If a salesperson refused to sell to a prospect on ethical grounds, would you support him or her?

I have a personal adviser that follows me around in everything I do for myself and for clients. His name is MEL. Every time I am not sure I ask him. MEL stands for It it Moral? Is it Ethical? Is it Legal. As has been indicated in other answers here, and many lawyers prove in court every day, It may be proved Legal But that does not make it Moral or Ethical.

While these standards of M&E can shift by interpretation constantly, there is a general acceptance as to what they are over time in every society. The very definition of a society is "a group of people who share a common set of problems and agree to a shared set of solutions." M,E&L all have these societal definitions.

Run your decisions through MEL.

Sales & ethics -- when did they start co-existing.. It's upto the companies to analyse their team on an ongoing basis, their social/political viewpoints, based on which these positioning for strategic initiatives to be aligned.

I would find fault with BAE not able to put these HR process in place, knowing well the sensitivity attached to these cross-border trade.

I would address this on a case by case basis. There certainly are times when ethics should prevail. Even law recognizes this in cases, for example, involving bartenders' responsibility to cut off persons clearly beyond reasonable levels of intoxication. It is a slippery slope to try and turn ethics based decisions into procedures, though.

Together, let's put the fun back into work!
Belldon Colme
belldoncolme@gmail.com

There can always be a great deal of difference between personal ideas, ethics and morality and generally accepted morality and ethics. In the broad sense, ethics often involve matters of legality as well.

Companies should be upfront in the recruitment process about what a person will sell and to whom they will be selling it. For any variety of reasons a person can have a crisis of conscience that leads them to change their mind about selling a product or to a customer and the company can either accommodate the change or terminate the employee. In this job market some people will agree to anything for a chance at a job but are unlikely to be an effective sales person if the job requires them to ultimately compromise their personal ethics.

Twice in my career, though not involving sales, I have been asked to ignore my own as well as standard business ethics by a company and been offered substantial sums to do it. In both cases, I simply gathered the necessary evidence and turned one into the FBI for interstate fraud and the other one into the state Office of the Attorney General.

Yes as an owner, I will support the salesperson. By doing so, the salesperson is creating an unflinching credibility of the organization. The customer will blindly buy the products of the organization in future because the customer is carrying a belief that honest ethical people are running the organization.

Yes, as a manager and employee, I will think twice to do so as I may also be reporting to someone and that someone may or may not like this decision of the salesperson.

What I have commented here is a case of common products. In the cited case, two countries are involved and I have not read the case entirely, therefore, I am not competent to comment.

Dear CEO's,

Legal DOES NOT equal ethical.

That is all.

Dear CEO's,

Legal DOES NOT equal ethical.

That is all.

The difficulty here is that it is almost impossible to separate ethics from one's own values. Based on his military experience, I would have to align with Mr. Meyer that profiting from the sale of weapons or technology that might be used against our own troops is not something I could support.

This is a very interesting question...I'm not sure if I can provide a very interesting answer but I would side with the salesperson if the sale of the product/service is in direct conflict with the values the company has established. I am not familiar with BAE, therefore I don't at this time know what their values are...However, if the values of the company is in direct conflict with the sales person's personal values, I would not support the decision.

When working for companies the task of an employee is to carry out the tasks associated with the job you've been hired to do...My hopes are that folks are doing their due diligence to ensure that the business of the company works with their personal and morale values.

I would not work for a company that is performing business that I cannot morally be on board or find a way to believe in their vision. At some point we have to begin asking ourselves...How much is a paycheck worth? Is it worth selling ourselves, our beliefs, our morales?

I would resign...and I have resigned when these types of conflicts cannot be resolved.

A caveat to this would be if the issue with the company was "illegal"...I would definitely stand up for and support the salesperson.

This is a very difficult line to draw. Where in the chain do the ethical and moral consideration start?

I believe that the employee has the right (and sometimes the duty) to object to actions which result in illegal, immoral or unethical end results, but the employee must accept the results of such actions.

I doubt that most employers would accept an employee who refused to sell steel cans because the cans are used to make spray paint and spray paint is used in racist graffiti. Spray painting such slogans on victims cars is illegal, immoral and ethically suspect. Spray painting the patio furniture to protect it is clearly not.

Termination might be the only option.

The employer's duty in this is to completely document the entire situation so that the employee does not cause collateral damage, either intentionally or not.

