Wal-Mart Slaps Back at Ex-Marketing Execs - But is the Move Smart?
Today we see that Wal-Mart is playing tough in dealing with two marketing executives that the company fired last fall for an alleged conflict of interest when awarding the company's significant advertising account. As part of its court filings, Wal-Mart included emails that it claims are between the pair that allegedly (Wow, multiple qualifications in the same sentence.) to show an extra-marital affair between them. The company also claims - and I can't tell if there are emails to back this up - that the executives were accepting gifts and also talking to one chosen agency about getting permanent jobs there.
It may be that all this is right and that Wal-Mart had a legally-defensible reason to can both of them. But let's think beyond this for a moment. At least one of the executives, Julie Roehm, sued Wal-Mart for firing her without a reason and for owing her money under her contract. I can't imagine that this won't cost the company more than it will save. Even though it apparently is seeking reimbursement for its own legal fees, is it realistic that they'll ever collect the money?
More importantly, from a completely practical view, is to ask what the company strategy is. Does management hope to scare other potential problems? I'd say that it's more likely to scare off good management candidates instead. People aren't going to want to work at a place that is likely to air their personal dirty laundry - and we all have some in some form or other - in public when that suits its needs. Also, people in management do keep their own interests in mind all the time. No, you shouldn't be looking for work from companies when you're in the position of giving them money to avoid at least the appearance of a quid pro quo. But combined with the releasing of the emails, ambitious and talented people are likely to do a risk analysis and conclude that the benefits aren't going to outweigh the potential costs. How much cheaper - and quieter - would it have been to pay off their contracts? Sometimes driving a hard bargain can make the total price dear.
It may be that all this is right and that Wal-Mart had a legally-defensible reason to can both of them. But let's think beyond this for a moment. At least one of the executives, Julie Roehm, sued Wal-Mart for firing her without a reason and for owing her money under her contract. I can't imagine that this won't cost the company more than it will save. Even though it apparently is seeking reimbursement for its own legal fees, is it realistic that they'll ever collect the money?
More importantly, from a completely practical view, is to ask what the company strategy is. Does management hope to scare other potential problems? I'd say that it's more likely to scare off good management candidates instead. People aren't going to want to work at a place that is likely to air their personal dirty laundry - and we all have some in some form or other - in public when that suits its needs. Also, people in management do keep their own interests in mind all the time. No, you shouldn't be looking for work from companies when you're in the position of giving them money to avoid at least the appearance of a quid pro quo. But combined with the releasing of the emails, ambitious and talented people are likely to do a risk analysis and conclude that the benefits aren't going to outweigh the potential costs. How much cheaper - and quieter - would it have been to pay off their contracts? Sometimes driving a hard bargain can make the total price dear.
Permalink posted by Erik Sherman at 8:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home