Glengarry Glen Ross and Military Recruiting

This movie hits near and dear to my heart as I had worked in the recruiting business for the United States Army Recruiting Command (USAREC) for 12 years “selling” the lifestyle of the Army in regular recruiting (high school and junior college graduates) all the way to very specialized recruiting (targeted professionals such as Catholic Priests) with graduate and post-graduate degrees[1]. The reason it hits near and dear to my heart is that I have been able to witness a complete change in recruiting practices where tactics used in Glengarry Glenn Ross were not only the norm, but were celebrated to new recruiters as exactly the way recruiting was to be performed to where ironically it may have gone too far to the other side of sales as mentioned in Bowie and Werhane’s Management Ethics chapter on the ethical treatment of customers (Ch. 4) concerning David Holley’s middle-ground approach to sales. This will be shown later.

In the earlier part of my recruiting career, the sales model was to present enough benefits through “cold-calling” (telephone prospecting off of high school and college enrollment lists[2]) to get a customer (potential recruit) to agree to sit with us[3]and learn more about the opportunities of the Army. Although “text-book” recruiting was very ethical, the closing techniques (overcoming objections) that were employed unofficially involved everything this movie showed such as the role-playing as was displayed by “the machine- Levine” and “Ricky Roma” when the client had “buyers-remorse” and in the beginning of the movie where a high pressured manager came from “down-town” to yell and scream about “A-B-C… Always be closing”. 

One major difference was A-I-D-A was not our acronym. But the unofficial motivational speeches from First Sergeants, Master Trainers and higher were exactly like this monologue from the leaders “downtown” in the movie:

“Attention, Interest, Decision, Action. Attention— do I have your attention? Interest — are you interested? I know you are ’cause it’s f__k or walk. You close, or you hit the bricks! Decision— have you made your decision for Christ?!! And action. A-I-D-A. Get out there!! You got the prospects coming in. You think they came in to get outta the rain? A guy don’t walk on the lot lest he wants to buy. Sitting out there waiting to give you their money! Are you gonna take it? Are you man enough to take it?”

The old style of recruiting was ethical in and of itself. It was taught to the Army by such heroes of the day as Zig Ziglar, Bryan Tracey, etc. It was as the Management Ethics book put it a day when the seller had more information than the buyer.  The process was straight forward and still used today for the most part. That was as the official Army’s Recruiter Journal (February 2002)[4]put it:

“The five basic sales skills found in USAREC Pam 350-7 and used by all of us – military, civilian or contractors – are:

1.       Establishing rapport

2.       Determining needs and interests

3.       Presenting features and benefits

4.       Closing and handling objections

5.       Determining qualifications”  

     The first three were straight forward and ethical. The last two were officially to be done in the most ethical manner possible, but it was common knowledge that under the intense pressure of “making numbers” from the Commanding General’s staff on down, the rewards for high achievers could mean extra money such as Recruiter Incentive Pay (RIP) similar to commission for civilians and Special Duty Allowance Pay (SDAP)[5]contrasted with the grueling mental and time-wasting punishments like “low-producer” or “zero-roller” training on weekends and possible career ruining relief boards especially for the middle manager called “Station Commanders” (which would be Kevin Spacey’s character “John Williamson” in the movie) for those that were in a slump. This pressure was enough to make such monikers popular in recruiting like “If you aren’t cheating your aren’t trying” pushing individual recruiters to steal leads, contracts, and even recruiting stations “poaching” contracts from each other’s areas in addition to “qualifying” unqualified applicants for service.

  

                The two most unethical areas of recruiting were also the unethical areas of the movie- specifically one that relates to the movie that being “closing and handling objections”. In recruiting, we used a process called FEBA- facts, evidence, benefits, and agreements which was refined more succinctly with FEBWAC (Facts, Evidence, Benefits, [paint in the customers mind a] Word picture, Agreement and Close) which was used to close the deal with applicants and influencers (parents). If they did not close, we were to resort to ORJ which stood for a phrase we were to use to get to the prospects “real objection” and overcome it by stating something similar to this example from the same Recruiter Journal (February 2002):

                Closing: Asking for a commitment to enlistment

“Are you ready to join our great Army Team?” The type of close your applicants need will vary. In USAREC Pam 350-7, you have good, clear examples of closes to master and add to your arsenal:

The trial close. It is nothing more than a temperature check, asking for an opinion or feeling about the Army or specific Army program and analyzing the reaction. Never ask for a decision!

The two-choice close. Gives the applicant a choice – Monday or Tuesday.

