"Strategic Communication, Ethics of" in: The

Strategic Communication, Ethics of SHANNON A. BOWEN University of South Carolina, USA

Strategic communication holds power to define issues, interactively create understanding, envision options for solutions, and implement policy at organizational and public policy levels. The ability to construct issues and policy creates a responsibility to communicate ethically. Ethics of strategic communication refers to that which is morally worthy in the communicative context. Right versus wrong communication, furthering an innate good, serving the greater good, and facilitating social discourse are all perspectives that can be used to define morally worthy communication. In this encyclopedia, strategic communication is defined not as the self-interested perspective of an organization’s management, but as the integration of perspectives that allow an organization to be adaptive and reflexive. In that approach, heavily influenced by moral philosophy and Chicago School sociology, ethical communication is part of the fabric of society that allows for the creation of meaning between stakeholders, organizations, and social systems. Ethics and ethical communication are essential to the existence of a stable society. Ethical communication allows groups to understand one another, facilitating economic and social relationships and continued coexistence through the exchange of information. The most basic or foundational level of ethics considers right or wrong via normative or ideal actions, including communication. Even from the historical origin of ethics, scholars argued that the obligation of dialogue is an implicitly ethical one, present in all communication (Heath, 2005). Max Weber’s conception of the Protestant work ethic offered an application of ethics to business management through diligence, entrepreneurial spirit, and individual rectitude. As a management function, business ethics provides an understanding of interdependent relationships between businesses, stakeholders, and publics, conceived as fairness, duty, virtue, justice, and social value within the society, and that value transcends private objectives. Due to regulatory relationships, obligations to stakeholders and varied publics, accountability demands, governance and fiduciary duties, and an expectation of truthful communication, ethics in strategic communication is essential to an organization’s continued existence. This reflexive management approach contextualizes the responsibilities of organizations not only to strive for profit but also to act as organizational “citizens” who understand their role in society and seek to fulfill duties ethically. Before the main approaches to ethics are reviewed, a more basic question is inherent in this discussion: Is ethical strategic communication even possible? Is the act of communication in a “strategic” manner one that precludes the possibility of ethics? Even The International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication. Robert L. Heath and Winni Johansen (Editors-in-Chief), Jesper Falkheimer, Kirk Hallahan, Juliana J. C. Raupp, and Benita Steyn (Associate Editors). © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/9781119010722.iesc0074

2

S T R AT E G I C C O M M U N I CAT I O N , E T H I CS

OF

more simply put, is the purpose of communication simply to persuade? Does the act of communication imply that strategy is manipulative? Many scholars who have studied this conundrum conclude that ethical strategic communication is possible, but requires exacting standards of truth and interactivity. Other scholars disagree because of the power differential that exists between organizations and stakeholders. Symmetrical theory as described by J. E. Grunig (2006) is conceived as an ethical approach to strategic communication because it is based on a moving equilibrium, dialogue, listening, and understanding. A key component of the theory is that ethics is implicit because both sides of the discussion are open to change. Further elaboration on the theory, posited by excellence researchers, is that ethics and integrity should be made explicit requirements of excellent communication management. In other words, ethics must be a stand-alone principle of excellence. Bowen (2004, 2005, 2006) researched and solidified ethics as a normative and descriptive principle of excellent communication, offering duty-based guidelines for incorporating standards of principle, dignity and respect, and good intention into strategic management. Others maintained a limited conception of ethical persuasion combined with ethical tests, or one contingent upon “substantial completeness” of disclosure. Differentiating persuasion from manipulation is practically impossible unless one can determine the intention of the communicator; therefore a more active conception of parties in the communication was warranted. For ethical communication to take place, each side must have access to full, truthful, and accurate information as well as voluntary participation and free choice. Moral autonomy, or the freedom to choose through rational deliberation, supports much of the theory on communication ethics, and is discussed in detail along with intention later in this entry. As long as moral autonomy is maintained, an inherently good, pro-social role for strategic communication based on dialogue is created. The role is also one of facilitating change, civil discourse, discovering truth and the collective management of risk, creating understanding and decisional freedom or moral autonomy, and conflict or crisis resolution. Therefore, scholars (Bowen, 2010; Bowen & Gallicano, 2013) have argued that strategic communication is innately good when it is undertaken with ethical rectitude and reflexivity. The historical roots of the study of communication ethics can be traced to ancient Greece. Rhetoric was established by the students of Socrates, for whom questioning, persuasion, oratory, and argumentation were used to discover truth through argument and dialogue. At the core of ethical strategic communication is the concept of truth. Ethical strategic communication relies upon truth as a necessary condition of honesty. Truth and honesty are comparable to two sides of the same coin. Truth is a condition of discovering realities and facts through research, observation, analytics, and logic, whereas honesty is the genuine conveyance of truthful information. Employing those definitions in strategic communication is rarely as simple as it may seem when competing understandings, divided loyalties, and differing priorities emerge. How ethics is understood, defined, discussed, and demonstrated ultimately influences the nature of ethical communication in organizations, professions, and society. Professionalism and professional standards are often referred to as the starting point in discussions of ethics. Professional societies have devised their own codes of ethics,


