Deliberation Overview
This deliberation was begun on Tuesday, March 17, 2009
This history was compiled on Friday, April 10, 2009
Describe the Situation
I have just been asked to write a press release about the resignation of one of our top executives. I work for a large insurance company that provides coverage for corporations. Yesterday, company officials discovered that Dan Reel -- who has worked for the company for 22 years, has a wife and four children and is a respected member of the community and his church -- was rigging insurance bids and taking higher fees than necessary from clients. My CEO has told me what Reel did will eventually result in a lawsuit, but for now I must write a release that says he is resigning to spend more time with his family and explore other opportunities. I want to write that he resigned because of a work-related issue -- not naming the problem because that is protected -- so when the lawsuit is filed, the company won’t look like it was hiding something. The CEO rejects the idea and says companies send out releases about “resignations” like this all the time. Should I honor the CEO’s wishes because “everyone else” does this?
Consequences Framework
Chosen Standard for evaluating consequences:
Serving the Public Interest
This standard is most appropriate because:
All of the ethics codes related to Public Relations emphasize that this is our most important, general goal. Of course, it's our job to present our clients in the best possible light. But if we lie for our clients or engage in excessive coverup, the public will never believe anything we say, and that doesn't help our clients or their potential customers.
Chosen course of action:
Write a release saying that Reel resigned because of a work-related issue without naming the problem specifically.
This action fulfills my chosen standard because:
Reel's specific behavior is protected information until the lawsuit is filed. But the public has a right to know there's a management issue. Meanwhile, our company is doing everything it can to correct the problem as quickly as possible. By hinting that Reel's reasons aren't purely personal, we are actually setting the stage to deal with the lawsuit effectively.
This action is consistent with the expectations of any ethics codes that apply to your situation.
I will be able to do this action.
Other alternatives explored using the Consequences Framework:
Write a release saying that Reel resigned because of a work-related issue without naming the problem specifically.
Consequences: My CEO will be unhappy and people may wonder what's going on at the company. Reel may also like this option less than the option my CEO prefers -- but Reel's privacy will still be respected this way. Meanwhile, I will feel confident that I have served the public trust. When the lawsuit against Reel is eventually filed, the public will at least feel confident that the company is monitoring itself and its employees. (The public will know that employees who engage in misconduct don't stick around.) My credibility and the credibility of the company will be intact. In fact, our company may even look better than others who engage in the common practice of announcing misleading "resignations."
Explanation: Reel's specific behavior is protected information until the lawsuit is filed. But the public has a right to know there's a management issue. Meanwhile, our company is doing everything it can to correct the problem as quickly as possible. By hinting that Reel's reasons aren't purely personal, we are actually setting the stage to deal with the lawsuit effectively.
Notes: This will take some courage, but I'm sure its the right thing to do. I'll need to do my best to help my CEO understands that it's the most professional thing for our company to do (and in the company's interest in the long term).
Agree with Honor Code: yes
Complain about my CEO to other members of the executive management team.
Consequences: It's hard to know what the effects of this will be. They might agree with my concerns, in which case they can help me convince the CEO I should write the release, stating the resignation was due to a work-related issue. But they might agree with the CEO, in which case I'll have to either write the less truthful release or resign. I don't really know how much they'll weigh my concerns against the CEO's.
Notes: It's hard to rank this because I'm uncertain about the outcomes. Note to self: whatever happens, I need to make sure I communicate more regularly with the management team so I have a better sense of where they all are on issues such as this!
Write the release my CEO wants (the one that says Reel is resigning to spend more time with his family and explore other opportunities).
Consequences: My CEO will be happy with my performance, and the company will look good in the short term. Reel's privacy will be respected. However, I will be uncomfortable about violating the public trust. And in the long term, when the lawsuit against Reel is filed, the company will look like it was hiding something. This could effect my own credibility in the field as well. Still, my CEO is right that companies do this all the time, so maybe I'm being too strict about the credibility thing.
Notes: Even though this makes me queasy, my CEO is right that it's done all the time. Worst case scenario: People trust my company -- and the PR profession -- even less than they do already.
Resign my own position.
Consequences: The company will scramble and produce the press release my CEO wants. So in the short term, the company may look perfectly good, but in the long term, it will still be clear it was hiding something. Reel's privacy will be respected though my resignation may raise some suspicions about what is really happening. But at least I won't feel uncomfortable and my own credibility will be preserved. Though, I'll have the stress of finding a new job, and it will be hard to explain why I left my old one without looking like I'm hiding something. I can't talk about the likelihood of a lawsuit because that is protected information, and it could be months before the lawsuit is publicly announced.
Notes: The consequences for Reel and my company are about the same as if I just do what the CEO wants. But they're worse for me and don't bring about any changes in company practice or the PR profession. This one feels like running away from the problem.
Duties Framework
I have judged that the most dutiful conduct in my situation is:
I need to write the press release that identifies a "work-related issue" as the cause of the resignation.
