|
|
|||||
|
Chapter 5 Total Quality Communication The Ethic Ecosystem Many businesses are feeling greater pressures to conform to societal mores as good corporate citizens. Society has begun to revile businesses who still try to operate with the cavalier attitude toward customers and the environment that was prevalent among business people early in industrial expansion. The challenge for business is to find a moral ground of operation that ensures success while also ensuring that the behaviors are defensible if observed and subjected to moral or ethical judgment by others In Total Quality Communication the ethical issues associated with our goals can be organized into two general categories. First, issues of the ethical activities of the organization as a corporate citizen are important to all components of the organization including the communication function. Second, issues of personal ethical conduct should place the individual in a defensible moral position if he or she is questioned by someone in the organization or from outside regarding ethical implications of behavior. In this chapter, we'll take a look at issues associated with each of these types of ethical concern. First we'll begin with the issues of organizational ethical behavior. President John F. Kennedy, U.S. President in the early 1960s, championed the consumer movement in America. During his presidency, the U.S. government established a high-level office for consumer protection. In establishing the Consumer Protection Agency, President Kennedy pronounced a Consumer Bill of Rights. Because the government perceived that in the buyer/seller relationship the power advantage was in the hands of the seller, this pronouncement set fundamental rights basic to the buyer in the buyer/seller relationship. The Consumer Bill of rights included:
This Consumer Bill of Rights was the highlight of the consumer movement that has captured U.S. industry and now has moved into global arenas. By the 1990s, businesses had begun to recognize the impact that environmental and perceived anti-social behavior in general could have on a firm in the market place. In other words, firms began to realize that success in marketing was not just a matter of producing and selling a product, but that profitability and success hinged on the overall image of the firm created in the minds of all customers or audiences of the organization regardless of whether they are consumers or not.
When looking at this declaration of the corporate soul, we are might first react negatively to the ideas presented. But, if we look more pragmatically we can see that the four components to the corporate soul are components to a solid corporate image. These ideas are the framework for establishing a position in the minds of our customers by making us appear human (admitting that in the past we may not have done everything possible to ensure a brighter world); disclosing who we are as a company and what we believe as a corporate vision; how the customer can assess our conformance with that vision; and lastly a pledge that all corporate activities will contribute to achievement of that vision. The American Adverting Federation, a large professional organization of advertising executives provides a code of standards professed by the membership. As a part of the advertising principles, the AAF addresses ethical and socially responsible behavior of its members. Their principles include
Of these principles of advertising, the most problematic in international markets is the last one. Each of the others are sound guidelines for advertising no matter what country you're creating promotion in or in what country you're displaying promotion. However, populations vary widely, even within countries, about what constitutes good taste or decent messages. For example, Good taste in the U.S. precludes using pictures of celebrities without their permission or attributing statements in an ad to them. For example, no advertiser would ever produce an ad with President Bill Clinton's picture. However, in England, a deep cultural tendency toward satire makes celebrities fair game for inclusion in ads without their knowledge or consent. Therefore, it's not unusual to see President Clinton hawking chewing gum in English advertisements.