OF

3

professionalism standards, or guidelines that are frequently employed as the ethical basis of an emerging profession. Although professional codes typically require honesty as a first and foremost standard, many professionals, regardless of their motivation, still find themselves in a conflict with truth telling. Some professional codes offer positively worded prescriptive goals; other codes of professional ethics are vague and offer little in the way of actual ethical guidance, or they focus on legal compliance (Parkinson, 2001). More specific ethics statements or values statements at the organizational level are often more useful than those of professional societies because they can be more specific; however, they may not offer a rigorous enough ethics framework to assist with complex analyses. Despite this deficit, rigorous and systematic ethical analysis of complex problems is an essential part of strategic communication. The complex and issue-defining power that makes communication strategic is also what necessitates ethical strategic communication. Research, analytics, competitive positioning, and planning accordingly are what make the communication enterprise strategic. Communicators listen through environmental scanning, surveys, and focus groups. They measure analytics, segment stakeholders and publics, analyze reams of data, gather internal research, define issues or problems accordingly, and interpret patterns that emerge from their analyses as findings, in order to keep strategic plans moving forward. They create dialogue with stakeholders, initiate conflict resolution, and implement problem solving. All of those activities require defining issues and determining what information is critical to creating strategy. What is the truth underlying the problem or issue at hand? That larger question requires more data to define their reality, but an analytical framework is required to guide rigorous analyses that will result in a reasonably accurate or truthful reflection of that reality, about which communicators can strategically communicate. Presuming the intellectual rigor necessary to create an honest and reasonably accurate depiction of reality, there are a myriad of ways that moral philosophers advise how to determine the ethical nature of strategic communication. The primary schools of thought differ in how they measure the ethics of strategic communication because their definition of “good” varies. For example, in consequentialism a good is an outcome to be maximized; yet in deontological ethics a good is a moral principle that can be held equally among all rational people. Responsible communication by someone of the highest moral character is considered a good of virtue ethics, while communication in the common interest of a community is a communitarian approach. Additionally, a Confucian approach emphasizes group belonging and establishing consensus to face change. Ethical strategic communication fosters relationships and trust. Organizational responsibilities to stakeholders include initiating dialogue and idea exchange. These activities comprise the ethical character of an organization and offer stakeholders the opportunity to advance their core ethical. Ethics is a precursor to establishing the positive relationships that allow the organization to consistently meet stakeholder expectations. Establishing consistency contributes to the building of trust, commitment, satisfaction, control mutuality, and community (Bowen, Hung-Baesecke, & Chen, 2016). In strategic communication, an orientation toward stakeholders is often assumed because of the inherent responsibility to represent their interests within strategic

4


OF

management. According to research, business ethicists implicitly if not explicitly endorse a stakeholder approach to construing the moral responsibilities of business. Similarly, in a symmetrical approach, strategic communication is based on research that is used to understand and facilitate mutual change, dialogue, and adaptation on behalf of organizations and stakeholders. In other words, both formal and informal methods of research are used to understand stakeholder values and priorities that can be aligned with or integrated into organizational priorities, and incorporated into decision making. This approach is a long-term one. Organization–public relationships are enhanced by inclusive approaches that build trust (Huang, 2001). Employing a symmetrical approach to establishing dialogue should lead to more ethical, inclusive, and comprehensive policies, procedures, and management, resulting in the resolution of issues, problems, and crises. However, a symmetrical approach alone is insufficient to ensure an ethical process or outcome. Ethics is implicit in communication, but must also be made explicit in the process of strategy creation and in communication about that strategy. Moral philosophy or ethics is the formal study of moral precepts and offers rigorous approaches to the analysis of ethical dilemmas. Ethics involves systematizing, recommending, and explaining or defending right or wrong behavior. There are three broad types of ethics in moral philosophy: meta-ethics, which includes metaphysics and the psychology of how we know moral standards exist; normative ethics, or the study of moral standards that guide right or wrong behavior; and applied ethics, involving application of these rules to specific issues and cases. Much of the enterprise in ethics is about establishing principles to guide behavior, so most of the focus of ethics in strategic communication is on normative ethics. Within normative ethics, there are three dominant approaches: virtue, consequence, and principle or duty. A brief review of each further explains the ethics of strategic communication.