This action is most dutiful because:
The biggest worry is that this is somehow "mean" to Reel. However, he's the one who engaged in business misconduct. I'm not divulging any protected information, but it's my job to promote the company. It was his job to serve the company too, and he violated that trust. I'm really just making the best of a bad situation. The public will find out sooner or later.
Anyone would be obligated to perform this action because:
It's the duty of PR professionals to engage in communication that is truthful, accurate and fair. That's what we do. I can understand why the CEO is worried. But I also know that I'm setting the stage for future press releases our company will need to distribute.
This alternative is consistent with the expectations of any ethics codes that apply to your situation.
I will be able to do this action.
Ranking of specific duties explored using this framework:
Fidelity
Definition: Duty to keep your promises and prior commitments.
Action: The PRSA code reminds me that I have to be loyal to both my company and the public. I think the press release I want to write does the best job of balancing these. I'm not giving away any protected information.
Impact: Everyone is treated with respect
Expertise
Definition: PRSA code of ethics
Action: I'm the only PR person in the room when our company makes decisions. So I'm the one who knows that if we cut corners now it will create bigger PR headaches in the future.
Impact: Treats me and everyone else with respect.
Advocacy
Definition: PRSA code of ethics
Action: PR professionals "provide a voice ... to aid informed public debate." To do this effectively requires us to give the public accurate information so long as we are not violating confidentiality.
Impact: Treats the public with respect.
Beneficence
Definition: Duty to do good acts and promote people's happiness.
Action: I think this requires me to write the release identifying a "work-related issue." Reel and my CEO will be a little unhappy, but in the long run everyone -- including the public -- is better off knowing more about the truth.
Impact: Everyone is treated with respect
Nonmaleficence
Definition: Duty to do no harm and to prevent harm.
Action: Writing that it's about "family time" might cause less harm to Reel and the company in the short term. But in the long term, I think there's more harm to everyone if we cover things up too much now. I definitely can't give away any protected information.
Impact: Everyone treated with respect
Justice
Definition: Duty to give each person equal consideration.
Action: I understand my CEO's position, but I can defend my position, too. Maybe the rest of the management team needs to be consulted to make sure neither the CEO nor I am overlooking anything important? And I understand why Reel might not want the details to come out --- but I also understand why the public might want to know sooner rather than later that there's a problem...and that we're on it.
Impact: Everyone treated with respect
Self-improvement
Definition: Duty to improve our knowledge and virtue.
Action: Writing the release I know is best is definitely the best way to do this.
Impact: Everyone treated with respect
Reparation
Definition: Duty to compensate or make amends for past harms to others.
Action: My company may have to compensate victims of Reel's misconduct. I can't say anything about that until the lawsuit becomes public but at least I'm setting the stage to explain that situation if it comes to it!
Impact: Everyone treated with respect
Gratitude
Definition: Duty to repay favors and unearned services granted to you by others.
Action: N/A
Impact: N/A
Virtue Framework
An action that will exhibit the most virtuous traits is:
I've got to write the release that identifies a "work related issue." The only motivation against that is fear...and that's not a trait I want to exhibit. Plus, if I just do what my CEO wants because "everybody does it" I'll be training myself to live with dishonesty. It's easy to see how this job could erode my character if I don't stick to my best traits here.
This is the action that an ideally virtuous person would do because:
An ideally virtuous person would know how to balance all the competing interests in this job. I don't know if I ever get it exactly right, but I'm trying. And in this case I'm sure that a misleading press release is actively thwarting the public interest.
This alternative is consistent with the expectations of any ethics codes that apply to your situation.
I will be able to do this action.
Ranking of character traits explored using this framework:
Myself
expertise: My role in the company is to be the expert on communicating with the public. If I don't do this, no one will.
honesty: If the public doesn't trust my company or the PR profession, the whole system begins to break down.
loyalty: The problem with this is that loyalties are divided. But, in general, companies need to count on their employees to serve the company. And, the public needs to count on professionals to do their jobs.
independence: Lots of decisions are hard. If everyone brings their own perspective to the table, we're more likely to figure out the best thing to do, taking all factors into account.
fear: This one is a vice. Nobody likes making a hard call -- we all know somebody will disagree and be mad. But because that's true no matter what we do, this isn't a very good motivation.
Others
loyalty: The CEO really needs to put the company's interests first and foremost. That's his job. Still, the company's interest has to be serving the public. (That's the best way for the company to succeed.)
independence: Everyone needs to bring his or her perspective to the table, and the CEO is definitely doing that.
fear: I can understand why my CEO is worried about identifying a work-related issue. But still, there are even bigger reasons not to spin the truth here.
Ideally Virtuous Traits
advocacy: The PRSA code emphasizes this, and now I get it. It's hard to balance competing interests sometimes, but our job is to serve the public good (and to see where our clients fall into that).