Ethics in Persuasion

Ethics in Persuasion

            Ethics can be defined in many ways. Pamela Shockeley-Zalaback (2009) defines ethics as “moral principles that guide judgments about good and bad, right and wrong, not just effectiveness or efficiency” (p. 111). This definition will serve the purpose that I intend to discuss in this paper. In this paper, I will discuss the importance of ethics in persuasion. Ethics in persuasion are important because, without them, persuasion would really just amount to manipulation and deception.

            Persuasion can relate to many different things. One major example of persuasion would be public relations. Companies who use public relations do so to put a positive spin on the company toward the general public. Public relations includes several different forms of media, including newspapers, magazines, or television. They will also use press releases. All of these things are used to build confidence in a company and to educate the public about the company.

            Persuasion comes into play because these companies are persuading the public to buy into a company, to trust the company, to buy its products. Ethics is important because if a company is not ethical in its marketing and public relations, confidence will be lost and the company will go under. Take, for example, the recent bank crisis. Most banks have positive images thanks to public relations. Most people have great confidence in banks thanks to the security of the FDIC and NCUA. However, when the interest rates began rising on adjustable rate mortgages and people could no longer afford to pay their monthly payments, people began to lose faith in banks and began to pull their money out, resulting in several banks being taken over by the government. This led to an even bigger crisis in the housing market. Nobody was willing to buy houses and banks had no money to lend. If the banks had not introduced the adjustable rate mortgages or been more forthcoming with the details of these mortgages, this crisis could have been averted. Also, had the banks been more truthful and ethical during the fallout of the original interest rate hikes, and had public relations specialists done their jobs, the housing market crash could have been avoided.

Ethics is not often linked to public relations in research. As stated by Johanna Fawkes, “Different models of public relations make conflicting or unjustified assumptions and claims about ethical responsibilities” (p 313). Every company has its own idea of what public relations should be. One company will see that as only releasing the required annual statements. Another company will focus on advertising and press releases. “New ethical approaches can only be explored if persuasion is recognised as a central part of practice. The literature of persuasion should be reviewed for potential concepts and models that might help public relations evolve an ethical framework that incorporates reality rather than starts and ends with fantasy” (Fawkes, p 313).

Another example of ethics relating to public relations includes the advertising aspect. Advertisements are allowed to have a certain amount of leeway in the truth of messages conveyed in commercials. This is called puffery. If a company were to be unethical and advertise a product or commitment that they could not keep, the public would lose confidence in that company and the company would be subject to hefty fines for false advertising.

Ethics in persuasion also comes into play in sales. A salesman will tell you what you want to hear to make a sale. However, he should also be ethical when doing so. An unethical salesman will tell you that the car runs fine. It’s been a one-owner car, driven by a preacher, and he only drove it to church on Sundays. In reality, the car probably has high mileage, a major oil leak, and was driven by a teenager who destroyed the engine. I cannot count how many times I have heard that story. As a skeptic, I know more than to believe whatever the salesman tells me. However, what about the little old lady who is looking for a trustworthy car? Is it really ethical to tell her that the car runs fine when, in reality, the car will likely break down within a week? The impact of this type of persuasion is obvious. It is not persuasion in this case, it is manipulation and deception. The salesman is being unethical by deceiving the old lady into believing that the car she is looking at is what he says it is. The importance of ethics in sales is not something that many people would consider. We want to believe that the salesman will be honest with us.

            Ethics determine what you should do in any given situation. They are the right and wrong of a situation. Persuasion is attempting to convince another person of your point of view, whether it is that they should buy a car, buy your product, or just listen to a kind of music that you like. Ethics are important in persuasion because, if persuasion is not ethical, it becomes manipulation and deception. Ethics should be what guides all instances of persuasion, regardless of how simple the persuasion is.

References

Fawkes, J. (2007). Public relations models and persuasion ethics: a new approach. Journal of

            Communication Management 11(4), 313. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from ProQuest

            Database.

Shockeley-Zalabak, P. (2009). Fundamentals of organizational communication: Knowledge,

            sensitivity, skills, values (7^th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Ethics in Organizations

Ethics in Organizations

            Ethics can be defined in many ways. Pamela Shockeley-Zalaback (2009) defines ethics as “moral principles that guide judgments about good and bad, right and wrong, not just effectiveness or efficiency” (p. 111). This definition will serve the purpose that I intend to discuss in this paper. In this paper, I will examine two scenarios regarding potentially unethical behavior, and discuss what should be done in this situation, ethically, and what I, as an individual, would be likely to do.

            The first scenario I plan to discuss is one where a personnel director is enlisted to screen applicants for promotions. Usually, the top three candidates are sent for interviews with management. The newest vacancy is on the president of the company’s personal staff, and the personnel director knows that the president does not like women on his staff. The dilemma in this situation arises because the top three applicants for this particular job are female (Shockeley-Zalaback, 2009, p. 125-6).

            I will start with what should be done in this situation. Ethically and legally, any qualified applicant for a job cannot be disqualified due to race, age, gender, or religion. Equal Employment Opportunity Acts prevent this kind of discrimination. Because the president of the company is, apparently, above reproach, there are no higher channels that the personnel director could go through to have the president spoken with about sexism. If I were put into this position, I think that I would do as much research as I could on Equal Employment Opportunity and take this information to the president. I would then explain to him that, regardless of his personal feelings about female workers, the top three applicants for this position happen to be female. I would tell him that disqualifying female applicants just because of their sex is not only ethically wrong, it is also illegal. Then I would send those top three applicants to him for an interview and let him choose whether or not to hire one of those women for the open position.

            What I, personally, would do in this situation is not that much different than what, ethically, should be done. Most likely, put in that position, it would depend on how stable my job was. If I knew that I was secure in my job and that I would not lose my job for speaking up, I would speak to the president about being sexist and give him the three female applicants. However, if I were not so secure in my job and feared that speaking to the president could compromise my career, I would likely rearrange my qualifications to try to find a male applicant that fit the criteria I needed. You never know, the president could possibly choose the better qualified female applicant on his own, even though it is unlikely.

            The next situation I plan to discuss is that of a personnel liaison being confronted with possible drug use in the production area of the company. The source that brought this information to the liaison does not wish her name to be mentioned in relation to this and does not want to give specifics, for fear of being called out as a whistle-blower. She also states that some other personnel liaisons may be involved and asks that you not bring the possible drug use up to them (Shockeley-Zalaback, 2009, p. 126).

            In this situation, there are several solutions that would be considered ethical, depending on how much authority the personnel liaison has in the company and what the company’s drug policy is. If the company has a posted drug policy that states that employees can and will be subjected to random drug testing, and the liaison has the authority to order such tests, she could run a random drug screen of the whole production floor. If she does not have the authority, she could bring up the employee’s concerns to her supervisor, who can decide what to do with the information that you have been given.

            What I would do in this situation is probably about the same as what should be done. As a personnel liaison, I would likely try to find the source of the information. As everybody knows, the “grapevine” is not exactly a reliable source for information. This information could be nothing more than a rumor spread in the hopes of costing somebody his or her job. Things like this should not happen in organizations, but the fact is that they do. So, given the scarce information from the source, I would likely try to find out exactly how true that information is before going ahead with drug testing or going to a supervisor.

            Ethics determine what you should do in any given situation. They are the right and wrong of a situation. Values determine what you actually would do in that same situation. While these may often determine that you would do the same thing in each situation, that is not always the case. Values may get in the way of ethics, or vice versa. For example, in the first scenario in this paper, if the personnel director has a high value of financial security, the outcome would be very different from that of a personnel director with a high value of sexual equality. The question remains, should ethics or values be what guides you in your life?

References

Shockeley-Zalabak, P. (2009). Fundamentals of organizational communication: Knowledge,

            sensitivity, skills, values (7^th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

My Personal Communication Study

Communication takes several different forms. It can verbal or nonverbal; it can be dyadic or a speaker talking to a large audience; it can be intimate or it can be formal. The main thing to remember about communication is that, although it takes several different forms and we often take it for granted, it is one of the most important skills we could ever learn. This paper will focus on my study of my own personal skills in interpersonal, group, and organizational communications.

            Communications is a very diverse field of study. Some people enter into communications studies to become political advisors, some desire to be teachers, and others desire to become training specialists. There are literally dozens of careers that could be obtained with a communications degree. My main focus in studying communications is to become an editor or a news writer. An understanding of communication will be very important in my professional life, as to become an editor or a news writer, I will need to understand the basic principles of how to convey messages to the public in a media outlet. Understanding communication is also important in everyone’s personal life because communication is a daily occurrence that we all participate in.

Communication is defined in many ways. The text gives us several examples of definitions that could be used for the word “communication.” The one that stood out most to me was number seven, which defines communication as “the transmission of information, ideas, emotions, skills, etc., by the use of symbols-words, pictures, figures, graphs, etc.” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 20). This definition came closest to what I believe communication is. We use communication daily to send messages to other people. Whether we are trying to convey an idea or just a thought, we most commonly use words to get our point across.

            For one assignment to help us understand more about how we view people, we were asked to compare and contrast people we knew, and how we communicated differently with each person. In writing my comparison and contrast of the people I know, I learned a few things about myself.  I believe that I have a stable set of constructs. I always try to view people in a positive light. If they have negative attributes, I generally try to look past those attributes to find out why they are the way that they are. It helps me understand more about the person’s character to know about circumstances in a person’s life that have led them to become closed off or angry. Also, when I take the time to get to know the person before judging them, they are more likely to do the same for me. I try to come across as personable and friendly; however, depending on my mood, I may come across as rude or closed off.

            I also try to avoid using stereotypes as much as possible. I know from experience that stereotypes are not always accurate and that sometimes they can be hurtful. The constructs I use may not be complete if I do not know the person outside of a certain environment. For example, I know my supervisor as my co-worker and I judge her by the attitude she exhibits at work and how she carries herself there. If I were to become familiar with her outside of work, my construct of her may change. I know that I am a different person at work than I am at home. At work I am more formal, whereas at home I am more relaxed and can express myself more freely.

            In considering my communication with people of different constructs, I realize that I do communicate differently with different people. My sister and I have our own way of talking to each other that nobody else would understand if they were to just eavesdrop or read through our texts. My best friend and I also have a certain way that we talk to each other. My husband and I speak more freely and intimately with each other. I am more formal with my supervisor and those people that I work with.

            People can be encouraged to develop diverse constructs by learning that everyone is an individual and should be judged as such. Just because a person comes from a low-income family or a bad neighborhood, some people may write that person off as a “bad seed.” However, that person could be one of the hardest workers you will ever meet. I think that everyone needs to learn that stereotyping or putting people into certain groups is not only harmful to the individual being labeled, it is also damaging to the development of a better environment for our children.

            In my study of interpersonal communication, I have learned several things. I have learned that it is always best to be open to any type of communication. It is important to avoid stereotypes as much as possible. Also, I have learned that listening is often more important than talking. If you don’t listen as well as you speak, communication can be skewed and miscommunication occurs.

            Group communication is an entirely different concept from interpersonal communication. In interpersonal communication, a conversation is taking place between a few people who are intimate with each other. Group communication brings in more people, more ideas, and more challenges. According to our text, a group is defined as “a collection of individuals who, as a result of interacting with one another over time, become interdependent, developing shared patterns of behavior and a collective identity“ (Trenholm, 2008, p. 177). I do not believe that I am very good at group communications. A lot of the time I tend to listen for mistakes that somebody makes so that I can correct them. This gives me a sense of power in a situation that I am uncomfortable in and shows off my knowledge about the subject at hand. One way that I could strengthen my group communications skills was found in an article and states that “A better way to communicate with colleagues is to be curious. If someone says something you do not agree with, or even that you ‘know’ is incorrect, begin with an open-ended question” (Anonymous, 2008). In other words, instead of just correcting somebody, I should offer them an opportunity to explain why they are thinking the way that they are, and then offer my opinion.

            Organizational communication is defined as “the process through which organizations create and shape events” (Shockley-Zalabak, 2009, p. 15). An organization is very different from a group. An organization is “a system consisting of a large number of people working together in a structured way to accomplish multiple goals” (Trenholm, 2008, p. 214).” An organization is more of a culture than a group is. A group is generally focused on accomplishing one goal, while an organization focuses on multiple goals at once. Organizational communication comes into play most often in our work lives. For example, a corporation is an organization. Communication can flow upward or downward; that is, it can come from supervisors or managers to lower level employees, or it can flow from an entry level employee to a manager or supervisor.

            In studying my organizational communication skills, we were asked to compile a list of our strengths in work-content skills, personal skills, and technology skills. I found that my strongest area of all of these were my personal attributes, such as dependability, accountability, motivation, determination, and flexibility. My work-content and technology skills were very similar to one another. These include my ability to research thoroughly, knowledge of several different operating systems, and my knowledge of all Microsoft Office programs. These skills can all be included on a resume in the future.