Virtue ethics As a normative pursuit, virtue ethics dates back to the arguments of Socrates, Plato, and the rhetoric of Aristotle in ancient Greece. Virtue ethics examines the traits necessary to become a person of moral character who habitually exhibits wisdom, courage, temperance, and justice. Practice and moral education should steer one away from vices and toward a perfect balance or “mean” of character traits in which extremes are moderated by rationality. Arguments for the importance of virtue ethics include fostering dialogue, facilitating moral questioning and discovery, enhancing the potential for human flourishing, and an ethics of care, or of communitarian values based on social norms. Virtue is highly based on the individual person’s character rather than on action. The theory is based more heavily on hindsight and reflection than on attempting to mitigate current ethical dilemmas. As such, it can be used to retroactively study ethical behavior in order to ascertain the virtues to which strategic communicators should aspire (Bowen, 2016). Viewed from a global perspective, there are several cultural traditions that can be classified as virtue ethics that are important regarding the analyses of ethics in strategic communication.


OF

5

Jewish ethics takes a community-based duty approach to the concept of moral responsibility, with an emphasis on fairness and reciprocity. Those ethics require honest communication, should disavow misrepresentation and failure to disclose, and go beyond legalism with a requirement to communicate beyond the letter of the law. The role of community is central in this approach to ethics and appears highly compatible with a stakeholder perspective on strategic communication. When viewed from a community perspective, industries or stakeholder groups become the publics with whom we must create fair and just options, make full disclosures, and go beyond legalism; treating others as we would want to be treated. Similarly in the vein of virtue ethics, but focused on maintaining some control in turbulent environments, Confucian ethics offers an Eastern perspective that is noteworthy for strategic communicators. These philosophical ideas originated with Confucius (551–479 bce). Confucian ethics contains many contradictions, probably because it was focused on impending change; it emphasizes interdependence and contributes to ethical self-regulation in management. The Confucian concept of jen contributes to organizational culture by accentuating benevolence, righteousness, justice, and propriety. Confucian ethics could be implemented to build effective relationships with stakeholders. In looking at relationships between people and environment, Confucian ethics offers a look at the ethics of interdependence that predates systems theory. The jen concept seeks to supports a moving equilibrium similar to systems-theory-based symmetrical dialogue. The construct of symmetry is foundational in excellent strategic communication as an ethical approach to seeking strategic outcomes. Although it is beyond the scope of this entry, theological ethics of various traditions have numerous common foundations with those of virtue ethics, as well as with the deontological ethics discussed below. Virtue ethics remains a vibrant line of thought in communication ethics today, and formed the basis for the deontological or duty-based approach to ethics that is reviewed below. However, before discussing deontology, a competing paradigm, consequentialism, is briefly reviewed for its application in strategic communication.

Consequentialism: outcome-based utilitarian philosophy Consequentialism or consequentialist ethics is a framework that seeks to determine the morality of a decision based on its outcomes. In this relatively simple approach to ethics, the moral decision is the one that produces the best consequences as a whole. In the communication context, consequentialism often amounts to a cost–benefit analysis of predicted potential outcomes from strategic communication efforts. Consequentialism is best represented by utilitarian philosophy. Utilitarianism is the consequentialist philosophy originated by David Hume’s concept of utility, or what a decision does. Hume (1711–1766) was an anti-rationalist who professed moral passion, yet the concept of utility had staying power. It was refined and put into currency by John Stuart Mill (1806–1873). Utilitarianism requires the decision maker to enter into a utilitarian calculus of contemplating the number of good outcomes versus the number of harmful or negative outcomes of various potential actions. The

