Management and ethics: do we need a month?
September is Ethics month for PRSA (Public Relations Society of America) and PRSSA (Student society of the same organization). As part of the discussion about where ethics needs to head for PR professionals Art Stevens, APR, Fellow PRSA, wrote a commentary for the The Strategist online called “Let’s put teeth back into PR ethics. Corporate reputation oversight must be mandatory” in which he proposes that “every publicly traded company in America add another vital component to the mix: a corporate reputation oversight committee.”
I found this an interesting comment following our discussion about possible regulation of our profession. His argument is based on the now mandatory corporate monitoring of the financial actions of publicly traded companies and mentioning Sarbanes-Oxley. Stevens asserts that the organization’s reputation is an equally important asset that should be monitored and managed. Do you agree?
In chapter 3 of the text, it states that “public relations is inescapably tied, by nature and by necessity, to top management, with public relations staff providing counsel and communication support” (p. 56). Do you think top management are the only people who can oversee reputation management or are there other positions that can be equally successful?
Finally, an interesting question is why we should need an “ethics month” at all? Shouldn’t it be ethics year or none at all given the importance of ethical standards in any profession?
On a side note: if you are interested in reading further about PR History, then explore the PR Museum established in 1997 as the place to go to learn how ideas are developed for industry, education, and government, and how they have been applied to successful public relations programs since the PR industry was born.
posted by prteacher @ 9/12/2006 11:29:00 PM
8 Comments:
After reading Mr. Stevens’s proposal, I loosely agree with him - but am afraid that to create a reputation oversight committee is great in theory, but not in practice. An organization’s reputation can be vital to their success. I have learned from experience that the PR professionals are sometimes the ones kept most in the dark, especially when it is most important. That can make the task of protecting your organization very challenging! A committee of this nature could keep the PR department “in the loop” and aware of any and all issues that have an opportunity to harm the reputation of the organization. However, the individuals that he suggests to make up this committee sound very similar to existing Boards of Directors – except with the Director of Communications leading instead of the CEO. In almost every Board by-laws you will find some sort of item that requires each member to act morally and ethically for the good of the organization – so does this committee already exist?
I also think that ethics should not be something that people practice one month out of the year – but every day. Having said that, I don’t think that it’s necessarily a bad thing to have an “ethics month.” Sometimes certain people just need a little reminder of how important ethics is for both the person, the PR profession and the organization!
I agree to Jinene’s idea that a corporate reputation oversight doesn’t have to be mandatory by governmental regulation and an organization should manage its reputation on its own. Reputation management and financial action seems to have basically different mechanisms of influence. If a corporation fails to provide an honest and accurate financial report, it will do direct harm to its present and potential investors, while having a bad reputation is initially a disadvantage to an organization. In addition, reputation, an invisible asset, is becoming a truly important element when estimating the value of the organization. Return on reputation, the corporate reputation watch survey report published by Hill & Knowlton, reveals that analysts chose invisible assets that consist reputation, such as “quality of leadership team” and “making good on promises”, as one of the important elements following the financial performance when they are making a judgment about whether to recommend or invest in a company or not. Whether it becomes mandatory or not, more and more organizations will pay their close attention to reputation management.
Although Hill & Knowlton’s report, I previously mentioned, shows that CEO is the first and foremost important factor of organization’s reputation, I believe every employee contributes to how the organization is conceived. It certainly is the top management that presents the corporate initiatives and encourages their employees to abide by their value system. However, how customers or general publics build the perception of a company may largely be from their everyday experience. The attitude of a clerk can improve or ruin the reputation of a company.
Lastly, I see eye to eye with Kelly’s comment on Ethics month. A periodical reminder wouldn’t harm to public relations profession. The existence of such established month seems to be more or less the reflection of the reality of public relations practice.
I believe there should not be an “ethics month” at all. Ethics should be practiced all the time, day and night. Ethics should be second nature to the public relations professional; there should not have to be a month to remind people to be ethical.
I think there is no need for a reputation oversight committee for companies in America because it is the responsibility of the company to make sure they are following all the rules and managing their reputation well. Managing the reputation of the company falls on everyone who works there. Management should not be solely responsible for monitoring the ethics of a company because they can only monitor so much. In large companies, it is hard to monitor everything that is happening all the time, so top management has to trust that the employees are doing what they should. If one employee is not ethical, it reflects poorly on the whole company. A company and its employees are a team and they are only as strong as their weakest link. By making everyone responsible for the company’s ethics and reputations, top management is making every employee more important and giving them more power which will lead to more employee loyalty and better employee production.
If a committee is formed to manage the reputation of a company, it may cause company employees to be less concerned with ethics and the company’s reputation. The committee could in essence become a scapegoat for anything that goes wrong with the company’s reputation because they should have caught the problem. If the company employees are charged with the task of managing the reputation of the company and making sure it’s being ethical, the company will be more ethical and have a better reputation because the employees have a vested interest in the company. The employees depend on the company for employment, so they will not want to lose their jobs if the company’s reputation suffers.
I too think that reputation management should not be mandatory, but it would be in the best interest of the corporation to pursue some sort of reputation management committee. If this were mandatory; it might actually lead some corporations to be more unethical than they were before. Meaning that just because the corporation has been required by the government to put a committee in place to oversee ethical practice and behavior does not necessarily mean that they are all of a sudden going to become a corporation of high standards. Corporations that do value high ethical practices will put a committee like this into place without anyone telling them that they have to. Reputation should be managed and be one of an organization’s top priorities to be honest and truthful at all times to the public.
