CONSUMER AND ATTITUDE-BEHAVIOR RELATIONSHIPS

ATTITUDE CHANGE CONSUMER BEHAVIOR AND ATTITUDE-BEHAVIOR RELATIONSHIPS

John Mackey’s attitudes towards wild oats are irrational, individualistic and unconscious. He attributes a rival company negatively towards his believes that his company is better that wild oats disguising himself as Rahodeb. Being a leader of integrity it’s unethical

to perform such an act sepecifically if his position is linked to the company he attacks since they are same industry players. Management of one company that undermines the other verbally without allowing the market forces to dictate free and fair business practices and competition is lethal and is uncalled for in a civilized society. By the fact that john Mackey disguises himself as Rahodeb is a clear sign of guilt and personal acceptance that he knows and believes that he acts contrary to his believes and virtues that he is supposedly required to uphold in his position. 

   Rahodeb is irrational in that he fails to acknowledge his company as an equal counterpart in the industry but rather displays personal opinions not as a silent to the companies but as a competing entity.  Rahodeb is individualistic by considering his opinions justifiable in the context that those opinions are solely individual and claiming that they don’t reflect the voice of whole foods. He sounds contradicting since in his position as Rahodeb he well knows that such opinions and sentiments are unwelcome from his since his personality is direct influence to the grocery industry. Rahodeb fails to consciously admit his motives behind his attacks to the rival company but rather keeps it in a bid to buy wild oats an act that is defaming and derogatory to same industry players. The presence of a common market opens chances for differing opinions from customers of all caliber, however in the contrary Rahodeb predicts the fall of a rival company  to convince his followers to lose trust in wild oats, this is defaming and is an ethical way to gain edge against a competitor and therefore is an unfair game. Rahodeb perfectly knows that stiff competition in the industry is real; he however acknowledges that whole foods don’t bear any brunt in the choppy markets to scare the rival company something that is false. The ill motive behind his sentiments is a clear indicator of unethical practices that need to be avoided given one is in a given position.

John Mackey’s cognitive moral development is in a preconventional level, he is in a stage that is dictated by egoism and exchange believing that his interests are always right and justifiable and fair. He still upholds his practices as opinions that could emanate from any other individual and thus he upholds his reasoning not to use his official name. Mr. Rhodeys cognitive development is that of separate attitude and behavior in that he knows he cats opposite of his fundamentals but rather goes and does the same. He finds it hard to reconcile him by fitting in both sides of the coin as a man of integrity in that he believes he acts contrary to his opinions but goes on and acts contrary to that. Mr. Rahodeb cares for himself and forgets to mind the feelings of other people and the harm he might cause to other people through giving false and misleading information about wild oats. He predicts the fall of a rival company and slams at its market share to create disinterest and lower its publicity as a move he does to acquire it with less net worth.  Legally Mr. Rahodeb justifies his sentiments to avoid being charged of lack of ethics; however he personally knows that he did that for selfish gains camouflaged in free speech and departs himself from his role as a company manager when he does this; however he knows he solely represents his company