6


OF

ethical action is deemed the one that produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people while minimizing harms. Within this paradigm of ethics, public interest or acting in favor of the majority is the morally worthy good to be maximized. Act utilitarianism looks at a specific situation in all of its minutiae and complexities of potential consequences. Rule utilitarianism examines prior cases and seeks to maximize the good of a type or class of actions while minimizing harms, also based on potential consequences. However, consequences are difficult to accurately predict. Unpredictable consequences further complicate the utilitarian calculus, as in some cases, good outcomes later become harmful outcomes that reverse the ethical decision. Further, utilitarianism can often result in the tyranny of the majority, in which a minority is ignored. Critics often add that utilitarianism equates people with numbers and does not study ethical principles but merely considers predicted outcomes. Still, utilitarianism as ethics in the interest of the greater good is the basis for many of modern society’s rules, such as the judicial and penal systems of most Western countries. In the consequentialist paradigm, utilitarianism offers an insightful way for the strategic communicator to predict the consequences of communication for stakeholders and publics. Determining the ethical nature of communication by outcome alone does not take into account the intention of the communication or the moral principle to be valued. Bearing in mind the caveats about the utilitarian paradigm, it operates best when combined with virtue ethics or deontology. When combined with other ethical frameworks, utilitarianism can be helpful in issues management and scenario building by helping to predict the future consequences of actions and communications about them. A more powerful and complex framework is still needed to analyze the ethics of strategic communication, and deontological philosophy offers a rigorous solution.

Non-consequentialism: principle-based deontological philosophy To compensate for the pitfalls of utilitarian philosophy, such as a passion-based approach, majority rule, or reducing people to numbers, and to extend the applicability of virtue ethics to current dilemmas, not only based on experience and hindsight, philosophers began to examine metaphysical questions of common values during the Enlightenment (Sullivan, 1989). Enlightenment philosophers sought a rational approach to determine moral principle independent of consequences or the outcomes of the decision, though not ignoring those outcomes. The predominant philosophy to emerge was deontology, based upon moral principle, as originated by Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804). Christian and especially Protestant ethics fit into the deontological traditions, as do elements of numerous cultural norms based on duties, but Kant formalized this approach. Kant radically transformed philosophy by examining earlier conceptions of the meaning of thought and ethics. Guyer (1992) explained:


OF

7

Kant was not willing to ground human freedom on an alleged rational insight into some objectively perfect world … Kant ultimately came to see that the validity of both the laws of the starry skies above as well as the moral law within had to be sought in the legislative power of human intellect itself. (p. 2)

The complete freedom of the rational agent, and therefore the equality of all to engage in moral reasoning, was Kant’s foundation for deontological ethics. Deontological ethics, a name derived from the Latin term for duty, is based upon virtue ethics, and seeks universal moral norms that all rational people can agree upon as ethical. Deontological philosophy is based upon radical equality: All decision makers can engage in rational moral reasoning; therefore, all decision makers are equally obligated to be ethical. That radical equality is Kant’s law of autonomy and underlies his entire theory of ethics. He challenged the prevailing notion of aristocracy through his notion of moral autonomy based on rationality and was briefly imprisoned for his writings by the king of Prussia, Friedrich Wilhelm II. Kant insisted on the need for freedom from authority or partisanship to encourage independent thought. This radical break with prevailing norms valued reason above all else and shook the foundations of understanding, in what is known as Kant’s Copernican revolution in moral philosophy. For this reason, deontology holds center stage in discussions of ethics. Ethics as a subject is defined in Kantian terms: morality from any vantage point is what Kant said it was. Deontology is a rigorous theory that includes conceptions of duties, rights, justice, equality, and respect, as well as goodwill or moral intention. Kantian deontology is arguably the most stringent and thorough approach to ethics, by virtue of Kant’s decision test, known as the categorical imperative.

Categorical imperative The categorical imperative is a decision test that obligates all people equally and categorically rather than situationally, hypothetically, or conditionally. “Imperative” implies that all rational beings must consider their duties to uphold the moral law by virtue of reason. This rule guards against the selfishness that Kant and many other philosophers argue can result in bias in favor of the decision maker. Reason and moral autonomy free decision makers from prejudice, bias, fear of repercussions, simple social convention, or cultural norms that may taint the decision. Rational moral autonomy obligates everyone equally, so that ethical decisions must be made by logic and reason alone rather than preference or external influence. There are three forms of Kant’s categorical imperative, and an ethical decision is one based upon an underlying moral principle that can satisfy all three forms of the test. The first form of the categorical imperative tests both the universal nature of a decision, meaning that it crosses cultural boundaries, and the reversibility of a decision, meaning that the decision maker could be on the receiving end of the consideration. It asks, could you will the decision to become a universal law applicable in all similar situations for all time? (Kant, 1785/1964, paraphrased from p. 88). If the answer is affirmative, the universal test has been met and the analysis can proceed to the second and third forms of the categorical imperative. Moral principles that can be universalized generally rely upon implicitly valued constructs such as honesty, the value of