In the case of former US Marine Dakota Meyer, the worst result that BAE can expect is loss of export licenses for military weaponry, especially if the weaponry gets linked to attacks by terrorists. Would BAE's interests be well served if that were to happen? Would former US Marine Dakota Meyer be wiser to use the argument that such a sale would put BAE's profitability at risk?

Moral and ethical training at a large contractor showed the problem in the real world. We were told to go to training at a specified time, the training started 1/2 hour late, we were told that it was unethical to charge the customer for non-customer work and to falsify a time card, but that the training budget was for 1/2 hour for the training, and we were not allowed to charge the overage to that budget. When asked what to do about the excess time, we were told to charge it to the customer. This, IMHO, was illegal (fraudulent) and unethical. The final outcome was the customer (a Federal agency) was unhappy when the management found out.

What a great thought provoking question Andrew!
There are times that the salesperson has a true moral dilemma, if this is personal, then it is something that he or she needs to resolve. May mean they have to leave their job.
There are times the company is doing something unethical, answer is simple: dont take the BS and report asap. No dilemma here.
There is the more fuzzy situation when the salesperson is having to sell something which quite does not work! or does not work exactly to spec or better yet, when the price is outrageous and unjustified: Again this is more of personal dilemma.
Seems to me that if the company is not breaking rules, and it is the salesperson's issues standing in the way, the salesperson should honor their own personal morals and ethics and do what is right for themselves, which may mean to leave the job.

yes as long as it is his or her beliefs . not discrimation or willful choice .
needs another type of job or industry to work in

We all know it's about survival ...providing for our families. When it comes down to it none of us can say with certainty that we would support a person making ethical or principled decisions. The tendency is to run away liked frightened sheep.

There are very few established guidelines to allow us the safety zone to support the right kind of behavior
I sight the wiki-leaks fellow as a prime example. He did right by us, for us, and we stood by and did nothing for him.... Marinate on that for a bit.
Even the people who supported this fellow suffered damage at the hands of the establishment

As a contract worker /virtual sales exec I have been fired a number of times in similar situations. I didn't call it ethics. I called it principles.

Recently I started working for www.e-factorgame.com a role playing board game for corporate ethics. As I am discovering ETHICS is an all-encompassing subject and applies not only in business but in our everyday lives.

It seems my principles; beliefs and subsequent behavior are based on ethics standards.

Honestly ...I would prefer to answer this question mid next year after I get my head around the subject

Andrew,
I think your latest response drills to the point. Sgt. Meyer is not refusing to sell the employers products wholesale, he has an objection to selling a particular product to a particular client.
To thoose who have stated categorically he needs to make the sale or find another job my response is - really?
You have an effective employee who in 99% of their endeavors does a good job and your position is cowboy up on the 1% or you are gone? No wonder employee engagement is in the toilet.
We don't own people, we rent their skills and aptitudes. Employees who are capable of forming and discerning their own personal ethical boundaries have the highest value to me.
We have also come to worship "shareholder value" as the ultimate litmus test of right and wrong I see that as incredibly short sighted. Organizations have stakeholders as well as shareholders, highly effective organizations recognize that and maintain an appropriate balance.
The "compliance" model of managing organizations is pretty outdated.....

I have a personal adviser that follows me around in everything I do for myself and for clients. His name is MEL. Every time I am not sure I ask him. MEL stands for It it Moral? Is it Ethical? Is it Legal. As has been indicated in other answers here, and many lawyers prove in court every day, It may be proved Legal But that does not make it Moral or Ethical.

While these standards of M&E can shift by interpretation constantly, there is a general acceptance as to what they are over time in every society. The very definition of a society is "a group of people who share a common set of problems and agree to a shared set of solutions." M,E&L all have these societal definitions.

Run your decisions through MEL.

Andrew,
A few years ago I came across the issue of congruency or values alignment. The point was that if an employee is out of alignment on any of the five key congruency areas it is going to affect their performance and this is not a "training" issue, but rather a values issue.
I agree with Srikanth is that the best time to have this discussion is during recruitment and selection. I think Dave's perspective is well taken as well about when you have a valuable person who has been with you for awhile then you look at whether a transfer to different accounts or a different role.

As to Mr. Meyer's military service we have exceptions for conscientous objection that allows people to serve in non combat roles. I would also be prepared to venture an opinion that it is partially because of Mr. Meyer's military service he objected to providing sophiticated weaponry to an "ally" that seems to not always align themselves with our interests.
Perhaps he personally or other soldiers and/or Marines he served with got to see personally what happens when these weapons show up in the hands of people without our best interests in mind. For them it isn't a political or business decision- it becomes quite personal....