The single-question close – Simply ask the applicant to enlist.

The already-enlisted close – This close must start at the beginning of your presentation because you assume all the way through that your applicant has enlisted. (Sally, while at basic training, you will … )

The challenge close. This closing method works best with younger men. You must be careful how you use this one. You must be on friendly terms with your prospect or this may backfire. (John, you don’t have the guts to jump out of an airplane.)

The weighted close. This close involves the buyer weighing the pros and cons of an enlistment, then making a decision based on the outcome. In this technique, placing the pros and cons on a piece of paper so the applicant can visually compare helps. Use the five senses to reinforce the pros and cons.

There are many types of closes, but the ones listed above are the most common. It is important to recognize that knowing when to close is as important as knowing which type of close to use.

Handling Objections: Identifying and dealing with questions or requests for more information.

First you will need to determine if the objection is a true objection. Simply state as an example, “So if you didn’t have to leave home, then you would join the Army? Is this correct?” In many cases the prospect will conceal the true objection. Handling objections is covered in USAREC Pam 350-7 para 5-3e. As stated there, you cannot overcome an objection, you can only make it appear less important. Remember, never … ever … challenge the applicant’s beliefs!

The following is a nine-step process to help handle the true objection.

1. When you close, if the applicant says yes, congratulate him/ her on becoming a part of the Army team, then continue on with the process.

2. When you close, if the applicant says no, using your established rapport, ask the applicant for his/her reason.

3. Once he or she states the reason, restate the reason they gave to ensure both parties understand clearly.

4. Using your rapport, ask the applicant if the reason he or she said no was discussed, removed or dealt with, would they agree to join the Army.

5. If he or she does not want to join the Army then, it is a smoke screen, (go back to step two), and state, “It’s obvious you have another reason, do you mind if I may ask what the reason is?”

6. If applicant says he or she would join the Army, you have found the true objection (go to step seven).

7. Handle the true objection. A common method is the feel, felt, found method.

Example: John I understand how you feel about leaving home. A lot of my friends have felt the same way. John, they found out that after they left home, they had time in the Army to come back home and visit. They also met new friends who quickly became their family away from home. I remember using my 30 days’ vacation with pay to travel with my newfound friends across America. You will also have the opportunity to visit home and this will be one good reason to get your red Corvette. You can drive home too. Now John, don’t you agree the Army can assist you in achieving …?

8. If the applicant says yes, see step one.

9. If the applicant says no, go back to step two.

This nine-step process will help you stay on line and not be afraid to handle what amounts to nothing more than an unanswered question or request for more information.

Obviously the example used above was an “official” example and on the ethical side of recruiting. But it was common knowledge that you said whatever it took to close the deal and get this guy to the independent processing station called the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) where testing (mental and physical) were completed and was so hated by recruiters it was called getting the applicant past the Military Entrance Prevention System (MEPS). This included some recruiters illegally performing as ringers for the ASVAB entrance test, employing drug screening using chemicals to alter samples, falsifying documents such as diplomas, hiding dependents from the record (i.e. single parents) and so much more[6].

Fast forward to a time of high unemployment and now a drawdown of the forces and the Army has seized on this opportunity and reformed recruiting- almost to the other extreme. The Army transformed to “team” recruiting where individual recruiters are not held to account for numbers, rather the office manager (now called Center Commanders) are held to mission success for the entire team. Unfortunately, now the Army has missed parts of its mission due to no consequence for missing goals repeatedly. This contrasts with the civilian free-market where bottom performers are retrained and only retained if their rolling average is increasing to the company average. 

This is where I feel the book has a good middle ground approach mixing ethics of utilitarianism (greater good) for sales employees with those of Kants ethics of “rights” such as being told the honest truth and allowing the customer to decide with less pressure and no dishonesty.  This also goes to the ongoing stockholder vs stakeholder debate and the middle ground where businesses (or the military) achieves its goals for the stockholders (taxpayers for military) and the stakeholders (also taxpayers for the military). 

The book correctly states that there are two areas that no sales entity should enter using Kant’s ethical approach to dealing with clients. The book quotes a Kant scholar named Christine Korsgaard for which I will partially quote (the quote). “According to the Formula of Humanity, coercion and deception are the most fundamental forms of wrongdoing to others…” Deception and coercion (above normal ethical closing) violates the trust of the community and hinders long-term growth of the corporation as a whole. This is why Arthur Andersen is now Accenture and why (my opinion) Amway later changed its name to Quixtar and then later back to Amway. The brand names themselves were ruined by deceptiveness.

