Banking, bastards and the trolley dilemma
People generally intend to do good, but when faced with complex decisions, the outcomes are often ethically questionable, writes Square Holes’ Jason Dunstone.
The Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry is likely of little surprise to most people. “All banks are bastards” is a generalisation that most have suspected, or known, for a long time. The royal commission confirms the obvious.
Yet, likely no one sets out to do wrong. It is far more complicated than that.
Hmmm
Good intentions Jason and Im sure no one reading this would doubt what you propose.
I work in that gap in the banking and finance sector. We literally spell that gap out every day as banking and finance media that covers the problems the industry face in trying to deliver what the marketing teams of the financial institutions have promised over the last 5-10 years since the GFC.
Its such a complicated area I dont know where to start however possible a good place to start is “Dont promise what you cant deliver”.
When marketing people came up with slogans like ‘We are putting the customer first” Of Customers are at the center of every this we do” they had no idea what they were promising.
Thats almost forgivable but when the CEO swallowed the same pill, its not!
Banks were not set up to be truly customer centric. Did anyone think about that before they let the marketing slogans rip?
Thanks Andrew for taking the time to comment. I think we are agreeing. Hopefully what came out of my ramblings is that ethical decisions can be tricky. While being customer focused may not be viewed as the most profitable route by some organisations, it is the ethical route. It is a hard gap to overcome when the highly competent marketers know it should be about ‘more than money’ but the general business model is fundamentally all about the money.
A hard gap to overcome indeed if the issues presented in the documentary, “The Corporation”, are largely correct. Until the majority of shareholders are not “all about the money”, what can really change?
And, therein lay the dilemma James. 😀