We see this all the time in our business. Sales Managers hire candidates without the candidate fully understanding the complete role and requirements of the job. At the same time, managers have no idea the reaction of candidates, on these issues, until they are on the job. This is the wrong time to find out.

We have found that Hiring Simulations allow managers and candidates to engage in many of these issues before the hire takes place. In a Hiring Simulation, teams understand how a candidate will react to a situation (as discribed in this discussion) and can make a business decision on the hire. The candidate is also able to understand what is expected of them in the role and can bow out of the hiring process due to ethical or personal beliefs.

As long as the company is conducting themselves in a professional and ethical manner - all parties win in this type of hiring process.

Craig Bissett - www.hiringsimulation.com

Andrew - my response was based on 10 years of experience in these specific matters. The traditional hiring process for sales people will not tell you what you want to know -specifically when dealing with this type of issue.

However, what we have seen with clients throughout North America is that when the candidate is provided an environment (simulations - as if they are on the job today) to fully understand the key requirements of the role - they will discover elements of the job that would have only been seen once they were on the job. One of the Hiring Simulation Assessments most likely would have revolved around the candidate selling the product (rifles) to different markets. In this type of simulation the candidate would have made clear references to their concern to sell into that particular marketplace.
My key point is - the traditional way of hiring does not allow for both candidate and hiring teams to perform the right amount of due dilegence up front. The only way to manage this level of risk is to allow both parties to engage with each other - in real life business activies (related to the role) - not just ask traditional interview questions.

Hope this clarifies my response.

The question of ethics in this case would tend to impact values that transcend what I would term both personal and professional with a focus on the bigger political and national interest picture. When someone accepts employment, while his/her personal views while respected, should not interfere with the larger goals of the corporation. If this happens, then it becomes a conflict between personal and professional issues. The larger question is first whether or not he sought the company's ok to excuse himself from the transaction on personal/moral grounds. Second, if he did; he was nonetheless asked to carry out the instructions and he refused, then it would be grounds for disciplinary action. If he did not then the fault would appear to fall on him. However the Company should have sought to evaluate the individual before they hired such a person. I am not trying to pass judgement, however there is a fine line when it comes to ethics and ethical behavior

What is so difficult to about this situation?

If you are a good CEO / Manager, it is your DUTY to NOT support the sales person UNLESS what was being asked of him / her violated the law or corporate policy. A company is not a democracy. When a person accepts a job, then they agree to do it to their best ability. There is no debate.

If an employee of a company (including sales reps) does not want to do the assigned job, then he or she has four options:

1. Best: Notifies management, requests them to change corporate policy (if feasible)
2. Reasonable: Requests immediate reassignment to another role (if feasible) and supports the new incoming person to do their job
3. Honorable: Resigns immediately (and cites reasons for doing so to HR)
4. Last resort: Gets fired

Companies exist to maximize shareholder value while obeying the law. I don't understand all this discussion about "difficult dilemmas".

Yes, because there so few people with ethic.

Andrew,

As I see it, Dakota Meyer served his country well ... no question. BAE hired Dakota Meyer because (My conjecture, here) he had a very high profile and public persona as a result of his unstinting duty to his country and concern for his fellow marines. Traits that earned him a Medal of Honor.

Dakota's ethics and values obviously conflicted with BAE's business model. Dakota's values, ethics, honor, core beliefs -- whatever you want to label them constrained him from participating in, or at least objecting to, any dealings BAE had with Pakistan.

If you puruse the "issue" that Dakota had with BAE, I think you will find that his objections were expressed in an email to his superiors at BAE and BAE reacted with what I consider inappropriate behavior toward's Dakot's position.

Ethics/values/principles/morals/beliefs are all very nebulous terms when applied to each of us because those things are the result of our individual upbringing, learning experieces and life experiences. Whatever, Dakota's motivation, he did what he thought and believed was proper.

BAE's motivation was one (My speculation) of pique that they could not get their prized pony (Dakota and hie Medal of Honor) to perform, as they wished, in the center ring and that meant that he, and his ethics, were of little monetary value to them.

If we could break all of this down to a simple question of ethics, would we applaud or condemn BAE's actions in this matter? Did they act in a responsible and ethical way given Dakota's background?

Regardless, Andrew, your question was a valid one and sparked a lot of thoughtful response. I enjoyed (and will continue to do so)the responses that have been posted here.

