Affirmative Action vs. Client Wishes

 Case summary:

As a junior executive at a small advertising agency, the employee is offered a promotion to replace the acting executive who was fired for refusing to comply with client's request to hire white actors instead of African-American ones on the basis of upholding Affirmative Action.

This is a dilemma for the junior executive because on one hand, the firm desperately needs this client to keep it solvent and stay in business. On the other, complying with the client's request may generate backlashes from interest groups and organizations such as ADL, BLM. This might potentially renders the firm liable to Affirmative Action lawsuits on behalf on the African-American actors down the line. 

Decision criteria:

There are 3 main criteria for consideration in this: 

a) The bottom line of profitability of the company. 

b) Legal risks consideration.

c) Prospect of success for the project.  

These 3 criteria will take into account the interests and stakeholders such as the company's interest, the junior executive's personal interest, the consumers' interest, the client's interest, and legal concerns. 

Alternative Solution for the Junior Executive:

1) Refuse the promotion.

2) Accept the promotion but negotiate with the client to reach a compromise in the sense of hiring a Latin actor.  

3) Accept the promotion and do the client's bidding.

Alternative Evaluation

If the junior executive is inexperienced and is not ready to deal with greater accountability, refusing the promotion (option 1) seems to be a safe bet. However, since the project is crucial for the company to stay solvent, if the junior executive refuses the job, chance is that the CEO will just hire someone else to get the job done. The junior executive would lose out on potential opportunity for advancement it will be more costly in terms of time and resource for the company to deliver the project. The activists might be appeased but the company will go out of business, staffs becomes unemployed and the client and consumers get nothing. As such, refusing the promotion (option 1) does not seem to be a good idea. 

Option 2 might appear to be a good compromise since the junior executive gets the promotion, legal concerns are addressed in replacing those African-American with Latin ones without provoking Affirmative Actions. The firm does not have to run into legal risks with activist organizations and the law. The client and consumers may not be entirely happy with this but hopefully it is a compromise that everybody will accept. 

Option 3: "Supply what the client demands" is the simplest and most straight forward. The only concern with doing so is that it may draw negative attentions from activist organizations and potentially lead to lawsuits down the line.

Select the best alternative.   

If I were the junior executive, I would go with option 3: Supply the client with what they demand and replace all African-American actors with Caucasian ones. It's simple and straightforward old school business. Furthermore, It is common demographics knowledge that Caucasians made up more than 75% of the the US population while African-Americans only make up 13% of the population. If we want to help our client maximize sales, it is objectively better to cater to the majority of the population by having them represented in our commercials. It is only fair.

In addition, our firm is a small advertising firm on the verge of insolvency, it is unlikely that we are a significant target for lawsuits and boycott by activist organizations and Affirmative Actions public agencies. The pressure might increase once the firm captures enough market share but for now, public Affirmative Actions pressure is not a concern of top priority.      

While Option 2 seems to be a good idea, it is ultimately unrealistic in terms of bargaining power. Since out advertising agency is a small firm and we need this client's large account to stay in business, the client has more bargaining power than us. In the event that the client insist on using white actors instead of Latin ones on the basis that the majority of targeted population is Caucasian, the junior executive would still have to face the same dilemma and return to square one. Furthermore, given the nature of US demographics, even if the junior executive succeed in convincing the client to use Latin actors, there is no guarantee that the commercial will be successful since it still does not appeal to the majority of the US population. 

Overall, I think option 3 is the best option. I would accept the promotion and comply with the client's wishes.