Business and professional ethics as a derivation of our communication ethics formula

When grappling with the concepts of a new chapter in Communication Ethics Literacy, I often find it helpful to relate new ideas (in the case of Chapter 10, notions of public testing, temporal direction, and the dialectic of direction and change) to an established model of communication ethics as first discussed by Arnett et al. in Chapter 1. Throughout the semester, we've repeatedly returned to notions of "the good," our postmodern historical moment, "the Other," and the pragmatism of learning. Viewed as a linear progression, we come to any interaction with our established good, recognize the Other and the existence of a competing good, occupy a space of pragmatism and openness to learning about this other good, and contextualize it all in the postmodern moment of narrative and virtue contention. In a similar fashion, a business or professional setting has its good (broadly, "continuing existence" [174]), brings that good to bear in micro-level interactions with clients, consumers, or employees (the Others), and stays attentive to the demands of pragmatic learning (through public testing, self-critical examination borne from the perceptions of the Others). Finally, a company with an eye survival recognizes that, in our postmodern moment, temporal direction--a plan "ever willing to shift, change, and reverse itself to meet the needs of success and excellence" (185)--is the only way to successfully meet and absorb the lessons of narrative and virtue contention.

Business and professional literature would have us believe otherwise, frequently emphasizing the company's ability to chart its own success by innovating in a linear, upward fashion, ignorant of the market demands that only become apparent through public testing. Success and survival in business is not a ladder to "the next big thing"; a new idea or intelligent response to consumers could lie behind, to the side of, beneath, or above traditional modes of thinking. For this reason, I take skepticism toward the assertions of Sorescu et al., researchers who (as I will further explain in this week's presentation) claim to encompass business innovation in six "themes," or plans, that a business might follow for a competitive advantage (Sorescu et al.). Among these themes are "customer lock-in" (the creation of brand champions through exclusive products, as with Trader Joe's and Target) and "operational efficiency" (a streamlined customer experience, like Priceline.com's "Name your own price" tool).

But in my personal experience, I've seen where a failure to stay attentive to public testing thwarts these models. For example, I and (presumably) other college-aged students would love to receive airfare and hotel rates that are reasonably affordable under our constrained budgets. Yet I've grown accustomed to my expectations of travel expenses being thwarted by the reality at every turn. A trip to Los Angeles in June might cost hundreds of dollars more than I feel is fair given the quality of service and lodging, so the "Name your price" model of Priceline.com is ineffectual--what I expect to pay, or want to pay, is rarely in sync with options that are realistically close to, say, the E3 2014 convention center or the time of day that I need to be back by. Similarly, the creation of brand champions among your loyal consumers only works if you have unique, desirable goods that are priced competitively and can't be found elsewhere. But even competitive pricing doesn't work without attention to detail and an eye for design. In other words, don't follow the example of Sears. The pragmatic need for public testing and temporal direction emerges in these and other cases where adherence to and blind faith in a "proven" business model sinks a ship faster than frequent change and adaptation to market demands, even when it means tossing aside what's worked for decades.

Source: Sorescu, Alina, Ruud Frambach, Jagdip Singh, Arvind Rangaswamy, and Cheryl Bridges. "Innovations in Retail Business Models." Journal of Retailing 87.1: S16-S3. Web. 13 Apr. 2014.