Standards of Conduct, Public Relations Society of America The Public Relations Society of American publishes its own set of standards for conduct adopted and applied by practitioners who belong to the society. It, too, is a self-regulated environment with no enforcement options except sanction by the organization against violating members. Otherwise the provisions serve as a guide for what professional public relations practitioners perceive as appropriate and ethical behavior in conducting relationships with the press and public. In summary the issue of communicating to publics important to your organization carries the burden of ethical, socially responsible behavior. More problematic is the additional burden imposed by variations in interpretation of ethical, socially responsible behaviors as your communication efforts cross political, social, or ethnic boundaries. As you plan your Total Quality Communication programs, you must find a way to address the ethical implications of the specific situation to ensure that you're in a defensible position. In the next section, we'll discuss methods for resolving the ethical dilemma in decisions you make in the TQC planning. . Individual Ethical Issues In the last section, we assessed the position of the organization as a corporate citizen in the society in which it operates. In addition to the ethical implication of organizational behavior, the firm also must comply with legal constraints and regulations on activities. Because these legal forces tend to vary widely among countries, we won't spend a great deal of time talking about them. Perhaps the most effective guidance in international aspects of law is the International Law Project [http://www.ljx.com] based in Norway. This project publishes an Internet site devoted to the dissemination of information about trade laws and individual-country legal considerations related to trade.Ê Another website that offers international legal information is http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/law/.Ê This site offers information on constitutional law in many different countries.Ê However, even with the websites available, country specific legal advice and guidance should be obtained from qualified legal advisors, although the trade and commerce departments of many governments can supply general information and guidance for those needing general assistance. For us, we will turn our attention to the individual in the organizational setting. If your asking yourself , "why are we talking about ethics in business?" Then let me answer the question for you this way. Do you remember from our definition what we defined as the ultimate reason we communicate in organizations? It is to affect behavior of audiences or publics. In other words, we communicate to get people to buy our product. We communicate to get engineers to redesign a product. We communicate to employees to get them to be more customer oriented. We communicate to stockholders to assure them that the company is well run and they support management at the next stockholders' meeting. In each case, we as the communicator are trying to influence the behavior of other people. And if you have never thought of it before, then think of it now. When ever you attempt to impose your desires for behavior on another person in order to get them to perform some action you want them to, there is an ethical implication. More importantly, it is an ethical implication that you must address to ensure that your position in defensible from an ethical position. Without this assurance, you are exposed to potential legal and social sanctions that may have a significant effect on your company's bottom line or on you specifically. For these reasons, we are going to spend some time talking about how you identify and resolve ethical dilemmas in organizational activity.. Ethic Ecosystems Definitions First, let's begin with some basic definitions. Ethic A set of principles used by a person to judge the "goodness" or "badness" of behavior in himself/herself or in others. Ethics Ethics is the study of an ethic. Or, it could be used to describe multiple sets of coexisting ethics. Many people tend to use ethics to describe a collective ethic. This is currently an incorrect use of the term. Ethos A collective set of principles used to judge "goodness" or "badness" of behavior. The term ethos may describe such collectives as social norms, organizational culture or other concepts of shared value systems. Traditionally, two approaches have been used in Ethics: the teleological and the deontological. These approaches to analyze ethical decisions are (1) concern for the consequences for given behavior (the teleological approach) and (2) concerns for the duty of the individual as a member of a social collective (the deontological approach) [12]. The teleological approach, sometimes called consequentialist, is usually discussed in business ethics textbooks from the viewpoint of utilitarianism, perceived by some reviewers as the most "compelling" of theories in the teleological grouping [2], although the theories associated with the teleological approach number more than twenty-eight [7]. The deontological approach, sometimes called nonconsequentialist, is represented in many business ethics textbooks by Ross's prima facia view or Kant's formalism [2]. The deontological approach has more than thirty-four theories associated with it [7]. Although most of the rhetoric about business ethics in textbooks results more often in confusion than to provide students or practitioners with solid guidance in making ethical decisions, the ultimate goal of each of the theories is to provide a logical, reasonable and defensible basis for making judgments about the "goodness" or "badness" of behavior, however that is viewed [4]. Attempts to combine the teleological and deontological approaches have been labeled "ethic pluralists" [7]. Regardless of whether or not an individual is cognizant of a judgment process regarding the "goodness" or "badness" of behavior, all individual behavior conforms to a preexisting value system [5]. Such value systems are the result of many experiences across long periods of time contributing to the development of relatively stable values, beliefs, and attitudes [14]. The set of values, beliefs and attitudes held by any one individual is the sum exposure to three levels of ethical issues: societal laws (institutionalized definitions of unacceptable behavior including codes of standards formed by professional societies), cultural mores (behavior acceptable to members at a cultural level) and individual moral precepts (inculcated by parents, religious training and education). Although the three levels of ethical issues are related, each is discrete. Those issues that focus on the moral development of the individual and what he or she perceives to be good or bad behavior have been called the "ethic of the person." Behavior that is judged as good or bad by members of any group has been called "ethic of the organization." In addition, behavior acceptable in an individualÕs larger social collective has been called Òethic of the system.Ó [4]. The complete set of principles held by an individual is the "ethic" that guides decisions relative to "good" and "bad" behavior. Of utmost importance is the idea that the ethic of each individual is unique since it is a composite of three levels of judgment activity:
