Thomas H. Grover and Dr. Brad L. Rawlins, Communications

Public relations practitioners are sometimes confronted with conflicts between competing values or interests. Resolving such conflicts oftentimes requires public justification of the decision. Undergraduate Thomas Grover, working with professors Brad Rawlins and Kevin Stoker in a mentored research experience as part of an Office of Researh and Creative Activities (ORCA) grant, presented the results of research conducted to determine how pr practitioners make such ethical decisions at The 6th Annual International, Interdisciplinary Public Relations Research Conference in Miami, Florida, in March 2003. The following proceeding outlining the results of the research was written in a press release format for pr professionals for the conference. Gary* was tired of working for others and decided to use his experience in journalism and public relations to start his own PR firm. While struggling to find clients, he was approached by an organization offering a steady account. He turned it down because it conflicted with his personal and religious beliefs.

“I had no clients. When I look back I think I should have been so much more worried about my family eating than I was,” he said. But, “we didn’t feel comfortable doing that. Back in those days when those accounts would have helped a great deal, I felt good about the fact that we stayed true to what we felt.”

Mary*, director of public relations for a bank, says it is important for her to be ethical in her job. When asked how she knows if she is being ethical, she said: “I just go with what you’ve got instinct in. You know things [you] are not supposed to do and supposed to do. But you know that anyway. … I just go with what I feel is right and with what I feel is wrong.”

Reliance on instincts and gut feelings to resolve moral dilemmas was a common response from 31 practitioners interviewed by a Brigham Young University research team. However, most ethical philosophers suggest that justifying ethical decisions require more than the application of subjective feelings.

Using a test for public justification of ethical dilemmas formulated by Sissela Bok, a noted Harvard philosopher, the research team analyzed in-depth interviews conducted over a 2-year span with practitioners across the U. S. and from various backgrounds, work experience, and job positions. Individual statements of how a practitioner came up with a solution to an ethical problem were analyzed according to Bok’s test. Of the 125 statements meeting the above criteria, 26% were expressed as doing what’s right according to moral instinct or feelings.

The first step of Bok’s test is to consider all alternatives that would minimize harm that would not be considered morally questionable. She says actions such as concealing information or not being completely honest require additional moral justification. The second step requires considering the moral reason or principle behind the action. The final step checks the reasonability of the first two steps by testing it against “how a public of reasonable persons would respond to such arguments.” This step is known as the test of publicity.

Bok identifies three levels of publicity in this test. The first level is to consult one’s conscience about the decision. This level is different from gut instinct because it requires a dialogue in with one’s “better self.” The key to the test of publicity is to discuss the reasoning of your decision with another, if it is within yourself.

“I think through the problem considering what I have been taught by parents and other influentials,” was typical of this kind of statement. Only 8% of the analyzed statements made mention of thinking the problem through their conscience.

The second level is to seek input from expert or trusted sources such as co-workers, friends, or professional/organizational codes. This dialogue overcomes the personal bias of the first step but is vulnerable to professional or organizational bias.

John* said making a decision was a combination of personal inclination and guidance from respected supervisors. “Obviously, peer conversation, understanding how peers have dealt with similar issues in the past” is helpful he said. Aside from gut feelings, peer consultation was the most popular statement (22%) dealing with an ethical dilemma. In most cases, practitioners discussed the problem with their colleagues or supervisors. In some cases, family and mentors were consulted. Another 13% of the statements mentioned organizational and professional codes. The third level, Bok’s greatest test of publicity, is to consult in person with people affected by the decision or to conduct a hypothetical conversation if it is impossible or impractical to discuss the issue with those persons. This step takes into consideration points of view and self-interests unique from your own.

In addition to including peers and supervisors, Robert* includes clients in the discussion when applicable. “Anything related to an ethical issue, then it’s going to include that caliber of people,” he said. Only 9% of the statements were coded as an appeal to the third level of publicity. Of those, about half were hypothetical discussions with the affected publics and the other half mentioned getting actual feedback from the stakeholders.

The research team acknowledge that the results of this research can’t be generalized to all practitioners because of the limited sample used in the research method. They plan to conduct more quantitative and descriptive research on this subject in the next year. * All names have been changed to protect the identities of the research participants.