Business ethics: an Oxymoron? Communication executives explore the black, the white and the gray

Communication World, Dec, 2002 by Louis C. Williams

Communicators have a lot on their minds and their consciences these days: widespread public distrust of corporate interests, CEOs under scrutiny, information leaks, shifting legal accountability, conflicting cultural norms, transparency considerations and evolving professional standards. In a business environment this challenging, what's an ethical communicator to do? A panel of top regional communication executives convened at the 2002 IABC international conference in Chicago, III., to find out. Following is an excerpt from that panel discussion, courtesy of moderator Louis C. Williams Jr., ABC, APR. Read the full transcript at www.iabc.com/cw.> COMMUNICATORS AS THE CONSCIENCE OF THE ORGANIZATION

Moderator: I have heard it said that communicators can or should he the conscience of an organization. Is that true?

Mary C. Moster: I've heard that said about us on many occasions, but I think it's too grandiose, and also a slam on everybody else on the management team, as though simply by definition we have more moral fiber. Every manager and every employee in a company should be responsible for the moral behavior of the company.

E. Ronald Culp: Yes, but it's also true that we listen to a wider range of stakeholders than most others within the organization. That equips us to hear concerns that come from employees, investors or customers. But I don't think we can assume any more responsibility than listening and reporting.

Matthew Gonring: Very often we're viewed as the chief information officer, and as such we know what's going on throughout the organization. I think that's how management looks at us. Any loftier role would set us up in a way that I don't think would be healthy for the organization or ourselves.

Culp: Having said that, our individual conscience has to apply to everything we do every day. This ought to be true for each of our executives as well. As chief communication people, we have access to a broader array of information from a greater variety of sources, and as a consequence, we have a broader frame of reference. That offers us the ability to judge behavior that's in-line or out of line with what would be construed as appropriate or ethical in the marketplace.

CULTURAL VARIATIONS

Moderator: What about the international perspective? Do ethics change country by country?

Master: When I taught a class on ethics with about 25 percent non-U.S. students--many are from countries where it s typical to pay for things under the table--almost to a person the international students agreed that there is no such thing as situational ethics, that even if an unethical practice is common in their country, it's bad practice.

Clarke L. Caywood: Cultural variances are diminishing as a consequence of the Internet society; ethical standards in one place now are likely to be similar in other geographic locales.

Victoria Shire: One of the things we've been doing recently is trying to heighten everyone 's awareness of the values of the corporation as we become more competitive, and taking that and moving it into our international operations.... How do we translate them in places such as China or South America? I think it goes back to what you said earlier: The standards are different in different places.

Caywood: There are standards that have been set across countries concerning bribery, transparency, environmental and social issues--bottom line [corporate] standards. And those standards should be set at the highest bar, because the law is usually the minimal bar.... Ethics really need to be woven through the entire organization, and [the organization should] make it understood that there's a zero tolerance and that we're going to make sure that we enforce them.

SETTING STANDARDS

Moderator: How does that get done for an organization?

Cuip: It doesn't get done with a manual. It starts with hiring--whom you bring into the organization--and having no tolerance for those who practice questionable ethics. You have to do things like fire people for doing something wrong when they knew it was wrong. Too many companies don't. They say, "OK, next time we really mean it; next time we're going to have to do something serious here." Ethics must start at the top and be demonstrated. The CEO's insistence on high ethical standards goes through the organization. I've seen it work.

Caywood: Don't you think we have a problem with that? Aren't the CEOs the ones who are in the hot seat today? I think they're probably the last ones right now that I'd have confidence in, unless they came forward and were more explicit about their positioning.

Moster: Who else could in an organization?

Caywood: I don't object to having it be the CEO, but ... how about the chairman of the board, who may not be the chief executive officer? How about the chief operating officer? Surely there are other people who might be listened to. Research shows, for example on finance, that the CEO is not the one the public wants to hear from; they want to hear from the CFO.

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY