Whom do you trust the most?
Whom do you trust? A guy who can break his own rules under some circumstances to achieve results. Or a moral stickler who is consistent with her set of ideals or principles? I guess, the elusive pursuit of that sweet spot of being effective, ethical and likeable is not sweet at all. Looks like finding that has been a dicey affair for Homo Corporatus.
To begin with, ethics in the management realm is a dicey and tricky subject. And “dealing with people” while maneuvering organizational politics and cultural subways makes it even more fuzzy. Yet, we are able to achieve Coopetition breaking free from our Dunbar and progress as a society. Between manipulation and motivation, Theory Z and Pygmalion Effect, iterated Prisoner’s dilemma and amoral power laws, being true to one’s conscience and authenticity paradox, there is an entire circus of heuristics, moral theories, ethical frameworks and mental models that unsettle your mind.
As if this is not enough, Marketing folks have to deal with the additional layer of morality. I know you don’t trust a hammer to tell you where to hang a picture. But “Lie” has been that singular tool that made all this people management and ethics gobbledygook gallery look easy. It can be said that lie-ability is directly proportional to creativity and intelligence permitted by one one’s moral locus.
Finding that locus between lie and creativity, between perception and product, between empathy and wokeness, between short-termism (sucking up to your boss) and trust, and between telling stories and storytelling is the hard problem of Marketing. And people management. Instead of taking refuge under “market decides”, “word of mouth” and “caveat emptor”, can’t we do better? It is ever more important in times likes these when life and business are in dire straits.
My dearest uncle late Prof Dr B Seshadri had tried helping me resolve this psychological dilemma from a philosophical angle. The answer was to choose one from these three:
1. Consequentialism (Ends justifies the means)
2. Deontology (Means justifies the ends)
3. Contractualism (What we owe to each other)
Which gets corroborated in this outstanding conversation between Daniel Kahneman and Molly Crockett on the same. His joke “It doesn’t matter if you are vegetarian when a lion sees you in the forest” probably hinted at Deontology as the right approach. No surprise, we trust those who are consistent in advocating a hard and fast morality and condemnation of wrongdoing over one that’s more diplomatic, situational and flexible. Whether we like them or not!
But I really wonder, is “trust” the utility function that organizations or managers really bothered about?? Hence, my love language is Contractualism as beautifully explained in this Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa’s snake story.
(Originally published by the same author at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/refusal-snake-hiss-bite-trade-offs-prashanth-kale/)