Bestselling author Daniel Pink on Salesforce.com gave some key takeaways from the movie Glengarry Glen Ross. He states that the best sales companies serve first and sell next. The new ABC’s of selling according to Pink is:

• Attunement- Get out of your head and learn to see things from the customer’s perspective. 
• Buoyancy- Learn what to do before, during, and after your sales encounters to remain afloat in the ocean of rejection.
• Clarity- Instead of being a problem-solver, become a problem-finder that can sort through massive amounts of information to ask the right questions and uncover challenges your customers don’t know they have.

The bottom line takeaway is that sales and business climate in general has changed. Business has to move to a more ethical middle of the road stockholder and stakeholder approach. They must sell knowing that the customer has a wealth of information at her fingers, be socially responsible in practices beyond business (e.g. the environment, charity etc.), and be seen as a net positive rather than a greedy corporation not to be trusted all while increasing sales and providing meaningfully employed taxpayers for society. 

Recruiting has begun to change its image but must still find the middle approach so as to stave off any future drafts while providing employment, training, and education to millions of volunteer service members and to do this is to remain a trusted institution wisely using the taxpayers money to provide for the common defense of the United States reliably and ethically without resorting to sales tactics that hurt the image at the very beginning stage of an all-volunteer military…the recruiting process. 

References

Bowie, N. E., & Werhane, P. H. (2005). The ethcal treatment of employees. Management ethics (pp. 40-60). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub..

Eschenburg, A., & Pink, D. (2013, July 16). 3 Key Sales Takeaways from Daniel Pink. Salesforce.com Blog. Retrieved February 2, 2014, from http://blogs.salesforce.com/company/2013/07/sales-takeaways-daniel-pink.html

               

---

[1]Professionals would also include lawyers, doctors, surgeons etc.

[2]These lists were provided to us by any public educational institution or private institution receiving certain education funds under the No Child Left Behind Act and the Solomon Amendment of 1996 or they risked losing these funds.

[3]Although I am speaking as a private person (unofficially) in reference to the Army, “us” can be used loosely to refer to all the services under the Dept. of Defense to include the US Coast Guard as their practices (especially the Marine Corps) are very similar to ours.

[4]For complete article, it is available publicly on the net at http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/apa/download/RJ/feb02.pdf

[5]RIP pay has since been rescinded and SDAP is currently being phased out)

[6]Although known to be happening, Recruiting Command did punish those that were blatant and made news (embarrassing the Army) such as this news story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuoMkuY3yAMor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkZexBvOk3k

Quick case against unions

Based on prior writings, it will probably come as little surprise that I take a more Utilitarian-Freidman approach verses the Management Ethics textbooks Kant-Freeman approach in regard to unions. Not that one is inherently evil, the latter just simply does not recognize the different attitude and independence we enjoy verses the authors drooling love-fest for the European and Japanese role of unions in business. Considering the constant high unemployment rate of both Europe and Japan, I am not sure that imitating their business practices is really in our nation’s interest.

The textbook author believes Kant has six characteristics of “meaningful work”. They are:

1.      Work is freely entered into (I Concur)

2.      Workers should be autonomous and independent (I Dissent)

3.      Workers should develop his/ her rational capacities (Neutral)

4.      Workers should have a minimum wage sufficient for physical welfare (I Dissent)

5.      Employers should support the moral development of workers (Partially Dissent)

6.      Employees have the right to live as they feel (Partial Dissent)

 

         Please note that one item I concurred, one was neutral, two were a partial dissent, and the rest I wholeheartedly disagree with. The first characteristic is the hinge for which I disagree with most of the others. Work is a free choice. No one stops one from working somewhere else. In the event one chooses not to work, the party of our President ensures they will not starve by taxing the wealthy and giving it to those who choose not to work. Characteristic number two is correct when off-duty, but on the clock, the worker has only the independence that the employer (and the mission) allows. This is especially true in the private workforce.

            Characteristic four should be decided on by the collective free-market and regulation put in place by elected representatives. Be that union or government- that will be discussed later. Characteristic five I feel is only a duty of the employer if that employer finds it reasonable to protect herself from employee illegality/ liability such as that of a stockbroker. Characteristic six violates the clause of many contracts of employees of church schools, public institutions, and any institution that’s reputation is built upon a key characteristic. For instance, a Jesuit school may force an employee to sign a contract that the employee will exemplify Catholic and Jesuit values. A hospital may have a complete ban on smoking. A police department may forbid moonlighting as a porn-star.

