Draft July 29, 2002
Chapter Three
How to Conduct Ethical Strategic Public Relations and Integrated Communications, Considering External Publics, Laws, Public Policies, and Cultural Factors
LO 3-1 Click-thru animation with mouse-overs of line art or stock photos as panels in what might look like a comic strip. No permissions required. Explanation: like all the other opening-vignette Learning Objects for all the chapters. This set of panels depicts a series of heated conversations by two sometimes three men, some on the phone, others in an office.
Panel #1 The chief of the local labor union was obviously anxious and under pressure when he called Ray late in the afternoon to ask for some advice. Ray had conducted a very successful public relations campaign for the union a couple of years previously, but he had not talked with the union chief in six months. The chief said he had a union member in his office who had just been subpoenaed by the local grand jury investigating bribes and kickbacks in the construction industry—and that he was scheduled to appear the next morning! The chief didn’t know much about the situation except that the union member said he had nothing to hide from the grand jury. “How should the union handle the media?” the union chief asked. Ray said it was more complicated than that. They would need to discuss not only short-term strategies for tomorrow morning, but also long-term issues affecting the union. This was only the first union member to be involved in the grand jury’s investigation, which was not likely to be over anytime soon. Ray said it was too complicated to discuss over the phone; it was a very serious situation. He told the union chief to keep the subpoenaed member in his office and that he would be right over.
Panel #2 When he arrived at the union chief’s office, the story from the union member had changed. During the fifteen minutes it took Ray to drive across town, the union member had confessed to routinely taking bribes from a number of construction supervisors over the past several years. Ray had barely sat down when he was told the “new” facts, and that what they now wanted from him was advice about how to put the best spin on the facts without admitting guilt and without creating undue negative publicity.
Panel #3 Ray raised his hand to stop the conversation and quietly asked the union member to wait outside the office. Surprised by Ray’s suggestion, the two men protested, but Ray insisted. When the other man had left them alone, Ray looked at the chief. In a controlled, deadly serious tone, he told the union chief to arrange immediately for a good, criminal defense lawyer to work on the case, and that he, Ray, wanted no part of it, at least not as it was being currently discussed.
Panel #4 The union chief’s poker face irritated Ray. He banged his fist on the table and stood up, saying, “Do you realize by telling me these facts you have involved me in this case? I’m now in the position of aiding and abetting a cover-up—guilty of misprision—a felony! Thanks a lot! You’re in serious trouble. Get that fellow outside a good lawyer, now, immediately. Get yourself a good lawyer. Then call me, if you still want my advice.” Ray then shifted his tone to that of a confidant and gave the union chief the names of a few lawyers. Ray shook the man’s hand and told him, “Take good care of yourself. Listen to your lawyer. Then, give me a call.”
Panel #5 As Ray walked out of the office, the union chief was dialing the telephone. The anxious union member was down at one end of the hallway, pacing by the vending machines. Ray walked in the opposite direction, out of the building.
Panel #6 The next day, the union member admitted to the grand jury that he had been taking bribes. The union chief called Ray and asked him to help work on the case, which he said was now being handled by one of the lawyers Ray had recommended. Ray said he would have to think about it. He called a federal judge who was a personal friend, and they discussed the grand jury investigation in general terms. He also called a prosecutor in the district attorney’s office whom he respected, and they, too, discussed the investigation. Both conversations convinced Ray that many union members, including quite possibly the union chief, were involved in bribery and kickbacks. Sensing what Ray was concerned about, the federal judge had warned his friend, “I know you’ve worked for the union before. But I’d stay away from them this time. They are in it deep. It’s a lot bigger and messier than it appears.”
Panel #7 Later that day, Ray called the union chief and said that because of previous commitments and his heavy workload, he would not be able to work on the case. When the union chief asked Ray for recommendations for other public relations counselors, he declined by suggesting that the chief work more closely with the newly retained lawyer in selecting an appropriate team of advisors.
|
MANY FACTORS AFFECT ETHICAL DECISION MAKING
In strategic public relations and integrated communications
The opening vignette, based upon an actual incident, illustrates a fact of life for a public relations professional: sometimes, the best solution to an unethical situation is to walk, even when it means walking away from a job. The vignette also highlights the fact that public relations practitioners are legally and professionally vulnerable if their clients or the organizations they work for engage in unethical or illegal activities.
The wise public relations practitioner is well aware not only of all the various factors that can create professionally dangerous situations, but also of how to manage them systematically and ethically. In the previous chapter we discussed intrapersonal, interpersonal, small group, and other internal organizational factors affecting ethical decision making in public relations. We also explored effective strategies for dealing with ethical problems, situations and dilemmas created by these factors. In this chapter, we will discuss factors outside the immediate control of the focal organization and how these factors affect the management of strategic public relations and integrated communications.