8


OF

human life, liberty, industriousness, and freedom from persecution. Examining the moral principle at hand is key to creating a decision that all rational people can understand. To assess one’s own actions by the same standards we apply to those of others is an essential component of morality. Strategic communication is easier to understand from the vantage point of stakeholders and publics if it is based upon a universal moral principle. The second form of the categorical imperative seeks to ensure equality of all stakeholders and publics impacted by a decision in any way. It attempts to incorporate their ideas, while respecting the rationality of their arguments, and values listening and dialogue as part of the ethical analysis process. This categorical imperative asks, are dignity and respect for all involved publics maintained with this decision? (Kant, 1785/1964, paraphrased from p. 96). This formula goes beyond the norm of reciprocity by obligating decision makers to consider how the decision could be viewed from numerous vantage points. It requires the decision maker not only to consider the consequences of the decision for numerous stakeholders and publics, but also to consider the moral principle underlying the action as the most important element of maintaining dignity and respect. Finally, the third and arguably most challenging form of the categorical imperative states that the decision must be made from a good moral will alone. Kant argued that only the goodwill was incorruptible, and thus it held the highest place in his moral philosophy. This form of the categorical imperative asks, what are the intentions behind this decision? (Kant, 1785/1993, paraphrased from p. 154). Only the intention to do the right thing because it is ethical will pass the test of good intention. Kant’s standard is that an act must pass all three tests of the categorical imperative to be considered ethical or morally worthy behavior. Deontology sets a high standard for ethical strategic communication by requiring that communication is only morally worthy when initiated with good intention or goodwill. Although it is difficult to ascertain the intention of others externally, doing the right thing in strategic communication simply because it is the right thing to do is the ultimate arbiter of moral worth. In a deontological paradigm, the standard of universal moral norms also applies to strategic communication. That is, the decision must be one that could also obligate all rational decision makers for all time in all places to execute the same action as a universal law. This universal standard places the decision maker on the receiving end of a decision as well as obligates all others to do the same thing he or she is considering. The theory also requires that the decision preserve dignity and respect for all involved stakeholders and publics. Symmetrical dialogue, give and take, rights, duties, and theories of justice are all within the framework of deontological ethics. Deontology endures. It is presently studied in moral philosophy and applied ethics fields, and is extensively applied in strategic communication. Although ethics is historically underrepresented in undergraduate communication textbooks, deontology does appear in corporate communication, mass media ethics, and public relations texts. While compliance and professionalism approaches generally dominate U.S. public relations education, European scholars often take a comparatively more philosophical and deontological approach to teaching ethics in strategic communication.


OF

9

Deontological reasoning is the most commonly used ethical approach in the practice of strategic communication. Although entry-level communication professionals may rely upon professionalism or utilitarianism, principle-based reasoning soon grows. Deontology’s use increases over that of other ethical paradigms with the strategic communicator’s age (Curtin, Derville-Gallicano, & Matthews, 2011), moral development, years of experience (Wright, 1985), ethics training, and responsibility level, and if the communicator reports directly to the chief executive officer (Berger, 2005; Bowen, 2009). Research into the strategic communication practices of issues management and the executive-level function of public relations has found that deontological philosophy is commonly represented as the primary ethical decision-making paradigm in use. Even in nongovernmental organizations working directly with public interest issues, deontological ethics is the clear preference in ethical decision making.

Advancing ethics and trust In conclusion, each of the ethical traditions reviewed above offers a way to conduct strategic communication in concert with ethical principles, across global, cultural, and societal contexts. The ethics of strategic communication is informed by interdisciplinary research. For example, business ethicists argue for ethical principles in business on a global scale, such as just and timely compensation, honesty and freedom from fraud, equity or lack of discrimination, and valuing fairness—principles that satisfy the needs of both consequentialism and deontology. Others have added to that list environmental protection, protection of the weak, and respect for the rule of law. Organizational communication scholars have focused on the importance of institutionalizing ethics as part of the organization’s culture, communication climate, and routine strategic management. The various approaches to ethics briefly reviewed here can be studied in greater detail and combined into a multifaceted examination that provides a detailed and thorough ethical analysis. Combinations of utilitarian, virtue, and deontological perspectives offer both rigor and context, allowing powerful ethical insights to emerge. Such analyses should result in consistently responsible, reflexive, and inclusive actions that increase the overall ethical nature and reputation of an organization. When ethics is viewed as a precursor to building trust and allowing positive relationships to form between organizations and stakeholders, it is clear that ethical analyses are not only central to the moral responsibility of reflexive management, but are required for competitive success. These ethical principles, applied to strategic communication, result in a foundation on multiple philosophies that broadly and rigorously advance the ethical nature of strategic communication and strengthen relationships with stakeholders and publics. SEE ALSO: Core Values; Corporate Social Responsibility; Decision Making; Issues

