Constructing a Personal Framework for Ethical Reasoning
Philosophers have been thinking and writing about ethics for thousands of years. Yet their theories boil down to three general approaches that focus primarily on consequences, duty, or virtue. Even feminist ethics, while correcting the patriarchal excesses of the past, principally focuses on duties of justice and care.
Each theory has strengths and weaknesses. The best approach probably borrows from all three. The key, however, is to design an approach particularly suited to the kinds of situations in which you will most likely find yourself in the practice of public relations.
We constructed such a framework based on the principles and theories we have discussed. We are not suggesting you adopt it wholesale. We are just using it as an example of what a framework might look like. It has four parts:
• Issue definition
• Stakeholder Identification
• Evaluation of Options
• Making and Justifying Decision
The real value of any framework is in identifying the questions you should ask before you need to ask them. If you do this within the context of your current job, it should be relatively straightforward. In the fog of an ethical dilemma, you won’t have to do more than refresh your list of stakeholders and you’ll have a head start on identifying the ethical principles most relevant to your function within all three domains of virtue, duty, and consequences.
Framework for Ethical Reasoning
Define the Issue
1. Describe the ethical issue or problem in two or three sentences.
2. List all the salient facts with most immediate relevance. Include any external pressures you feel—political, economic, interpersonal, or social.
Identify Your Stakeholders
3. List the potential stakeholders in this situation (i.e., all the people who might be affected and all the people to whom you owe a duty). Describe their current state of mind and heart.
Define Your Options
4. Develop at least three options to address the situation. List best and worst cases for each.
Evaluate Options
5. For each option, identify the pros and cons (benefits and costs) for each set of stakeholders, including your client. Take into account harms/cares, issues of justice, duties, rights, and personal values.
• Harms/Cares: How would stakeholders benefit, would anyone be harmed, what costs would stakeholders pay?
• Duties: What are your duties in this situation? Does this option respect the integrity and freedom of those affected? Are you using those affected as a means to an end without consideration of their human dignity? Is your decision free of vested interest or ulterior motive? Would you be willing to make this option a rule to be followed by others?
• Rights: What are the stakeholders’ rights in this situation? For example, is there a rule, law, or code that would automatically invalidate one of the options? Does your relationship with the stakeholders carry explicit or implicit rights?
• Values: Does this option represent behavior and standards for which you would like to be known? Would this option violate your personal values? Is it consistent with the exercise of these values?
Make a Decision
6. Use this analysis to choose your course of action. Select the option that allows you to fulfill your most important duties, is in keeping with your values, and has the best consequences for the people affected. When your only choice is between two harmful actions, choose the one that does less harm. In all cases, be especially careful not to unconsciously justify a decision you had already made.
7. Reexamine your decision until you’re sure you have the right balance, then justify it based on ethical precepts as if you were addressing the person least likely to agree.
Ethical decision making calls for great humility. Our understanding of the universal principles underlying ethical choices is almost always flawed in one way or another. We can do our best to conform to our values, do our duty, and produce the most good. But we will seldom be 100 percent certain that we have made the right choice.
Dan Ariely, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal and an expert in cognitive behavior,1 offers some good advice:
When we face decisions, we are trapped within our own perspective—our own special motivations and emotions, our egocentric view of the world at that moment. To make decisions that are more rational, we want to eliminate those barriers and look at the situation more objectively. One way to do this is to think not of making a decision for yourself but of recommending a decision for somebody else you like. This lets you view the situation in a colder, more detached way and make better decisions.
This framework for ethical reasoning is really not complicated (see Figure 13.1), but it does require some hard thinking. The following example illustrates it well.
Figure 13.1 When faced with an ethical dilemma, consider all options but select a course of action that produces the most good, fulfills your obligations, and is consistent with your values. Reexamine your decision until you’re sure you have the right balance and are not simply rationalizing your initial opinion. Be prepared to justify your decision based on ethical precepts.
