Years ago at a faculty meeting I mentioned that it was ethics month for the public relations profession. One photography professor scoffed” “so you’re unethical the rest of the year?”
While a little insulting, it was also a fun little jibe. But I think of that now as a certain public relations organization just finished another such month of emphasis on ethics. And I do wonder, now what? Will this emphasis be maintained or forgotten until same time next year?
I was recently a guest on the #PREthics podcast, and the first question had to do with why some people or organizations can articulate ethics but then act in contrary fashion. It’s a good question, and identifies a pervasive problem.
There are a lot of people and organization which point to ethics codes, values, committees, boards, statements, and so on, But is individual and collective behavior consistent with what is said?
In other words, is ethics about principle or plumage?
Plumage of course is the collective feathers of a bird. One most commonly thinks of the male peacock with its vivid array of colors he displays to attract a mate or ward off threats. I worry that too often, ethics is something that is flaunted for show. If ethics is based on principle, it becomes evident when people show they actually care about doing the right thing for all, not just themselves. If it is plumage, it quickly is apparent that the primary concern is not ethical action but self image.
In the advertising and public relations ethics and law course I teach, I start day one by having students read a short article. It includes two surveys of students like themselves. In one survey the students are asked if specific professional behaviors are ethical or unethical. A significant majority percentage identifies certain practices as unethical. In a second survey, however, students are asked if they were on a job would they do certain things that they had just identified as unethical. It is alarming how many said yes. It is as if they said “that is unethical obviously but I would go ahead and do it in my career.”
The disconnect is explained by social norms theory. That is to say, when making decisions people don’t just consider the situation before them but the social impact of their decision. The calculate what others will think of their actions, or what others they admire would do in a situation. The concern is what others think of them, not what they think of ethical behavior.
Sadly, this is not just a student phenomenon. There are numerous famous cases, as well as examples of people I know personally, where ethics is something to bring up to impress others, not to guide one’s own behavior. We have businesses who violate their own advertised ethical values. Professional associations have ethical codes but their own leaders do not adhere to them. And individuals are happy to share publicly that they serve on an ethics board or council but reticent when it comes to calling out violations of the ethical standards they claim to champion.
It comes down to plumage. It’s about getting attention, not committing to intention.
When it comes to genuine intent or motivation, there are four levels that encourage actual ethical behavior. At the individual level, one simply desires to be a good person, a true professional. I have my students write their own personal ethics code and tell them some times they may have to choose their own values over their job or employer. A second level is organizational. If someone is fortunate enough to work for an organization that has not just ethics on paper but a true culture of ethics, any individual will likely be motivated not to be that person who violates ethics and brings shame on the organization. The professional level is third. This means a person wants to uphold the reputation of the industry or profession itself. In other words, a professional would not do something unethical and perpetuate a negative stereotype of public relations. Finally, there is the societal level. At this level an ethical professional seeks to be ethical so they can provide positive value to society, and not harm it.
So it is a good exercise for any professional considering their ethics to ask what their true intentions are. Do they practice a situational ethics in which they do what suits themselves in depending on various factors? Or do they take a deontological approach and consider ethics a duty that does not diminish even if enacting the ethical behavior would be painful to them or their organization?
I recall a CEO I counseled a long time ago telling me that a person’s actual ethics is revealed by what they do when they think no one is watching. It’s a good self check. I also think of the Apostle Paul writing “am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God?” (Galatians 1:10).
The thing is, people are watching sooner or later. And as for approval, acting with integrity is often favored more than impact.
In other words, principle is far more attractive than plumage.