            The question at hand is who is responsible for advocating on the behalf of the employee and the employer? Although I believe unions should be legal, I do not believe in the government forcing collective bargaining on a private company who is otherwise operating within the confines of the law as this puts many businesses at a disadvantage of fellow non-union businesses in addition to every businesses regulatory landscape already imposed by local, state, and federal government (e.g. EPA, OSHA etc.)

            Unions were needed long ago prior to enacting labor laws that now exist to ensure a  minimum wage, over-time laws, safety and age regulation etc. Today, unions are antithetical to the controlled free-market that exists and places our employers behind our global competitors with the exception of Europe and Japan listed above. In our case, legislation has codified the noble endeavors of early unions by providing a legal remedy against abuse and violation of human rights. Today’s unions are merely fronts for the Democrat Party by forced union membership and dues[1]in many progressive states, and kill productivity by over-protecting the lazy and unmotivated[2]. In addition, they artificially raise wages beyond the free-market demand passing these costs onto consumers who then opt to buy imported goods from other countries.

            So how should companies avoid being unionized? One is to locate to a “Right – to –Work state which has less protection for unions in hope of a better business climate attracting employers to set up shop. Second, pay above the industry average for workers with meaningful benefits. This does not mean that your average Walmart worker is going to get the same benefits package as the executives at Walmart, but better paid employees do have more loyalty and work ethic especially when they feel good about what they do (corporate climate).

            Finally, the average worker can unite with fellow workers by joining political action committees (such as unions) to legislate benefits similar to the way the Democrat party was elected and enacted the Affordable Care Act nationwide, higher minimum wages such as in D.C.[3], or cleaner air by giving the EPA more power etc. The will of the people will provide the check and balances on business and the rich CEO’s and political donors will likewise push legislation to keep the American workforce competitive. The free-market and advocacy groups are another check and balance for and against business practices of the United States.

            Again, I believe anyone off a company’s private property should be able to form clubs, unions, and advocacy groups as they see fit. But I am adamantly against unions having the right to organize on a company’s private property and being allowed to go on strike with big-government preventing their termination. Public sector unions (an inherent conflict of interest) will need to be addressed another time. But I despise them even further.

 

References

Bowie, N. E., & Werhane, P. H. (2005). The ethical treatment of employees. Management ethics (pp. 40-60). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub..

 

---

[1] Right to Work states have combatted this forced unionization of all workers and automatic deduction of dues.

[2] A great example is the documentary “Waiting for Superman” which addresses the powerful teacher’s union

[3] There are other ways through tax-reform, social policy etc. to ensure higher wages, less welfare dependency, and a better business climate. For instance, removing income tax and taxing property and goods will slow automation in favor of less expensive human capital.

Three main theories of ethics- Which is best?

Which of the three main theories of ethics (utilitarian, Kantian (duty) or Aristotelian (virtue) best fit your approach to moral dilemmas as well as moral situation and why one approach is better? As a person who espouses personally a socially conservative- Christian based lifestyle, politically I am a constitutionalist Libertarian which makes my social policy somewhat moderated while remaining a financial conservative. I mention this only to shed light on my approach to ethics based on the three posed in the question.  

In a managerial setting, I believe in using my personal values to shape the leader I am while operating under the knowledge that in a global world, many cultures and norms may be different than mine. An example of this is having my own beliefs of marriage in contrast to a potential business partner or employee from a more liberal European (or even Canadian) culture with a completely different set of values. I can believe what I may as far as religion or even “family-values” and will always look to church teaching and the Bible to guide those, but in a secular business setting, I must sometimes separate personal feelings (albeit how strong they may be) from what is best for the organization as a whole.

I do not believe any one of the three approaches to ethics should be a text-book black and white solution for all situations. Business decisions, personal moral decisions, and the blending of the two is too broad for any one approach to always win over another ethical approach.  In most leadership decision making settings (especially the larger the institution), I am of the opinion that the Utilitarian approach is what is needed for the greater good of the organization by choosing the action with the most benefit to the largest proportion of the workforce and the least harm to both the organization and to those it may negatively affect. It is my belief that true leaders must make tough decisions that not everyone is going to like. In the Army, we like to say “It can be awfully lonely at the top!”

However, there are times where a Kant-ian approach is better. Kant’s approach also called the “Rights Approach” is that everyone has the right to truth, the right of privacy (thoughts, beliefs, off-duty actions etc.), the right to safety (based of course on one’s freedom to choose risks), and the right to expect agreements to be met. The professor and I had a short “e-conversation” based on a moral issue that the military recently went through and how Kant’s theory could apply in a private setting without government trampling on anyone’s rights by forcing one to act contrary to their beliefs while keeping in mind that we do not work in a homogenous environment. I will discuss this further below.