Case: Monkey Business at AT&T2
Back in the 1980s and 1990s, before the advent of electronic social media, AT&T published a monthly company magazine. It was mailed to all 300,000 employees’ homes because the company wanted their families to understand its business goals and performance.1
AT&T spent almost $1 million a year, producing and distributing the magazine, which was written by members of the public relations department but designed and printed by an outside company. The magazine won numerous awards and was recognized by many as a world-class publication. Unusually for an internal publication, employees actually read it because the magazine was studiously candid about the company’s performance and printed employee letters that were often critical of management. While this was sometimes uncomfortable for line management, the leaders of the public relations department did a good job of insulating the editors from executive complaints and meddling.
In fact, the magazine’s editorial staff prided itself on being a self-managed team. What they wrote for the publication was reviewed by subject matter experts for accuracy and by the law department for potential legal issues, but no one else reviewed the magazine in advance of publication. Occasionally, however, the staff had to pull an article at the last minute because a technical reviewer raised issues that could not be resolved by the press deadline. That is what happened as the September 1993 issue was going to bed. A one-page article at the back of the magazine had to be pulled and the editors decided to substitute a fun “quiz” on the company’s international business.
The production manager, a young African-American employee new to the magazine staff, called the outside designer and asked him to prepare a layout for the quiz, using the rough copy she was about to fax to him. The designer, in turn, asked a cartoonist he had used many times in the past to prepare some suitable illustrations.
The next day, the cartoonist had faxed some illustrations to the designer, who pasted them into a layout with copy, which he faxed to the production manager. The fax she received was dark and blurry, but she approved the layout. She had already approved the typeset copy, which had arrived the night before, also by fax.
As soon as the first copies arrived in the magazine’s offices, the editor knew she had a problem. Each cartoon character illustrating the quiz about the company’s international businesses was human except the character in Africa who was a monkey. The cartoon appeared to be a racial slur comparing black people to monkeys. Ashen-faced, she brought it to her boss’s attention. The full run of 300,000 copies was already on its way to people’s homes, including those of the company’s 45,000 African-American employees. What would they think?
There were clearly ethical implications to what started as a sloppy production mistake. AT&T was (and still is) one of the most generous corporate donors to African-American organizations, including the NAACP, the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, the Urban League, and historically black colleges. At that point, 25 percent of all African-Americans with PhD’s in electrical engineering had received financial support and mentoring from AT&T. The company was a pioneer in minority purchasing and spent more than $1 billion a year with firms owned by people of color. Furthermore, even during extensive downsizing following the divestiture of its local telephone companies, AT&T took pains to ensure that the company’s diversity profile was not adversely affected. In fact, it actually improved. But, despite all these good efforts, there were still few black executives in top positions. And it had just mailed a cartoon to every employee’s home that was at best disrespectful of its African-American employees and at worse was abjectly racist.
What would you do? One of us was faced with that very question. He wishes he could say that he had the benefit of a well-considered framework for ethical reasoning. He did not. But, in the years since, he has applied this situation to the illustrative framework described above. It took only about 1,500 words, though in practice it would also have involved consultation with other managers responsible for relationships with each stakeholder group. That points up the other advantage of developing a framework for ethical reasoning—it can help get everyone on the same page in analyzing what are almost always complex situations with crosscurrents of interests and multiple perspectives.
Sample Framework for Analyzing AT&T Case
Issue: The company magazine has been printed and distributed with what some will consider a racist cartoon. It shows people in different countries talking on the phone. Each cartoon character is human except the character in Africa who is a monkey. The cartoon appears to be a racial slur comparing Blacks to monkeys.
Relevant facts:
• The magazine is already in the mail to the homes of 300,000 employees and cannot be recalled.
• African-American employees account for 15 percent of the workforce.
• White employees believe they are suffering reverse discrimination.
• The company has a very high profile in the community.
• The company has a very good relationship with such organizations as the NAACP and the Urban League. It has a good record on diversity and is considered a corporate leader on the issue.
