bus309 week 7 discussion RESPONSE b.t.

Respond to this post in 150 words or more agreeing, disagreeing, or giving an opinion.

In reviewing the case “Speaking Out about Malt” from the very beginning I felt that Mary was acting irresponsibly and disloyal. Mary holds a position as an Associate Vice President and with that title comes responsibility. That responsibility is to be the face of her company and to represent Whitewater Brewing Co. in a positive demeanor. She knew from the beginning what her role is in the company and her responsibility in holding that position. Some would consider this situation a conflict of interest, where her personal life and actions conflict her company and it absolutely does. What kind of attitudes would consumers have about Whitewater Brewing Co and the “Rafter” drink? Printing this article could cause sales do go down, negative views on Whitewater Co from consumers, and mostly if consumers thought the Assistance Vice President had negative views then why wouldn’t consumers? The words in the article do nothing but slander malt liquor and put a bad association with it. Honestly, I feel it should have been common sense for Mary being that she is in the very same industry that she is going to post about. If I were Mary the action I would take next would be to abide by the order to conform as to keep her job and keep negative views on the company. I don’t feel the company is “invading” her rights at all. They are protecting their product and reputation. It would be “invading” if it was another industry whereas no conflict of interest would not exist.