            As we have learned through this course, communication takes several different forms. The purpose of this paper was to examine my personal strengths and weaknesses in interpersonal, group, and organizational communications. I have learned that I feel very comfortable in interpersonal communication situations, but I need to work on my group and organizational communication skills. Whether communication is intended or not, it is a very important part of our lives and something that I think everybody should learn more about.

           
References

Be Curious, Not Confrontational. (2008). Healthcare Executive, 23(5), 82.

Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2009). Fundamentals of Organizational Communication:

           

            Knowledge, Sensitivity, Skills, Values (7^th ed). Boston: Pearson.

Trenholm, S. (2008). Thinking Through Communication: An Introduction to the Study of

            Human Communication (5^th ed). Boston: Pearson.

Overcoming Barriers to Listening and Communication

         Listening is a very important part of communication. Often, we hear what others are saying, but are we truly listening? A person who hears a message but does not really listen to it could completely miss the point of the communication. There are also barriers that prevent communication from being clear between all parties. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the barriers to listening and communication and ways to overcome these barriers to become a better listener and communicator. Effective communication, whether it is interpersonal, group, or within an organization, is an important part of life. Without effective communication, an organization will ultimately fail.

            The key to effective listening is actively listening to a message. According to Pamela Shockley-Zalabak, active listening is defined as “hearing, assigning meaning, and verifying our interpretations” (2009 p. 169). Simply hearing a message is not enough to understand what is being communicated. A person must also interpret the message and find meaning within it and then verify that the message is correct. A student sitting in a classroom could hear every word the instructor says, yet fail a test because the student was not really listening.

            The text for this course discusses seven barriers to listening. The first barrier is “labeling communicators and subjects as uninteresting or unimportant” (Shockley-Zalaback, 2009, p. 170). Labeling a communicator as unimportant impedes active listening because the person automatically dismisses what the speaker has to say and, therefore, misses the point of the communication. To overcome this barrier, a good listener should realize that just because the subject being discussed may not be interesting or the listener may not like the speaker, the listener should still pay attention to the message being conveyed. A message that may have seemed unimportant or uninteresting could become interesting or important, if only the listener takes the initiative to pay attention and not dismiss the speaker out of hand.

            The second barrier discussed is “emotionally resisting messages” (Shockley-Zalabak, 2009, p. 170). This happens when the listener does not like the message being received and, instead of listening to the entire message, tunes the speaker out or begins planning their next argument. Listeners often tune speakers out when the message is negative or controversial. Instead of focusing only on the negatives of a message, a listener should hear out the entire message before attempting to respond. The listener should also pay close attention to the message being received because the message may not be as negative as the listener initially thought.

            The third barrier to effective listening is “criticizing personal style instead of messages” (Shockley-Zalabak, 2009, p. 170). When a listener focuses on the speaker’s style of speech or even dress, the content of a message can be distorted or completely missed. Instead of focusing on the style of speech, a good listener focuses on the content of a message. Just because a speaker does not speak well does not mean that the message is not worth listening to.

            The fourth barrier discussed is “failing to identify listening distractions” (Shockley-Zalabak, 2009, p. 170). There are more listening distractions than a listener can imagine. The third barrier discussed could actually be considered a listening distraction. If a speaker is dressed in a distracting way, the message can be lost because the listener will not focus on the message, but instead on the way the speaker is dressed. Other listening distractions could include fact overload, a noisy environment, or the listener’s own thoughts. A way to overcome this barrier would be to identify the distractions and attempt to eliminate them. If the speaker is dressed in a distracting way, the listener can focus instead on the speaker’s face and words. If the environment is noisy, the listener can move closer to the speaker in an attempt to be able to pay closer attention to the speaker than the surrounding noise.