• The cartoon is relatively small and on the last page of the issue.
• A freelance artist, working for the outside company that designs the magazine, produced the cartoon.
• The woman who approved the art is African American. Her immediate supervisors are both white women.
• The magazine has won numerous awards and is considered one of the best in the industry.
• Some community activists could use the cartoon as an excuse for demanding that AT&T set even more aggressive goals in hiring and promoting minority employees and purchases from minority suppliers.
Stakeholders:
• African-American employees: They already believe they are underrepresented in upper management and continue to suffer discrimination. This cartoon will insult them. At best, it will appear insensitive; at worse, it will appear to reveal unconscious bias.
• Other employees of color: They share many of the concerns of African-American employees and will demand an explanation and corrective action.
• Other employees: Many will be embarrassed and question the competence of management. Some will be incensed and demand broad corrective action. Some will wonder what all the fuss is about and say employees of color are overreacting.
• The broader African-American community: They will be concerned and demand a full explanation as well as corrective action. Some will see this as an opportunity to press for broad action on affirmative action.
• Magazine staff: They will be embarrassed and worry about their jobs.
• Designer and cartoonist: They will worry that we will throw them under the bus. They may also be defensive and try to deflect blame.
• Customers: Some customers who become aware of the situation may question the company’s values. A few may write letters of complaint. Some may even threaten to cancel their service. Experience suggests few follow through.
• Suppliers: Few suppliers will react negatively. Some will be sympathetic. A few high-profile African-American suppliers such as the editors of Black Enterprise and Ebony will demand personal explanations, but they are unlikely to do more than criticize the company for allowing this to happen.
1. Hunker down. Ignore the cartoon. Deal with complaints individually as they come in.
Best case: the controversy dies after a few weeks.
Worst case: the controversy gathers steam, involving outside activists.
a) Pros/Cons:
• Company: Potential cost could be loss of employee and community trust, especially among people of color. It could also signal that the company is not serious about racial issues. Potential benefit could be less disruption and lower financial cost. There is always a chance this could blow over before it becomes a problem.
Net: cost higher than benefit.
• Employees: Potential cost in a missed opportunity to reassert the company’s commitment to equal opportunity and intolerance of bias. Potential benefit in avoiding disruption and distraction by allowing the issue to blow over. Net: cost higher than benefit given low probability that issue will blow over.
• Magazine staff, designer, and cartoonist: Potential cost includes disruption and tension of waiting for the shoe to drop. Also staff will bear cost of replying to complaints that do emerge. Potential benefit includes possibility that not drawing attention to cartoon may lower its visibility. Net: benefit higher than cost.
• Customers: Potential reputational risk.
• Suppliers: High-profile African-American suppliers may be surprised and dismayed if they hear about cartoon from third parties. Cost to them would include a violation of trust if issue blows up, along with criticism from some quarters for their continuing relationship with company. Benefit would include keeping them out of controversy. Net: costs are higher than benefits.
• Harm/Care: All stakeholders could be harmed in varying degrees by ignoring the issue until it develops. Trust in the company could be undermined. Other stakeholders could be even more offended if it appears the company is ignoring the issue.
• Justice: To ignore the issue is to appear to condone it, which violates our employees’ right to a bias-free environment.
• Rules: The Company’s Code of Conduct clearly forbids cartoons that mock people’s race. We have a duty to correct harms and to honor people’s personal dignity.
• Categorical Imperative: I would not be comfortable if “hunkering down” were the universal solution for situations such as this.
c) Values: I do not want to work for a company that ignores harms committed against employees until forced to pay attention.
2. Take responsibility. Issue an immediate apology to our employees, explaining how it happened and describing steps to ensure similar mistakes never happen again, including sensitivity training for all involved, reassigning the production manager who approved the artwork, and never using the cartoonist who executed it again.
