2008 PROCEEDINGS - Public Relations Society of America

the public relations profession was too diverse, client-focused, and time-sensitive to implement a
deontological decision making model. In particular, they argued that the deontological concept of
universality was difficult to maintain and felt that they had little or no decision making
autonomy. Additionally, interview transcripts revealed a strong rift between practitioners'
examples of ethical practice and the motives or ethical intents behind them.
Deontology’s Universality is Difficult to Maintain
Overwhelmingly, public relations practitioners described difficulty making decisions that
maintained universal standards of deontological ethics. Study participants argued that
universality was difficult to maintain due to the situational nature of public relations and the
varying degree of clients' ethical standpoints. One respondent explained,
As a profession overall, it is based on different situations…different companies…
it depends on the product and type of organization and what a PR practitioner is
asked to do or has signed up to promote and support. It’s more challenging in
other places, like for the tobacco industry or any other areas like that… You
would tow that line a bit or stop and ask yourself, "Am I being as ethical as I
possibly could be?"
Practitioners argued that the type of industry dictated the degree of public relations ethics.
One practitioner stated, "everyone brings their own morals and backgrounds. You have to
acclimate yourself to the ethics of that organization and revamp to follow suit. Implementing it
would be difficult. There are so many definitions about what is right and what is bad." Similarly,
another practitioner explained, "ethics is specific to industries. When you look at PR there’s a lot
of communication that goes out for image building. It’s not completely honest and there are not
always those [ethical] channels in place. You have an ultimate end goal and are going to do it."
Lack of Autonomy
Respondents communicated that a lack of experience kept them from exercising complete
autonomy. Often, practitioners described a lack of autonomy when working with superiors and
clients who use unethical public relations practices. For example, one practitioner felt that a
client's request to launch a negative public relations campaign against a local charitable
recreation center was unethical. When her ethical guidance was not well received, she quit. This
individual said, "[my client] was furious. He wanted me to go after the YMCA! I said, 'That’s
like going after mom and apple pie!' I said no. So I quit. I said, 'I’m not going there. I’m not
doing it.'” By quitting, she was then able to utilize ethical decision making autonomy.
Similarly, another individual recognized her lack of autonomy when making ethical public
relations decisions. She explained, "even if I feel like I’m stuck at work and not being able to
make a decision, I try to find other outlets where I can use my PR skills… That’s always fun,
because I get to make a decision and do it!"
Rift Between Action and Intent
Several conversations exposed a rift between a practitioner's actions and ethical intent.
When practitioners considered the ethics of their actions, they often did so in a manner that failed
to reflect deontological standards of ethics. In particular, participants described actions that
lacked Kant's notion of a pure intent - a morally good will. One individual exposed this rift by
describing her strategy to encourage clients to donate money to local initiatives in order to
increase their public standing and image – rather than to benefit the community or charity.
100