cars can
also be affected by the values of the company and Randalls team. If they chose to lie, the
buyers are misled into buying a product that can affect the relationship between the
consumer and the company. The next step in Potter box is ethical principle. The ethical
principle that is applicable to this situation is Aristotles Golden Mean which states that
moral behavior is the mean between two extremes- one of excess and the other deficiency
(Bivins, 78). This can be adapted to the virtue of truthfulness, but if used excessively it
would become two polarizing extremes. This resonates with Randall, who has to interpret
box which is of loyalties. Randall has loyalties towards his coworkers, himself, and his
boss. He should put the loyalties of himself and his coworkers before his boss because
that shows good character, which are the fundamentals of virtue ethics.
Grunigs linkages
Another way we can examine if Randall should speak to his boss is by identifying
the stakeholders and their relationship towards the case, according to Grunigs linkages.
The stakeholders involved in this case are the people who might buy the car, the
company, and Randalls coworkers. According to Grunigs linkages, the people who
might buy the car would be applicable to that of a receiver, ones who use the
organizations service i.e. the car that Randalls company is selling (Bivins, 22). The
receivers would be most affected by the decision of Randall to say or not say anything.
The company, while a stakeholder, will not be too affected by Randalls decision to leave
the company because they can simply find someone new to promote the car. Because of
this, they closely resemble issue-defined constituents since the company will have a
problem if Randall leaves, but can quickly resolve it by hiring someone else. Randalls
coworkers resemble the suppliers. This duty resembles self-improvement and promise
keeping. Randalls decisions will affect his coworkers and he could learn a lot by working
The final section to consider is Rosss Prima Facie Duties, which are duties all
humans would recognize as morally binding (Bivins, 26). The first prima facie duty is
fidelity, and one of the subsets it lists is, one should not lie in any aspect of their lives.
4
This binding duty is something that Randall should consider when deciding if he should
say anything. The ethical obligations that Randall has to the buyers of said car, his team
and company are all different. His ethical obligation to himself is to live a truthful life
which can lead to a good character. Furthermore, the ethical obligation Randall has to the
consumers is also do not lie. Ross considers it a duty of fidelity to not lie and lying to
unsuspecting individuals could result in them trusting you and possibly buying the
product (Bivins, 26). One of the ethical obligations to the stakeholders based on Rosss
prima facie duties is the duty of justice. Ross states that if someone receives a gift that
regardless of their position or power (Bivins, 26). This is applicable to Randall, as he has
an ethical obligation to speak up or ignore his gut feeling. Randall accepted the position,
which means he has an ethical obligation to his company unless he quits. The ethical
beneficence is applicable to the company because they are introducing a new car to
individuals and selling the car to them. This duty can make a person feel better, and
inflate their ego, which is the opposite of virtue ethics. Another ethical duty that is
applicable is gratitude; the car company is lending Randall a cool sports car and he is
getting paid to ride and sell it. Since Randall is receiving the car as a gift, then he would
be obligated to that company (Bivins, 26). If Randall were to keep his job, he would be
tied to the company, but if he chose not to participate in an unethical act, then he would
Conclusion
5
By examining Virtue Ethics, Potter Box, Grunigs linkage, and Ross Prima Facie
Duties, it is clear that more harm than good comes from Randall not saying anything.
Randall should say something to one of his employers: It is not ethically right to omit the
truth in order to sell something. While it would be unfortunate to lose his job, Rachels
states that virtues are important because the virtuous will fare better in life. Therefor,
Randall should not accept the promotion, and if need be, find another job.
Looking at how these issues effect the stakeholders involved also show that more harm
than good comes from it. Therefore, he should say how unethical this promotion is, and
talk to the account team. By doing so, Randall can also possibly help them see the
unethicality of this buzz marketing technique. Even better yet, if Randall chose to
publicly speak about this issue, this could lead to a loss of costumers which could be
detrimental to the company. The car company might have to change their ways of finding
an ethically correct tactic for selling cars. This would make the CEO of the company
somewhat of a virtuous person, which in turn, can lead to becoming a good character.
6
Works Cited
Bivins, Thomas. Mixed Media: Moral Distinctions in Advertising, Public Relations, and
Rachels, James. The Elements of Moral Philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010.
Print.