Best case: African-American employees accept our apology and corrective action. Worse case: African-American employees do not accept our apology and are outraged that we seem not to understand the depth of their concerns. They enlist outside help to force real corrective action.
a) Pros/Cons:
• Company: Potential cost could include giving the cartoon greater visibility. Potential benefit could include retaining employee trust.
Net: benefit higher than cost.
• Employees: Potential cost in disruption and distraction. Those who consider response an overreaction will feel we are playing favorites. Those who consider response insufficient will feel betrayed. Potential benefit includes deepening feelings of trust and pride in company by taking concrete action to reassert company’s intolerance of bias and commitment to equality.
Net: benefit higher than cost.
• Magazine staff, designer, and cartoonist: Potential cost includes shame of responsibility for racist cartoon and having to spend time in training. Potential benefit includes pride in being part of positive response.
Net: cost higher than benefit.
• Customers: Potential reputational costs. Little upside.
• Suppliers: High profile African-American suppliers could feel that their trust in company has been vindicated. Still, cost could include criticism from some quarters for their continuing relationship with company. Benefit would include credible response to criticism.
Net: benefit higher than cost.
b) Duties:
• Harm/Care: Action corrects harm and cares for affected employees.
• Justice: Respects our employees’ right to a bias-free environment.
• Rules: Adheres to Company’s Code of Conduct. Honors people’s personal dignity.
• Categorical Imperative: I would be comfortable if responding in this way were the universal solution for similar situations.
c) Values: I would be proud to work for a company that takes its employees’ dignity seriously and responds aggressively to violations of its Code of Conduct.
3. Take definitive action. In addition to apologizing, announce that we have ceased publication of the company magazine. Also announce concrete goals for increasing the representation of minority employees in management and for increasing purchases from minority suppliers.
Best case: All employees consider this action appropriate and are willing to put the issue behind them.
Worse case: African-American employees consider the action inadequate and some white employees consider it another example of preferential treatment.
a) Pros/Cons:
• Company: Potential costs and benefits same as in Option 2. In addition, cost of developing new employee communications vehicles. Additional benefit includes signaling the seriousness of the company’s corrective actions.
Net: benefit higher than cost.
• Employees: Same costs and benefits as in Option 2, • with greater weight on the side of benefits despite the • potential cost of a suit brought by the designer for wrongful termination.
Net: benefit higher than cost.
• Magazine staff, designer, and cartoonist: Benefit of shifting employee communications to electronic and face-to-face media earlier than planned. Costs include transition • expenses and serious blow to morale within public relations department.
Net: immediate cost higher than benefit; long-term costs and benefits in balance.
• Customers: Potential reputational cost. Little upside benefit.
• Suppliers: Same costs and benefits as Option 2 with higher weight on benefit side.
Net: benefit higher than cost.
b) Duties:
• Harm/Care: Action corrects harm and cares for affected employees.
• Justice: Respects our employees’ right to a bias-free environment.
• Rules: Adheres to Company’s Code of Conduct. Honors people’s personal dignity.
• Categorical Imperative: I would be comfortable if responding in this way were the universal solution in similar situations.
c) Values: I would be proud to work for a company that takes its employees’ dignity seriously and responds aggressively to violations of its Code of Conduct.
Decision
Which recommendation would you pick? Or is there another, preferable option?
Justification
How would you justify your recommendation? What combination of ethical principles seems most relevant?
What We Did
In fact, we choose Option Two (though we did not know it at the time since we had not consciously conducted the analysis outlined above). We were simply operating on instinct and our best judgment, heavily influenced by the fact that the public relations organization itself had been the cause of this problem. For example, a group of African-American executives urged us to follow what is identified above as Option Three—closing down the magazine and “firing” (i.e., reassigning) the editors of the magazine. We resisted their entreaties out of loyalty to the employees responsible for the magazine, who we were confident had not intentionally expressed racist attitudes.