Jake Jakubuwski (Pronounced: JAKE-uh-bus-KEY)

I believe a sales person owes it to his employer to do the best he can for his company and his customers and that when he feels he can no longer do that he should leave. That may sound harsh but what is he drawing a salary for? I can't see any happy outcome for any of the parties if this arrangement is violated. Perhaps the only exception is where he feels the sale would harm his company in some way in which case he is actually acting in his company's interests (which is what he is paid to do) but there should be agreement on that with his management.

Gone are the days when salespeople should be able to sell fur coats to eskimos (if they ever could). I believe no sales job can be rewarding long term unless the sales person believes in his firm and what he is selling.

I have a personal adviser that follows me around in everything I do for myself and for clients. His name is MEL. Every time I am not sure I ask him. MEL stands for It it Moral? Is it Ethical? Is it Legal. As has been indicated in other answers here, and many lawyers prove in court every day, It may be proved Legal But that does not make it Moral or Ethical.

While these standards of M&E can shift by interpretation constantly, there is a general acceptance as to what they are over time in every society. The very definition of a society is "a group of people who share a common set of problems and agree to a shared set of solutions." M,E&L all have these societal definitions.

Run your decisions through MEL.

I accept his position. There are varying viewpoints of ethics and it depends on where you are approaching this from given our individual life experiences. What may be perfectly ethical to most of us may not be to someone like Dakota Meyer. He has made a legitimate stand as it violated HIS ethics (therefore it’s unethical to him), and maybe that of many others also. The consequences of standing up for his ethics is a different discussion

Everyone: thanks for your input. I admire that Sgt. Meyer spoke his mind based on his poignant experience, and that he wasn't in it for the money. Not all salespeople share the same concerns, and I try to avoid making value judgments when I learn that another salesperson lacks the same ambivalence I have about selling to certain types of businesses.

Case in point (which I just wrote about in a blog posted yesterday, inspired by the BAE story): For many years I sold technology to companies involved in the engineering, manufacture, and distribution of cigarettes. I'll add--not insignificantly--that I made a decent commission doing so. As a non-smoking, fitness enthusiast, this is admittedly hypocritical. But given the huge size of the tobacco industry in my geographic territory at the time, I had a choice to sell to these accounts, or to change jobs on principal. I chose the former. As Dave points out, this is more a values issue than an ethical issue. After all, my clients were (and selling a legal product. But, the line that Dave describes is blurry--there are many who could argue that the manufacture and sale tobacco products, while legal, is ethically questionable. Not enough space for that debate here . . . (full disclosure: I have no clients in that industry today).

But I disagree with Craig that such issues can be vetted during the hiring process. At the time I was hired, my manager would not have thought to ask "do you have any issues with selling our technology to the tobacco industry?" because, frankly, he was understandably not concerned with it. And in 1990, I don't know how I would have answered the question anyway. As Gail pointed out, people can have a 'crisis of conscience,' and change their viewpoint. That characterizes my experience with the tobacco industry to a "T." All I will say on that note is that one sales call in particular catalyzed my attitude change. . . .

Overall, I think that senior sales executives must recognize that when a salesperson believes in a customer's mission and values, the likelihood of a successful sales outcome is greater than when he or she doesn't. I think conflicts should be expected, and sales organizations must have the flexibility to reassign accounts, if needed. If you're screening out sales candidates who have moral compunction, well--I don't think you'd find many to hire, although I'm sure there are some.

One challenge that has been discussed is uncovering a salesperson's proclivity to take a moral or ethical position when selling to customers. The friction occurs when the salesperson's values don't comport with the company's desire to create revenue. It also occurs the other way, although we hear about it less often.

I think that challenge is complicated in light of the fact that it's often not possible to know with clarity what moral and ethical dilemmas might occur in the future--if it's possible at all. One person commented on the blog I posted on this (Sgt. Dakota Meyer is Right: Some Sales are Wrong http://www.customerthink.com/blog/sgt_dakota_meyer_is_right_some_sales_are_wr...), suggesting that employees who take an ethical stand on such issues mitigate risks for employers--a position I hadn't considered, but in fact, seems compelling. Following that logic in essence means companies should WANT employees who not only have ethical discretion, but are prone to voicing it.

That doesn't mean supporting the issue, or even agreeing with salesperson, but encouraging the airing of different viewpoints, and making decisions on how, or whether, to pursue business opportunities that hold potential for becomming bad business. Whether to accommodate a salesperson's personal values is one aspect of management decision making.