            The fifth barrier to effective listening is “faking attention” (Shockley-Zalabak, 2009, p. 171). This barrier is very easy for the speaker to not even realize that it is happening. I can count several times where I went into a meeting, nodded my head, made eye contact with the speaker, while off in my own mental world, and when I left the meeting, I had retained nothing that had been spoken of. This is because I was hearing what was being said, but I was not listening. I was pretending to pay attention to stay out of trouble with my supervisor. A student can easily do the same thing. The student goes in to class but has a major test the next class. Instead of focusing on the current teacher’s lecture, the student pretends to pay attention and take notes, while mentally reviewing the upcoming test. The student has missed out because now he has missed a lecture that could be on a future test. To eliminate this barrier, a good listener needs to focus on the speaker and the speaker only. Instead of thinking about other things or drifting off, the listener should pay close attention to what is being said. Just being in a room with somebody is not enough to understand the message being conveyed.

            The sixth barrier to listening is “misusing thought speed and speech speed differential” (Shockley-Zalabak, 2009, p. 171). According to Shockley-Zalabak, “we can think three to four times faster than we talk” (2009, p. 171). This means that a listener has much more time to think on other things while a person is speaking. Instead of using this time to focus on the next statement or thinking about the grocery list, the listener should use the speech differential to focus on the speaker’s message and to attempt to make meaning from it.

            The final barrier to communication is “not listening” (Shockley-Zalabak, 2009, p. 171). This barrier is obvious. How many times have you, the reader, been speaking to somebody and decided that you just did not want to hear what they had to say? If a listener does not like the speaker or the content being presented, the listener will completely tune out the speaker and refuse to hear the message at all. A good listener should always realize that everybody has a right to speak and be listened to. The listener should try to put his or herself in the position of the speaker and think how they would feel if they were the ones being ignored. Being ignored is never a good feeling, and a good listener should realize this and attempt to focus on the message, regardless of how he or she feels about it.

            Barriers to listening could qualify as barriers to communication; however, there are so many more. Barriers to communication can include things such as cultural or language differences, mistrust between the parties, or even stereotypes.  The most obvious barrier to communication is differences in language. If two people speak two completely different languages, communication can be very difficult. One way to get past this barrier would be through nonverbal communication. Some hand signs are universal and could be understood by both parties.

            Another obvious barrier to communication is cultural differences. Two people who speak the same language but were raised in very different cultures can find it hard to communicate with one another. For example, a person raised as a Hindu would be highly offended if an American invited the Hindu over for dinner and served beef. This would prevent the communication from going any further, because Hindus believe that cows are sacred. A person raised in a Southern environment would be taught to wave at a car passing by, but somebody who was raised farther North would likely take this as a sign of disrespect. A man who was raised in a more traditional household who believes that women should stay at home and be housewives would have problems communicating with a female boss. The best way to overcome this barrier is to understand that not everybody is alike. We expect people to communicate or act a certain way, when the reality is, there are tons of different cultures and each culture has its own way of communicating. If a person is going to a foreign country on a business trip or meeting with a foreign ambassador, the person should take the effort to get to know as much about the culture of the country he will be visiting, or the culture of the visiting person. This could prevent miscommunications due to a lack of knowledge about the culture. People need to learn and accept that every culture is different, and embrace those differences.

            Perceptions and stereotypes can also be barriers to communication. This would occur when a person perceives things about the message being told or the person sending the message instead of focusing on the content of the message. A speaker who is perceived as inept or unknowledgeable would not be listened to nearly as well as a person perceived to be an expert in the field being discussed. Stereotypes prevent effective communication because often the people who are stereotyped negatively are seen as not worth the time to listen to. One example of this would be communication between a business person and a fast food worker. People who work at fast food restaurants are often stereotyped as lazy, lacking ambition, or even unintelligent. A business person trying to have a conversation with a fast food worker would be difficult because all the business person would see in the fast food worker is their job. They would automatically discount everything the person says. The best way to get past perception and stereotypes as a barrier to communication is to realize that just because somebody may not seem intelligent or worth talking to, that person could be the most interesting person you might talk to all day. Instead of just looking on the outside of a person, we should all get to know people and listen to what they have to say before writing them off.

The main thing to realize about communication is that it is a very complicated thing. People tend to think that just talking and listening are what makes up communication, but there is so much more to it than that. There are barriers that we face every day in communicating and listening. The best way to get past these barriers is to realize that they exist and actively attempt to eliminate these barriers as suggested previously. By following these guidelines, the reader can hope to become a better listener and communicator. These guidelines will also help ensure the success of communicating within an organization and helping that organization to succeed.

References

Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2009). Fundamentals of Organizational Communication:

           

            Knowledge, Sensitivity, Skills, Values (7^th ed). Boston: Pearson