Who cares if you violate the IABC Code of Ethics?

What would you do if you had an opportunity to use proprietary information from your former employer? What values, principles and loyalties would stop you -- or encourage you? If you used it without first seeking permission, would you violate the IABC Code of Ethics? Who cares?

These questions and more are addressed in the following case study based on research the author conducted with IABC members and others.

While reading the case, imagine yourself in the role of the new director of public relations for Anderson Towers. Would you have done what she did? Did she make the right decisions?

The case of closing a hospital's homeless health care unit

Anderson Towers, the older of two hospitals in a sprawling middle-class suburb, hired as its director of public relations an energetic communicator who had been director of marketing and public relations at the Beltway Medical Center, the newer and more prosperous of the area's two hospitals. For financial reasons, the executive board of Anderson Towers decided after months of deliberations to close the hospital's Indigent Care Unit, which had been taking care of many of the area's homeless. The nearby Beltway Medical Center did not have a program for the homeless. The County General Hospital, which was not located within this suburban area, had the only health care program for the homeless -- but, it was understaffed and inadequately funded.

Prior to making its decision, the board of Anderson Towers proposed to the board of the Beltway Medical Center that the two institutions share the administrative and operating costs of a coordinated homeless health-care program. The proposal was rejected. The board of Anderson Towers also asked the county government for assistance, but the chairman of the county executive board said the proposal could not be considered at that time.

The senior administrator of Anderson Towers asked the new director of public relations to release information about the board's decision "without generating undue negative publicity." Though his suggestion was to release the news as quietly as possible, the new director of public relations wanted to pursue another approach.

She wanted to hold a press conference and invite all the local media. But, before she discussed this plan with her new boss, she first called her old boss, the senior administrator of the Beltway Medical Center, and informed him of her board's decision and of her tentative plans to hold a press conference. She asked him for permission to release part of the results of the market research she had conducted for the Center. He denied her request, stating her replacement at the Beltway Medical Center might release the information, if appropriate, at a later time. She told her former boss that she understood, and would not discuss the research at the upcoming press conference. He said that with the approval of key board members of the Beltway Medical Center board, he would put the Anderson Towers proposal for a homeless health-care consortium back on the board's agenda for their next meeting.

She then met with her new boss and presented her plan. She told him that she had helped design and knew the results of extensive market research conducted by Beltway Medical Center about the public's perception and media coverage of the quality of health care provided by area hospitals. She suggested that the best way to release the information was to hold a press conference with hospital doctors and administrators explaining the board's decision. She explained to her new boss that such a highly visible approach to releasing the information would not only disclose the information about eliminating the homeless health-care unit but also reposition the hospital on the homeless issue if those speaking for the hospital emphasized one common message: that all hospitals in the area -- not one alone -- should share the responsibility for caring for the homeless; that a consortium should be formed among the area hospitals to deal with the homeless; and Anderson Towers was prepared to work with local hospitals and appropriate funding agencies to create such an area-wide health care program for the homeless.

She told her boss she was confident that this message would be well received because the market research she had conducted at the Beltway Medical Center had indicated public and media support for a consortium approach to the homeless. She also knew the board of Beltway Medical Center had initially rejected the earlier proposal for a consortium from Anderson Towers, not because they didn't approve of the concept, but because other priorities kept them from giving it serious consideration. Consequently, the director of public relations for Anderson Towers predicted the decision of the board would be understood and appreciated not only by area residents and local media, but also by the board of the Beltway Medical Center.

At the press conference held in a conference room in Anderson Towers, none of the hospital administrators or doctors mentioned anything about the market research of the Beltway Medical Center. When asked to justify the decision to close the Indigent Care Unit, the senior administrator of Anderson Towers made the following points: The hospital could not afford to take care of the area's homeless; any solution to the homeless health care problem could not be addressed unilaterally by any one hospital, including County General; all hospitals should offer a coordinated health care program for the homeless, supported by a consortium of public and private funding agencies; the board of Anderson Towers was ready to help build such a consortium; but, in the meantime, the Indigent Care Unit of Anderson Towers would remain closed.

The ethical solution

The communicator in this case acted ethically not only according to the IABC Code of Ethics, but also according to her own set of values, principles and loyalties.