So we did not wait for people to complain. We issued an immediate apology and sent it to all employees. In fact, we sent three apologies. The first was from the editor, the second about 2 days later was from the head of public relations, and the third by mail to employees’ homes was from the company’s Chairman and CEO. He not only apologized, he pointed out that we fired the artist who drew the cartoon, asked the designer who hired him to go through diversity training, committed to increase the diversity of the magazine’s staff (not mentioning that the production manager who approved the cartoon was African American), and formed a committee of minority employees to advise the publication’s editors. It did not work.
By a stroke of bad luck, about a week after the magazine came out, the Congressional Black Caucus held its annual legislative weekend in Washington, DC. More than 2,000 public officials and African-American leaders were in town to discuss race relations. And the Washington Post ran a front-page story about the cartoon on the first day of the meeting. Speaker after speaker used the cartoon as an example of corporate America’s sorry diversity record. The Caucus called for hearings, Rev. Al Sharpton picketed AT&T headquarters, and local NAACP chapters launched boycotts.
The furor did not subside until we closed down the magazine, reassigning all the staff. We actually had been planning to close down the print publication anyway in favor of electronic and face-to-face communications. But the decision still stung, especially for the magazine’s staff. They had not done anything ethically wrong, but our decision to throw in the towel certainly made them look guilty.
Now, here is the irony. The very month in which that monkey cartoon ran in our employee magazine—September 1993—the alumni magazine of Rutgers University ran a cartoon by the same artist. It showed Rutgers alumni around the world flying the school banner. The alum in Nigeria?A monkey. No one said anything about it. So ethical decisions are not always cut and dry exercises of checking actions against a list of guidelines. Context matters.
That does not mean Rutgers’s cartoon was ethical while AT&T’s was not. Both cartoons were disrespectful, if only because their creator and distributors did not anticipate how African Americans, still stung by decades of racial slurs and insults, would interpret them. AT&T’s misfortune was to have a much higher profile than Rutgers. And its African-American employees harbored more serious grievances than the company knew. The cartoon gave vent to the company’s actual ethical problem—15 percent of its employees felt disenfranchised and neglected.
Some argue the company brought condemnation down on itself by calling attention to the cartoon in its string of apologies. There may be something to that, but if the company erred, it was in issuing multiple apologies from increasingly higher level people. Had the CEO immediately issued a single apology, backed up with the forceful action the company eventually took, he could have avoided weeks of turmoil. And that points up another lesson: the person or organization responsible for an unethical act is seldom the right one to address it.
Summary
Three decades later, it is hard to believe something as trivial as a sloppy production mistake could bring a company like AT&T to its knees for more than a month. That it did demonstrates both the combustibility of deeply felt grievances and the unpredictable friction that can ignite them. Of course, one of the public relations practitioner’s principal duties is to anticipate such events by tracking the currents of public opinion and scanning the environment for potential disruptions.
Arguably, that was our fundamental failure. We misread the depths of our African-American employees’ discontent, and we underestimated the extent to which outside groups would leverage our employees’ anger and the shallowness of our response. To compound matters, our ad hoc approach, careening from apology to apology, culminating in a full-bore CEO apology tour, drew attention to the problem without really solving it.
There is no guarantee the illustrative framework presented in this chapter would have resulted in an earlier resolution of the crisis. But having such a framework would have better organized our efforts, directing attention to important areas requiring analysis and surfacing issues for debate. This illustrative framework may not be appropriate for every organization in every situation. But AT&T’s experience does point up the importance of having some predetermined framework in place to address ethical issues that threaten the company as a whole. And it suggests what principles might guide decision making.
In the next chapter, we will sum up our discussion of ethical theories and suggest how public relations practitioners can apply them, both in the conduct of their own function and in counseling their clients.
________________
1 Ariely, D. (2013, July 19). Ask Ariely. Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324448104578613662185887232. Accessed July 22, 2015.
2 For a fuller version of this incident, see Dick Martin. (2004). Tough Calls: AT&T and the Hard Lessons Learned From The Telecom Wars. New York: AMACOM, p. 165–167.