Moral Level The moral component consists of principles that originate in much of the upbringing of a child. Sources include family values, religious education, academic education, and, to some degree, social interactions. Psychologists suggest that much of this level of the ethic is structured by the time a child is age nine. Later major alteration of this basic component of the ethic occurs only after some traumatic circumstance in the person's life. Franchised Level The franchised level component results from the interactions the person has with social groups that are significant. Each of the groups with which a person associates develops independent sets of social norms, shared values, or ethos. In some instances, the role or expected behavior for the individual will conflict among the various groups. For example, as a member of the Saturday night, gather-on-the-parking lot of Peter Piper Pizza group, a behavior to slash the tires of the school nerd may be viewed as acceptable. However, the next morning in church, the person must seek absolution because the church does not condone such behaviors. Empowerment Level This level of the ethic results from the individual's interpretation of society's formal statements of acceptable or not-acceptable behavior. These formal statements range from such things as professional associations' Standards of Ethical Behavior to formally enacted, legislated behavioral definitions. Moving up the Hierarchy As the principles move up on the hierarchy, the narrower the scope of the behavior becomes; that is, it's more specific. As we move up, we find principles where the degree of acceptability of the behavior is more formally defined. As higher the principle, the less room is available for interpretation or variance in interpretation. The Ethic Structure This combination of principles is so well structured that behavior decisions tend not to be concerned at all with their ethical implications. What assessment is made of ethical propriety is made automatically and, in general, without conscious action by the individual. The ethical implications of a behavior are considered only when the ethical propriety of an action is called into question either by the individual or from outside criticism. Under these circumstances, an ethical dilemma arises that must be addressed in the decision process.
Significance The horizontal axis is Significance. Significance is the likelihood that the person contemplating a behavior will judge it as having an ethical implication requiring concern. For example, you are thinking about taking a pencil home from your office. If you don't believe there is much of an ethical question about that behavior, then it's low in significance. If you are contemplating a behavior such a murder in self-defense, then you may see the ethical implication as highly significant because you have a high degree of question about the ethical propriety of the behavior. Magnitude Magnitude is the likelihood that other people will judge the behavior as having ethical implication requiring concern. Scales Both Significance and Magnitude can vary on a scale describing the degree of concern or the degree of the dilemma associated with any specific behavior. Low on the scales means that no real degree of dilemma is perceived associated with a particular behavior. A high rating on the scale indicates that considerable dilemma exists. These dilemma scales can go in two directions. In one direction, the ethical implication of a particular behavior is so profound (upper right in the illustration) that no question of the ethical implication exists. This is why for most people premeditated murder carries such profound ethical implication for the individual and others that it can be mapped in the low dilemma segment of both scales. In other words, little or no ethical dilemma exists for this behavior. The lower left illustrates the condition where the ethical implication for a perceived behavior is so trivial as not to result in a dilemma. Taking pencils from the office is an example. It's only when one of these behaviors is questioned by the individual or others that the contemplated behavior is pushed across the threshold creating an ethical dilemma. Then some process must be used to resolve concern about the ethical implication.
Input Input to the Ethic Ecosystem comprises two categories. First is the situation or proposed behavior for which the ethical implication places it within the dilemma domain. This is the trigger to initiate an evaluation process of the ethical implications of the behavior. Second are the components of the individual's ethic: 1. the moral-level principles, 2. the enfranchised-level principles, and 3. the empowerment-level principles. Process Making a decision on the ethical implications of these components comprises the process segment of this concept. More about this process in a minute. Outcomes The outcome of the decision process is whether or not to implement the behavior based on its ethical implications. At this point, the Ethic Ecosystem converges two paths. One is the path of the individual resolving the ethical dilemma and the second traces responses of others who observe the behavior. In the case of the individual, the decision to implement or not leads to some outward social action that reinforces the behavior and its relationship to the individual's ethic. In the case of others, they make an external judgment of the ethical propriety of the behavior, using their own set of principles or ethic. Their response is to initiate actions or sanctions based on applying their own judgments to the behavior of the individual. In each case, the results are fed back into the system to modify the ethic or the situation interpretation as an ethical dilemma. [13] When an ethical dilemma arises from either the self questioning of the individual or others calling the ethical implication into question, the individual must resolve the ethical dilemma in such a way as to create a defensible position regarding ethical propriety of the proposed behavior. Several models of ethical decision making are proposed to help guide people though judgments about the ethical propriety of behaviors. Among the simplest is the Rotary International Four-Way test. Others include the Pagano and Nash models. Each consists of a series of questions you can ask yourself. The response to the questions is supposed to lead to a defensible ethical position on the proposed behavior. COMPARING ETHICAL DECISION MAKING PROCESSES
