Ethics in the real world: an upcoming training program will help communicators understand and develop ethical business practices.

From writers and editors to public relations professionals, all communicators have the potential to influence public perception.

Recently, CW has dedicated quite a bit of space to the topic of ethics in corporate communication, including commentary about ethical practices and related research. In the January-February 2006 issue, CW unveiled the key findings of the IABC Research Foundation's comprehensive study "Ethics in Business Communication," funded by Hewlett-Packard and ROI Communications. The findings call strongly for training in and understanding of ethical issues.

In their article "Under the Microscope," researchers Shannon A. Bowen, Ph.D., and Robert L. Heath, Ph.D., revealed that nearly 70 percent of survey respondents had studied or received training in ethics "not at all" or only at a cursory level. To address this gap, a second part of Bowen and Heaths study offers organizations a four-part training program to help educate communicators about ethical business practices. The program will be released later this year as part of an IABC Knowledge Centre manual that will include the study's key findings.

Communicators and ethics

In the first module, the program covers the importance of ethics training for business-people, including communicators. Indeed, each module emphasizes the impact of ethics on relationships, credibility and reputation, or RCR. Bowen and Heath argue that all communications with stakeholders, both internal and external, affect these three elements.

Because of their ability to influence their various audiences, communicators have a responsibility for ethical communication. From writers and editors to public relations professionals, all communicators have the potential to influence public perception. They determine to a large degree how the public will view an issue-what connections and parallels people will draw, what perspectives they will empathize with and what conclusions they will come to. The way communicators frame their message has a great deal of power, as well.

Ethics basics

The second module of Bowen and Heath's training program offers a brief overview of the basic ethical principles found in moral philosophy. One approach to understanding ethics is utilitarianism, which holds that ethical decisions are based on what will create the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In the training, this concept is represented as a scale, with the ethical choice being the side that is weighted with the most positive consequences.

Another approach, deontology, takes into consideration universal and generalized moral principles, independent of the consequences of possible actions. Bowen's "Ethical Consideration Triangle" (opposite page), with corners representing duty, intention, and dignity and respect, is a visual representation of this approach.

Ethics in practice

Presenting, considering and dissecting scenarios that would test a communicator's ethical conduct makes up a major component of the training program. The third module presents for analysis hypothetical situations that program participants could actually encounter. The scenarios test their ability to determine whether a practice would or would not be ethical, and then provide reasons why. One particular case study proposes the use of a tactic called "astroturfing," or creating the illusion of grass-roots support, to prevent a bill from being passed that could negatively affect the participants' industry.

The training scenario

In the astroturfing example, a bill that is likely to have negative effects on your industry is up for consideration at the federal level. Company and industry officials meet with legislators about opposing the measure, but garner little support. They then decide to hire a third-party lobbying firm to help frame the debate in the industry's interest. In a meeting with the lobbyist's staff, you, the communicator, discover that the plan is to recruit local support for the industry's interest that will appear to be a spontaneous, grassroots push of voters. As the planning continues, you also notice that many of the voters to be called for support happen to have the same last name as the local elected representative.

The call center established by the lobbying firm frames the issue in a way that, while somewhat misleading, is not altogether untrue: "Your tax dollars may be at risk if this bill passes." If the contacted voter expresses enough interest, the caller asks if the voter would be willing to raise his or her concerns with the office of the elected representative. If the answer is yes, the caller then offers to patch the voter straight through, and introduces him or her to the representative. Because the voter has the same last name as a prominent local politician in the area, the expectation is that the call will get priority attention.

Analysis and discussion

After being presented with the case, participants are asked how they would engage in an ethical analysis of the situation. Which approach to ethical reasoning would they use--utilitarianism or deontology? They are also asked to map out considerations for using that approach and conclusions.

As it turns out, both approaches conclude that astroturfing, the creation of artificial grassroots support, is unethical (though the practice is alive and thriving, and some firms specialize in it). But the training doesn't stop there: Participants also discuss what to tell CEOs who approve of the tactic, and how to go about it.

In the fourth module, the case is complicated by a subsequent scenario in which participants are interviewed by a political reporter about the bill. If the reporter suggests that someone has hired a lobbying firm to "mislead" voters into calling about this topic, how will participants respond?

Further discussion ensues about approaching the CEO and other leadership, anticipated arguments from legal and financial departments, and what to tell the media. The conclusions are that both analyses provide valid arguing points, and that the "threat" of media exposure is a strong argument for removing the organization from the astroturf effort. The training session comes full circle, back to the contention that these arguments are effective because they are based on the maintenance of RCR: relationships with media, stakeholders, lawmakers and governmental publics; credibility with these groups; and a reputation of honesty and transparent business practices.

about the study sponsors

Hewlett-Packard is a technology solutions provider to consumers, businesses and institutions globally. HP's offerings span IT infrastructure, global services, business and home computing, and imaging and printing. More information about HP is available at www.hp.com.

ROI Communications is an award-winning internal communications consulting firm that helps companies improve their relationships with key internal stakeholders through clear, consistent and compelling communications. Its clients include Adobe, HP, Pacific Gas & Electric, and DreamWorks SKG.

Greg Alger is an intern with IABC's publishing department. Jessica Burnette-Lemon is CW's associate editor.