On 30 Jun 96 at 21:53, GSCHERL wrote:
> point out potential benefits as a sales
> technique--it is another to > lie.
>
> I can see clearly my wording was in error. The salesman may
> use methods that appear dishonest...methods...not actually say
> anything dishonest.
I understand better now. Since all communication is designed to create
some sort of outcome or affect another in some way, I imagine it is a
question of degree. There is a point where good communication behaviour
(to at least develop shared benefit), becomes selfish, self-centred
behaviour that only benefits the salesperson. Clearly, to sell old folks $
2,000 vacuums by taking advantage of their fears, is unethical, even if no
outright lies are told.
I am sure the same issues are relevant to organizations, in general, and
the degree to which the organization's tactics result in mutual benefit to
staff and the company, or not.
> Some
> sales techniques include using the empty room of an office work
> the prospect up to make a decision. There are many and varied
> techniques. All work to get the prospects to make decisions.
Well, another way to put it is that the tactic is to part the customer
from his money, and place in the salesperson's pocket. To me the critical
issue is mutual benefit. I will not SELL products or services where I
think they will not benefit the client. If they insist, then I will
explain why I feel they should keep their money.
> The salesman uses techniques to complete the
> sale...it's his job.
Yes, I suppose. I don't particularly buy that expression. It was Himmler's
job to....It was Goering's job to....etc. To me that expression is used as
a license to do whatever one wants.
Integrity means something besides doing one's job.
Robert Bacal, CEO, Institute For Cooperative Communication
dbt359@freenet.mb.ca, Located in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
(204 888-9290.
--"Robert Bacal" <dbt359@freenet.mb.ca>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>