Problems The basic problem with these simple models is their failure to focus on how others view the ethical implication of the proposed behavior. Certainly, Nash broaches the subject in the question about how others will see the question. But, the judgments made by others are so important to the overall outcome of the ethical implication of a behavior that a single question among all the other questions simply does not fully analyze the implications. So, a method must be found that permits a rational, systematic assessment of the ethical implications of a behavior with the goal to arrive at a defensible position, no matter who observes the behavior and pronounces a judgment of the ethical propriety of the behavior. The Ethical-Dilemma Decision Process Ethic Component Levels Because each individual's ethic is comprised of three sets of principles, the ethical implication of a proposed behavior must be evaluated at all three levels to ensure that all interpretations of the behavior have been included. A behavior should first be tested for compliance with the individual's moral-level principles. If found to be ethical at this level, the judgment proceeds to the enfranchised level to test against the sets of principles resulting from the individual's association with external groups. If the judgment is made that the behavior passes the tests at this level, it passes to the empowerment level for final judgment before implementation. Now look at the decision process at each judgment level. The Moral Level Judgment The basic judgment is for the individual to ask if the contemplated behavior is moral. This requires to the individual to make a determination that the behavior is judged ethical based on the value the individual holds from familial, educational, and religious education. If the answer is "yes" then the judgment process passes to the enfranchisement level. If the answer is "no," then the individual asks if the situation is of a type and magnitude that justifies overriding the moral principles. For example: a person may have a moral stand against premeditated murder. However, when a loved one is on life support and a decision must be made to disconnect the life support, then the situation becomes one where it has a magnitude sufficient to make the base morality of premeditated murder overridable. If the answer to this question is "no," then the proposed behavior is discarded. If the answer is "yes," then the decision process moves to the next level. The Enfranchised Level This is perhaps the most difficult of the evaluation components. At this level, all groups significant to the individual must be considered in relation to the proposed behavior. One difficulty here is the potential of the variation in group values. Some groups values will support the proposed behavior, some will be neutral, some will be negative. The evaluation for the individual is to optimize the ethical position of the behavior by minimizing the effect of the perceived unacceptable behavior and maximizing the effect of the perceived acceptable behavior. The individual may be faced with the reality that only one group would perceive the behavior to be acceptable while several groups perceive the behavior as unacceptable. However, the one that perceives as unacceptable is the most powerful or influential for the individual. The individual then implements the behavior because the acceptability of the one group is more important to him or her than the unacceptability to several groups. As each group's value system is evaluated, if the answer to the question, "Is it ethical?" is "yes," it proceeds to the next level of assessment. If the answer is "no," then the individual determines if social deviance is justified. If the answer is "yes," the decision process passes to the next level. If the answer is "no," then the behavior is discarded. The Empowerment Level Decisions arriving at this level have already been judged to be OK to the individual in terms of personal values and the values of the significant groups that will observe the behavior. At this level, the individual uses his or her understanding of the formal definitions of good and bad behavior to judge. These formal definitions range from company Codes of Standards to properly enacted local, state and federal laws. The evaluation process asks the question, "Is it legal?" If the answer is yes, the behavior is enacted. If the answer is "no," then the individual must ask if the law is just. If the answer is "yes," the behavior is discarded, even though it was judged ethical at all other levels of evaluation. If the answer is "no," the individual asks if civil disobedience is justified. If the answer is "no," then the behavior is discarded. If the answer is "yes," the behavior is implemented. By satisfying each of the three levels of evaluation, whatever method of decision making used, the individual is prepared for the Ethical Paradox and its consequences.
This closes our discussion of ethical implications and decision-making. In the next chapter, we'll begin our discussion about the planning process necessary to make Total Quality Communication a success for your organization. References
Practice Exam When you have completed reading this chapter, you may elect to take a practice exam on-line. You may take the practice exam as many times as you wish. Each time, the test will be compared to the answer key. You then have the option to review the results or not. You may wish to try the exam again before seeing the results of the comparison. ©1997 2000 David L. Sturges and Michael Minor These pages were created on November 1, 1999, and last modified on August 29, 2001, on a PowerBook G3-266 using Dreamweaver 3.0. Questions or comments should be directed to the WebJŽfe. |
|||||