Management; Mission and Vision; Organizational Culture; Public Interest; Public Relations; Reflective Management: A Reflective Paradigm; Relationship Management; Relationships; Reputation; Stakeholder; Strategy as Ideology; Trust

10


OF

References Berger, B. (2005). Power over, power with, and power to public relations: Critical reflections on public relations, the dominant coalition, and activism. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17, 5–28. Bowen, S. A. (2004). Expansion of ethics as the tenth generic principle of public relations excellence: A Kantian theory and model for managing ethical issues. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16(1), 65–92. Bowen, S. A. (2005). A practical model for ethical decision making in issues management and public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(3), 191–216. Bowen, S. A. (2006). Autonomy in communication: Inclusion in strategic management and ethical decision-making, a comparative case analysis. Journal of Communication Management, 10(4), 330–352. Bowen, S. A. (2009). What communication professionals tell us regarding dominant coalition access and gaining membership. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 37(4), 427–452. Bowen, S. A. (2010). The nature of good in public relations: What should be its normative ethic? In R. L. Heath (Ed.), The Sage handbook of public relations (pp. 569–583). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bowen, S. A. (2016). Clarifying ethics terms in public relations from A to V, authenticity to virtue. Public Relations Review, 42(4), 564–572. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.03.012 Bowen, S. A., & Gallicano, T. D. (2013). A philosophy of reflective ethical symmetry: Comprehensive historical and future moral approaches and the excellence theory. In K. Sriramesh, A. Zerfass, & J. N. Kim (Eds.), Public relations and communication management: Current trends and emerging topics (pp. 193–209). New York, NY: Routledge. Bowen, S. A., Hung-Baesecke, C. J., & Chen, Y. R. (2016). Ethics as a precursor to organization–public relationships: Building trust before and during the OPR model. Cogent Social Sciences, 2. doi: 10.1080/23311886.2016.1141467 Curtin, P. A., Derville-Gallicano, T., & Matthews, K. (2011). Millennials’ approaches to ethical decision-making: A survey of young public relations agency employees. PR Journal, 5(2), 1–22. Grunig, J. E. (2006). Furnishing the edifice: Ongoing research on public relations as a strategic management function. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18, 151–176. Guyer, P. (1992). Introduction: The starry heavens and the moral law. In P. Guyer (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Kant (pp. 1–25). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Heath, R. L. (2005). Rhetorical theory. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public relations (Vol. 2, pp. 749–752). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Huang, Y. H. (2001). OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring organization– public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1), 61–90. Kant, I. (1785/1964). Groundwork of the metaphysic of morals. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Kant, I. (1785/1993). Metaphysical foundations of morals (C. J. Friedrich, Trans.). New York, NY: Modern Library. Parkinson, M. (2001). The PRSA code of professional standards and member code of ethics: Why they are neither professional nor ethical. Public Relations Quarterly, 46(3), 27–31. Sullivan, R. (1989). Immanuel Kant’s moral theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wright, D. K. (1985). Can age predict the moral values of public relations practitioners? Public Relations Review, 11(1), 51–60.

Further reading Goodpaster, K. E. (2007). Conscience and corporate culture. Malden, MA: Blackwell.


OF

11

Seeger, M. W. (1997). Ethics and organizational communication. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton. Sims, R. R. (1994). Ethics and organizational decision making: A call for renewal. Westport, CT: Quorum. Sullivan, R. J. (1994). An introduction to Kant’s ethics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Shannon A. Bowen, PhD, researches the ethics of strategic communication management and the dominant coalition. Her research in has won numerous awards, top papers at each major communication discipline conference, and the JJ&W Behavioral Science Research Prize. She is Professor at the University of South Carolina and formerly tenured in the S. I. Newhouse School at Syracuse University. She is a regular columnist for trade press outlet PRWeek and is a journal coeditor. She has published over 100 journal articles, reports, encyclopedia entries, book chapters, and books including An Overview of the Public Relations Function and Excellence in Internal Communication Management.