Also, I do not believe that it is the sole responsibility of upper management to control reputation management. Everyone in the corporation, from the top to the bottom should be included in the process. Employees should be asked on a regular basis what their opinion on certain issues and decisions are. If a committee was formed, it would be wise to include a variety of people from each level of the company in order to get a variety of perspectives and opinions in order to make the most educated decisions possible. Top management should be examples of ethical practice and reputation management for the rest of the corporation; but they should not be the only ones making reputation management decisions.
I also think that an “ethics month” might give the wrong impression to outsiders about the public relations profession. It may further the stereotype that we already have of being “spin doctors” and a dishonest profession. The fact that we have to have a month to promote an idea that should be a 24/7 standard is rather ridiculous. This should be promoted and discussed in PR circles year-round and not just one month of the year.
Stevens makes the point that corporations today have to look out for more than their financial assets and that people buy based from reputable companies. As long as a corporation is acting on ethical principals, its reputation should follow. A separate committee for reputation management seems unnecessary to me. If a corporation doesn’t act ethically, shame on them, and their reputation will likely suffer for it. The board of directors and every employee has an obligation hold the company to the highest ethical standards, and they should be reminded of this regularly, but creating a separate committee sounds to do so is superfluous. I do, however, feel that it is necessary for corporations to include a “Director of Communications” esq- position in upper level management/ the board of directors to ensure that the group dealing with the public on a day to day basis has adequate access to the decision makers and is informed of all new initiatives, developments, etc.
With regard to the issue of PRSA’s “Ethics Month,” I agree that ethics is something that PR professionals must practice every day, however, not all practitioners are so upstanding. I don’t see any harm in having an ethics month, and if it reminds some of the less than conscientious PR professionals about the PRSA standards, it’s an effective campaign.
A Scion, Camry, and a Lexus all use the same engine but prices are far from being the same. Customer recognition and market reputation of the vehicle also differ tremendously. This is what economists call brand power, but this is reputation as well. It’s no wonder companies seek to boost reputation: even with the same product, you can get so much more if you have the image and reputation publics adore. Then here’s the wake up call- what if the public is being manipulated by this whole “reputation” business? If the substance cannot make up to the reputation of the corporate, what use is it to have a “reputation committee” functioning to “guard, restore and maintain a company’s reputation and trust among its constituencies,”?
This all comes back to the ethical issues of public relations. Because public relations practitioners have the ability and the infamous reputation to adroitly “spine facts,” code of ethics is crucial for us. Ethical behaviors are mandatory for each and every field of practice, but for public relations it is something that should be practiced transparently for the world to see. Sadly, we need that extra stretch to prove ourselves. Are public relations practitioners aware of this? Yes of course, for those who took at least one pr course should be familiar of our love-hate relationship with ethics. For this reason, reputation management should definitely have at least one pr person on the team. There’s got to be someone to keep an eye on decisions happening behind the scenes.
The bottom line for this “reputation committee” is that noble companies that engage in ethical behavior for its public will gain favorable reputation which will bring continuous profit. I’m just hoping this attempt will not backfire and hit us hard. Ever so intangible, false reputation can be created. It is the month of “public relations ethics month.” We do need this reminder every once in a while. Just so we don’t forget that we still hold an infamous reputation and that our field requires ethics as an essential.
To begin, I feel that a designated ethics month is not necessary I like some of the people who posted feel initially that an ethics month undermines the value of ethics in our profession. However upon further thought and in reading Kelly’s comment, I agree that an ethics month serves as more of a reminder that we need to hold ethics very high on our list of priorities. To be considered as active contributors to the good of society, public relations practitioners need to hold themselves to a high moral standard. In a field concerned with reputation management, it is important to be aware that we must also preserve our reputations and be exemplars in the area of ethical practice.
In regard to Art Steven’s suggestion, I believe that a corporate reputation oversight committee would be an excellent contrivance for many companies not just publicly traded ones. To make this committee a mandatory addition; however, is different. Reputation management is an essential part of effectively running a company if that company’s goal is to continue operating. This responsibility is on the shoulders of the company though.
I found Minji’s link to the Return on Reputation very interesting, as well as fun to look at. A company that is concerned with maintaining a good profit margin will come to the conclusion that reputation management is an essential part of running a good business. As we have seen in the past of the Wal-Mart company, choices made by the company that are seen as unethical by consumers, can result in a decrease in sales and even protesting. Wal-Mart has been exposed as a multinational corporation concerned only with their bottom line. This is why the Wal-Mart Corporation has received negative publicity for paying their employees what is considered to be below the living wage while the CEO, H. Lee Scott pulls down more than $ 60 million per year. This in addition to being accused of taking life insurance policies out on their elderly employees and purposely keeping their in store employees on less than a full time schedule so that they may deny then certain benefits. All of these factors have resulted in a less than rosy picture crafted of this company and a website launched, Wal-MartWatch.com, in order to inform consumers of Wal-Mart egregious lack of concern for its employees and surrounding publics. If this company took it upon itself to have a corporate reputation oversight committee, more ethical choices and more regard would be given to expected public reaction to corporate decisions. It is my opinion that it is a corporation’s responsibility to have concern for their reputation but not a requirement.
Sources used
Solnit, R. (2006, February 19). The Wal-Mart Biennale. www.truthout.org/docs_2006. Accessed 2006 February 27.
Ehrenreich, B. (2006). Earth to Wal-Mars. In Inequality Matters: The Growing economic Divide in America and Its Poisonous Consequences. New York: The New Press.
Post a Comment
<< Home