The IABC Code states that a professional communicator should not use confidential, proprietary information without permission. In this case, the director of public relations asked for, but did not receive, permission from her former employer. However, she did use the knowledge she had gained from the research to plan her approach to the press conference. This, too, she did fairly, with the knowledge of her former employer. Throughout her decision-making process she was candid with both her new boss and her former boss about what she knew and how she intended to use that knowledge. This behavior, also, was supported by the IABC code, which states that professional communicators should encourage candid communication.

Who cared about what she did?

What if she had released the information? Would it have done any harm? Maybe not. However, her former employer did have legal recourse. Using proprietary information without permission would have exposed her and her new employer to legal liabilities. Even if no legal actions were taken by her former employer, the threat or mere discussion of such actions would have strained -- if not jeopardized -- her tenure with her new employer. Furthermore, had she behaved unethically, her reputation and future employment prospects would have been diminished.

Had this communicator, as a member of IABC, disclosed proprietary information without permission, her unethical action could have been reported to IABC. Then, possibly, the incident would have been considered by the ethics committee and others within IABC.

See the sidebar which lists the three functions of the IABC ethics committee -- especially, the description of the formal procedures required when ethical violations by IABC members are reported. While sanctions (including one-year suspension of membership privileges) can be imposed against IABC members who engage in repeated code violations, rarely is this necessary. The main purpose of the IABC code -- including its procedures for enforcement -- is educational.

IABC CODE OF ETHICS #2

Professional communicators will not use any information that has been generated or appropriately acquired by a business for another business without permission. Further, communicators should attempt to identify the source of information to be used.

When one is changing employers, information developed at the previous position will not be used without permission from that employer. Acts of plagiarism and copyright infringement are illegal acts; material in the public domain should have its source attributed, if possible. If an organization grants permission to use its information and requests public acknowledgement, it will be made in a place appropriate to the material used. The material will be used only for the purpose for which permission was granted.

THE SITUATION

* Beltway Medical Center does not have a health care program for the homeless. The Center possesses extensive market research on health care services and public opinion about health care issues in the community.

* The board of Anderson Towers proposed to the board of the Beltway Medical Center that the two institutions share the administrative and operating costs of a homeless health care program; but, the proposal was rejected.

* The board of Anderson Towers also asked the county government for assistance, but to no avail.

* Consequently, the board of Anderson Towers voted to close the hospital's homeless care unit.

* Just prior to the board's decision, Anderson Towers was able to "hire away" the director of marketing and public relations from Beltway Medical Center.

VALUES

* To make money; or, at least, to stop losing money.

* Not to be -- or even appear -- insensitive to the homeless.

* To consider all available information and all options.

* To be candid and above board with all parties.

* To protect the long-term interests of the hospital.

LOYALTIES

* To the homeless.

* To the media.

* To the community at large.

* To her organization.

* To her former employer.

PRINCIPLES

* Do no harm.

* Achieve the greatest good for the greatest number.

* The cost of solutions for common problems should be shared by all concerned.

* Treat other people as you expect to be treated -- fairly.

* Negotiate in good faith: Be willing to give up some things to gain other things.

FUNCTIONS OF THE IABC ETHICS COMMITTEE

The first function should be to offer an IABC member service in assisting with general ethical questions related to the profession. The committee would not provide legal opinions. Opinions on questions would be solicited from an additional two accredited members and one member at random, and these would be factored into the committee's summary opinion. Names of those requesting and giving opinions would be confidential.

The second function of the committee would be the professional development of members on the subject of ethics, working in conjunction with IABC's professional development committee. Efforts should be made to inform and educate members on matters of ethics, focusing on helping individuals develop ethical decision-making skills that are independent of IABC policy.

The third function should be to review and sanction violations of ethical conduct among members as they reflect on IABC and the communication profession. If a member's conduct is deemed by the director responsible for ethics to violate IABC's ethical code in a way that jeopardizes the credibility of the organization and profession, then the matter would first be discussed with the individual to determine the facts of the situation. Then, if circumstances warrant, the matter would be taken up by the ethics committee. The individual's name would be kept confidential. In addition to the committee's deliberation, at least three additional opinions would be sought in any decision. Two opinions would be solicited at random from the pool of accredited members and one from a member-at-large. The IABC director representing ethics on the executive board would be an ex-officio member of the process.

McElreath is head of the IABC ethics committee. The ethical case described in this article is based on research reported in McElreath's Managing Systemic and Ethical Public Relations (Brown and Benchmark, 1993).