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. 

I laughed out loud, sardonically, when I received an email from PRSA asking me to take a survey. They also encouraged me to come back to the organization with a membership discount incentive.

At first I was going to ignore it. But I looked at the survey. True to form for this flailing organization, they asked the respondent to sign a statement that they would not share the contents or design of the survey.

So, transparency is still not a thing for a public relations organization that sells accreditation and promotes an ethics code that touts transparency as a professional value.

Let me be transparent. After decades of membership in this organization and service from the local to national levels, there is nothing that draws me back. The organization is professionally irrelevant, personally insulting, and ethically suspect.

They are professionally irrelevant because they offer programming that is fundamental. I have years of experience, a PhD, and am members of other organizations which feature high-level discussions led by veteran CCOs on a range of current topics from a management perspective. Meanwhile, PRSA’s very expensive annual conference features keynoters who are celebrities, not experienced public relations professionals. 

They also sell accreditation in public relations  (APR), which a member pays for to get study materials and take the exam, and then pays to maintain it every three years. It’s a nice revenue stream for the organization. But they do nothing to promote APR externally to hiring managers, CEOs and others who may favor a candidate with APR if they know what it is. I chaired the national committee on APR for several years and mentioned this to leadership and was rebuffed. My own research with two co-authors shows a tepid enthusiasm among members for accreditation, and those who do pursue APR say it is mostly for intrinsic value but there is little recognition from employers.

I also can share that PRSA is personally insulting. I ran twice for the national board and was told I was a “PR purist” and that I violated the diversity policy because I expressed publicly my biblical worldview on social issues. I blogged about this previously and I would point out again that their rejection of me for my faith is a violation of their own diversity policy, ethics code, civility statement and quite possibly the law. Many other veteran professionals—those with APR and membership in the College of Fellows—have expressed their own dismay at such toxic leadership and shared their own decision to leave the organization.

And this leads to the problem that PRSA leadership is ethically suspect. That’s actually an understatement. Mary Beth West, who challenged leadership and was met with gaslighting and multi-year undeserved defamation in response, has been recently showing the receipts via her “A Better PRSA” Facebook page on the attitudes of national leadership. Through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, she has legally obtained disturbing PRSA leadership email exchanges that show disparaging remarks about members (even some that sound excessively threatening and often are expletive-laden), clear discrimination toward members of faith (including faith-based universities seeking certifications or accreditations that PRSA helps control), an expressed disinterest in a Black woman for leadership, admissions of their own poor processes, favoritism for their own inner circles, and concern that people “will walk away” if they experience poor process and leadership. West has previously shared information that shows the organization has not been forthcoming with financial and membership numbers that would keep members from making fully informed decision about joining or renewing, another concept from its own ethics code.

Again, both West and I have heard from many, including veteran and accredited professionals, who have share our concern and have left or are considering leaving the organization. Unfortunately they don’t all speak publicly about this, somewhat because of intimidation by leadership and witnessing what happened to West. 

It saddens me that I have great respect and admiration for many PR professionals in my local chapter, including a large number of former students. I benefitted from PRSA when I was a younger professional. But I speak up because I am concerned that many at the local level don’t all realize the full truth of the toxic mess at the national level. 

So I don’t look at potential new programming or a minor financial discount as compelling and a reason for me to jump back on a sinking ship that would rather steer away than fix the holes. The holes include a lack of service to current members at the professional and student level. I see a declining membership and financial position (I’ve been told a $1.7 million deficit and 25% headquarters staff cuts were “acknowledged” in a memo to a limited few earlier this year). I see poor management and insidious bias. I see not only no reason to return, but relief that I left and am not wasting my time serving an organization that disrespects me.