DEFINING FACTORS OUTSIDE THE CONTROL
OF THE ORGANIZATION
LO 3-2 Click thru with mouseovers of key terms No permission required. Title: Levels of analysis in ethical decision-making Explanation: two side-b-side concentric boxes or, ideally, circles with two-way arrow between the two circles. Same as LO 2-5
Mouseover text for key terms:
Organizational factors: Examples:
Small group factors: Examples:
Interpersonal factors Examples:
External organizations, publics and groups Examples:
Laws and public policies Examples:
Cultural values and beliefs Examples:
|
Outside the immediate control of most complex organizations are dozens—if not hundreds, sometimes thousands, even millions—of individuals and publics with a stake in the operation of the organization. Some of these stakeholders wish the organization continued success; others wish it would stop or change its ways. Despite their numbers, it is not likely that any of these “external” individuals, acting alone, could affect significantly the ethical behavior of any complex organization. Only individuals aligned as members of publics can dramatically affect ethical decision making in public relations. As we have discussed in previous chapters, a group of individuals is not necessarily a public. A group is any clustering of individuals; but unless these people are aware of themselves and act collectively, they do not constitute a public, and they are not likely to influence organizational decision making. A group of individual customers is considered a market; but, it is not considered a public unless its members become aware of themselves and begin the process of organizing themselves for action. Publics may be simply aware of themselves and their issues, but not organized in any way to do anything about the issues--for example, satisfied customers who have not bothered to become organized. Activist publics, on the other hand, are organized to satisfy the needs of their members--for example, dissatisfied customers who are involved in a boycott. Employees and, some would argue, vendors and suppliers are internal publics who are dependent upon the focal organization for their survival. Customers are considered members of an external public. These are groups of people who are aware of themselves, who are faced with a common issue or problem, and who are outside the immediate control of the focal organization. The distinctions among publics, markets and target audiences will be explored in greater depth in this chapter and in Chapter Four.
Also outside the control of most organizations are laws and public policies. Laws are principles and rules established by governments to help regulate society. Public policies are courses of action or procedures which conform to public expectations about how society should be regulated.
Surrounding all organizations and affecting all ethical decision making in society are cultural values and beliefs. Values are concepts, ideals, customs, habits, and traditions within a society—or within an individual, small group, organization, or public—which arouse strong emotional responses, either for or against them. Beliefs are attitudes and opinions that reflect confidence in the truth or existence of something not easily proved.
These factors—external publics, laws and public policies, and cultural
values—constitute the three “higher” levels of the six-tiered systems framework used in previous chapters.
External Consumer and Activist Publics
Each organization has consumers of its products or services. These consumers may or may not be organized into activist publics. If the consumers are not organized, then they are not likely to have a significant impact on ethical decision making within the organization unless members of the organization choose to make consumer-desired decisions. However, unorganized consumers, as a ready and eager market, can “pull” or elicit decisions from an organization that wants to satisfy its consumers. If, on the other hand, an organization is not market oriented or responsive to its consumers, then activist groups are likely to form to force decision-makers to give consideration to consumer demands.1
An example of an activist public formed around a consumer product would be the incident a few years ago involving a group of women who protested the advertising produced by a certain manufacturer of lingerie and women’s apparel.2 From the manufacturer’s point of view, the female models wearing lingerie and photographed in provocative poses were presenting the company’s products in a very logical, attractive way—as they would be worn. The activist group, however, considered the poses pornographic and initiated a public relations campaign against the company that included calling a press conference and giving the manufacturer a dubious achievement award for excellence in sexist advertising. Both sides viewed the same set of ads and perceived different images—one saw positive stereotypes, the other negative stereotypes. The incident was a classic example of ethical relativism.
Activist groups can also organize around issues such as consumer product safety, civil rights, community development, labor-management relations, government actions, or the environment.3 An example of a single-issue activist group would be the Sierra Club, which focuses on environmental issues. Research indicates that the people most likely to join such an activist group are concerned about a wide variety of issues relevant to the group. These all-issue activists do not join in order to gain personal benefits; rather, they join because they agree with the group’s philosophy, and because it is a way for them to delegate their social responsibility to an organization dedicated to benefiting all of its members.4
A special type of single-issue activist public is a labor union. It is special because it has the force of law behind it. Backed by legislation such as the U.S. National Labor Relations Act, the Australian Commonwealth Industrial Relations Reform or the North American Free Trade Agreement, activist publics can require employers not only to meet specific expectations but also to safeguard the rights of labor unions to exist.i For example, US employers must not prevent dissemination of labor news to its employees; they cannot publish biased information about labor-management relations; and they must allow their employees to vote in a fair election for union representation. Labor unions, with their own public relations specialists, lobby for effective labor legislation at national, state, and local levels. They also serve as corporate watchdogs, often providing private and public channels of influence for whistleblowers.5 Other examples of activist publics and special-interest groups with the force of law defining and protecting their rights include political action committees, philanthropic organizations, and public relations agents representing foreign governments.