The least effective approach in business but most effective in my personal Christian life is that of the “Fairness or Justice Approach” which as the text states has its roots in the teachings of Aristotle. Ironically however, this is the same approach used by those who would advocate against a devout Catholics personal beliefs and label one as a discriminatory close-minded bigot. This approach is supposed to advocate against favoritism and real discrimination (i.e. racial prejudice) to ensure fairness and equality with everyone walking away feeling their opinions mattered. But what essentially remains the main flaw to this approach is who is the purveyor of what is fair, unfair, right or wrong behavior that should not be treated on the same level as true morality?

For instance, the Catholic belief of conception at marriage equates a fetus to a living baby which endows it to inalienable (natural) rights. But to many humanist, life does not begin until birth and some more moderate beliefs is that life begins when the child is viable and/or feels pain. The point being that in a business setting, this approach would be hard to implement without everyone agreeing on a final authority of absolutes.

This leads me to the moral dilemma of one’s personal rights to not be forced to buy a product for a situation that violates a business owner’s conscience without discriminating against the person(s) seeking equal treatment based on the civil laws of the land. Several recent arguments were (and still are) front in center as of this writing. That is the acceptance of gay marriage in the military (government and public), the forcing of private companies to extend benefits to same sex spouses, and the insurance mandate to provide for abortions and/or contraception.[1]

So the question is what approach is formidable given the broad area of commerce covering so many different facets such as public commerce, private commerce, and non-profit and religious commerce and the blend of any one of these in a complex global business world? Some would say that Congress with the Affordable Care Act used a Utilitarian Approach for the greater good of society. Yet this country was founded by a constitution that guarantees a Kantian approach of individual liberty to choose for themselves what is paid for or not out of one’s personal treasure (property). This argument is shakier for government institutions as the Utilitarian approach (outside of legislating against the rights of private entities) is more suitable as the governments job in many peoples mind is that of remaining neutral and simply providing for all (also a blend of the Aristotle approach).

With the case of extending benefits to domestic partners of the same sex, the solution (based loosely on a conversation with Professor Gustafson[2]) is some businesses may not extend benefits to any particular family members and instead extend them to any person in the home. Another option would be to allow benefits to go to anyone an employee chooses so long as the employee incurs the added costs. This way, a private company is not being forced to violate their rights of consciousness.

However, this argument would not hold well for contraception or abortion care in an insurance policy provided to anyone out of a devout Catholics company’s treasure as it violates their belief that life at conception gives natural rights that cannot be ethically infringed upon by anyone. In my opinion, the government could (and should) simply exempt those whose conscience it violates and realize that not all healthcare[3]will be paid for by insurance anyways. Elective contraception is free in many cases or very low cost in others. Abortion, being a surgery that is elected in the majority of cases should be dealt with on par with plastic surgery or cosmetic dentistry.[4]

The final point is where I witnessed firsthand dramatic change in the right to serve in the military to include those that are openly gay. I am personally against homosexual behavior, but I am more against government intrusion into the bedroom and in a public occupation, the government (we the collective people of all values and norms) must take great care when defining what morally qualifies or disqualifies one for public service. A litmus test must be done to show how off-duty behavior effects on duty performance.  Obviously one that is addicted to illicit drugs will carry over into on-duty behavior. Whereas religious schools and charities may object to out-of-wedlock parenting or homosexual behavior and thus have a case to bar hiring people that will damage the norms of their private institution, government simply cannot operate in the same light.

In conclusion, the question posed is harder to answer than it appears on the surface. We are in a complex world of business in a fiercely independent American society. Each case merits its own answer and it would be a disservice to automatically apply one ethic approach to potentially very different settings.

---

[1] As of this writing, the SCOTUS has placed a hold on the mandate. Read about the debate here http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0103/Lift-stay-of-Obamacare-contraception-mandate-in-nuns-case-Supreme-Court-told

[2] Andrew Gustafson, Ph.D. is a professor of ethics at the Heider School of Business, Creighton University.

[3] I use the term “healthcare” in a secular setting here as I do not believe ending a fetus’ life outside of extreme circumstance is healthy care.

[4] Note that I am against abortion even as a Libertarian minded voter because I do believe that life created regardless of gestational age enjoys rights granted from the Creator or nature that cannot be taken away.