Wells Fargo has been under fire for unauthorized banking accounts that were opened in its customers’ names as a result pressuring its employees to make sales. First-hand accounts from its employees were published in the New York Times October 20. Alongside the article is an advertisement for Wells Fargo (see right)…
…which links to a Letter of Commitment to its customers:
And just like that, no more sales goals for Retail Banking team. No where in the NYT article does the term “retail bank” or “retail banking” appear. Which makes me wonder, will WF just change their phraseology? They have to come up with an alternative way to generate profit, and if it’s through the services they provide (likely) via banking, they’ll have to rethink their strategy. Note, this is not a letter of apology, therefore it is not an admission of guilt. All other proof and facts external of WF can say what they might, but the guilt cannot come from the party itself. Banking, like Journalism, is a business, and it’s not news that big business and ethics rarely mix. When a company is “too big to fail,” it’s because it has invested, invests, or partners with other companies, seeking opportunity to grow. In doing so, it compromises its or its partners’ moral or ethical values. So what does it mean, in this country, to “grow”? If we had to pit the verb against a similar verb, like “evolve”, the difference may be clear. “Grow” may simply mean to expand or inflate as with air, or fat, an excess of which has potential to harm; whereas “evolve” can imply an internal motivation and intuitive movement toward betterment of self and humanity, learning from the past and changing it, not just masking it in rhetoric and strategy that has the same initial purpose–to grow in size, full of air.
A corporation is not a person, therefore it cannot say sorry.
Can we grow and evolve at the same time? That’s what we want to do.
Is The Message 