The underlying philosophy supporting the role of activist groups in society has been called “interest-group liberalism,” which makes the assumption that what is good for special-interest groups dedicated to the common good must be good for society.6 The assumption does not address two ethical problems: (1) that the definition of what is good for society depends upon the values, principles, and loyalties of each special-interest group, and (2) that there are so many types of groups.
Radical and Mainstream Activist Publics
There are radical and mainstream activist publics and scores of variations in between. Activist publics which have adopted radical and often shocking tactics have been accused of conducting unethical public relations campaigns designed to psychologically and physically harm their target audiences.7 There are activist publics representing every political and economic philosophy, from the far right to the far left. For every major organization in society, there are several activist publics that are focused on it, trying to influence its social performance. Similar to saying that people are best known not so much by their friends as by their enemies, some have said the position of an organization on political or economic issues can best be determined not so much by the types of suppliers, vendors, and consumers it has, but by the types of activist publics it has attracted.8
Terrorists versus Freedom Fighters as Activist Publics
The bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City in 2001 is only one example of terrorist using acts of violence to gain media attention to their cause. Often the primary reason for the terrorist attack is to gain media attention. As a result of the bombing, the US declared a war on terrorism. In addition, the US launched a global public relations campaign to win the propaganda war being waged by these terrorists and other anti-US activist groups.
Freedom fighters or terrorist: what are the differences and similarities? The US founding fathers engaged in destructive acts designed to gain media attention and public support for their cause. Were the US founding fathers freedom fighters or terrorists? "Suicide bombers" are considered freedom fighters by radical members of the Palestine Liberation Authority; yet they are called "suicide murderers" and considered terrorists by the Israelis. How these individuals who are using acts of violence to gain media attention and public support for their causes are defined depends on the cultural framework of the person classifying those acts. One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist. Both are engaged in strategic public relations. Certainly their violent acts are illegal. The bigger question: Are the actions of terrorist and freedom fighters ethical? The Journalist's Toolbox, an online resource, contains a variety of resources that public relations practitioners and journalists can use to better understand the communication implication of the war on terrorism.ii
Unrelated to warfare but equally as disturbing is the trend of marketplace terrorism--for example, product tampering. The Foundation for American Communications has an extensive Web site to help reports and public relations professionals better understand how to deal with product tampering issues.iii Individuals who engage in this type of behavior are using violence to intimidate others: they are engaged in terrorism.
Mainstream activist publics and special-interest groups have been criticized because of their overall impact on society. Olson has argued that the special interests of activist publics often are in conflict with the general welfare, even though most of the activist publics are interested in collective rather than individual goods.9 His argument is that organizations, especially governments, when threatened in just the right way, will meet the immediate needs of special interest groups and not meet either the long-range goals of the organizations or of society. For example, Olson’s research correlated the decline of economic power of nation-states with the rising power of special-interest groups.10
Competitors
Competitors are definitely outside the control of the focal organization, and they exert significant influence on ethical decision making. The actions of competitors are often used to justify the ethics and performance of an organization. Because competitors threaten vital interests, they want to know as much as possible about each other for two main reasons: (1) they don’t like to be surprised, and (2) they want to win in the marketplace. In order to track the competition, among other matters, public relations practitioners often engage in environmental scanning—what some have called the gathering of “marketing intelligence.”11
There are legal and ethical distinctions between industrial espionage, marketing intelligence, and environmental scanning. Espionage is the practice of spying, clandestinely collecting information to gain an advantage over someone, especially the person or organization from whom the information was gathered. It is illegal when it involves breaking and entering or stealing tangible and intellectual properties. It is always unethical because it involves duplicity and invasion of privacy.
Professionals involved in environmental scanning and marketing intelligence are very much concerned about the ethics of how they gather information. Public relations law scholar Morton Simon reported on one study that indicated,
. . . businessmen believe that ethical considerations are important in gathering information; company policy is the main force that assures ethical methods; state and federal laws are the second most important deterrent from illegal information-gathering; espionage—pirating of personnel or information secured through a business intermediary such as a common customer—is the most objectionable practice in the gathering of information; marketing-information acquisition is not inherently unethical; most intelligence work is generally overt; information gathered surreptitiously is not an important part of the information flow; covert practices are costly and they are effective only in the short run.12
From another point of view, most public relations activities give away information, even to the competition. For this reason, public relations practitioners have been described as being in perpetual jeopardy when they try to ethically scan the environment, protect corporate secrets, and meet corporate disclosure requirements.13 Because there are so many points of view from so many stakeholders, public relations practitioners will be damned if they do communicate effectively, and damned if they don’t.