The Ethical Optimist

I read an interesting article about an ethics course state workers will be taking in Illinois.

According to the article:

More than 200 state employees are expected to take part in the ethics seminar at University of Illinois-Chicago. Featured speakers include agency heads, as well as speakers from Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s own office.

What shocked me about the story, were the comments from readers who felt that the training was a waste of taxpayer money.  For example:

What a farce! I can imagine the travel and per diem costs plus the course costs…can our money be better spent?? What fools we are for keeping these leaders in office…believe we can do better with Joe Citizen running the government…it wouldn;t be without mistakes, but I don’t believe they would be calculated mistakes…

To consider ethics training in government or business a waste of money is absurd…if the training is structured correctly.  Very often, people who work in government, business, non-profit, or any organization for that matter, break the rules inadvertently.  They learn to do things “the way they’ve always been done” and never really question whether or not they are acting ethically or legally.

Others are just unsure of how to file a complaint or make ethical issues known to those who can do something about them in an anonymous matter.

Ethics training often sheds light on both issues.  It gives guidance on what the rules are, where to find them, and how to raise a red flag when there is doubt.  

I’d rather see governments spend money on ethics training and reporting mechanisms than on $10,000 hammers.

A recent report on Reuters UK wire discusses an interesting problem plaguing Brunswick Group, an international financial communications firm.  Apparently, one of the firm’s partners discussed confidential information with her husband, who is a former Lehman Brothers salesman.  He, in turn, tipped off friends and relatives about 13 impending mergers.

The partner was suspended pending an investigation, but Brunswick must now deal with the aftermath and the issue of trust with its clients, who include Alcoa and Dow Chemical.

According to the article:

There will likely be a crackdown at PR firms with such sensitive news, not only on who has access to in formation but where and when they have access.

 

Most firms Reuters spoke with said they are taking a second look at their policies for handling information considering tighter restrictions on taking documents home and access to computer systems. Most had already sent out policy reminders to their staffers and are consulting with their lawyers.

The article notes that many IR firms mandate regular training on client confidentiality…or so they say.  I’m not buying it.  My experience is that new hires sign an agreement and never look at it again.  Ethics training at many firms remains a joke and doesn’t come into play until after a problem, when the lawyers get involved. 

In fact, many firms question the ROI of ethics training.  I doubt the folks at Brunswick would question it.  On Friday, Dow Chemical suspended using the firm’s services. 

In a business where reputation is your bread and butter, ignoring or half-assed training on ethics and policy is foolhardy. 

Our shop tends to be a heavy media relations shop. I’m not sure why we’ve come to fill this niche, but we have. In addition to our own clients, we’re often tapped by other, larger agencies, to handle national media outreach for their clients.

As much as we like to talk about our profession in all encompassing terms, the measure of many a program is results. Clients have a clear expectation: “Did you get my message out there?”

In fact, I’m seeing a distinct trend in more and more large agencies outsourcing the media relations function. Why? First and foremost, they need results or they’ll lose their accounts. Well, from what I can see, many of the younger people coming out of college with a PR degree were never told that speaking to media would be part of the job.

Are we so ashamed of this necessary function that we’ve decided to ignore it altogether? We’ve tried so hard to elevate our profession and put a disclaimer on press agentry, that the schools who feed us our workers now chose to brush it aside.

In fact, several young folks I’ve hired recently told me they did not have a single course in school regarding how to work with the media. They were taught how to communicate (in theory), and they were taught how to write a press release…period.

Ah, hello out there, didn’t anyone tell them that writing a release is only half the battle…you actually have to place the information somewhere? In my world, that usually requires a phone call, email, follow up, another phone call, another email, more follow up, etc.

In reality, some of my better media people have a sales background. I’m not as focused at choosing those with a PR degree anymore. Those who’ve done time in the sales trenches don’t flinch when it comes to picking up the phone and selling a message. The downside is that they may not have the “news” background they need to understand which messages will play well.

I see this becoming even more of an issue as the media fragments, downsizes, and original source reporting becomes a thing of the past. How can we counsel clients on developing messages and getting them out to their audiences if we don’t work with and understand the changing dynamics of today’s complex media landscape?

The PR academic community needs to do a better job of preparing students for the challenging job market they are about to face. These young people (and their parents) are paying a great deal of money to learn how to write a press release, but few are being prepared to handle the complexities of the job.

You know, I try very hard to be optimistic. There are some days, however, that I feel as though I’m swimming upstream, against the current!

Take today for example. I sometimes have high hopes in government officials. As an optimist, I feel as though most folks who enter into public service truly have good motives. I’ve watched my own Governor Corzine make some tough choices and try to get NJ back on the fiscal tracks with both hope and trepidation.

I think that he, too, is swimming upstream. It’s hard to move a bureaucracy.

Just today, I received my application for this year’s Homestead Rebate program. It’s a program that returns a portion of a homeowner’s property tax here in NJ. I got a kick out of the cover letter, which stated, “Please carefully review this application and apply for the much-needed relief available through this program.” Signed by Governor Corzine no less. My own state government has acknowledged, in writing, that I’m overburdened and deserving of relief.

Okay, so does it strike anyone else as somewhat ridiculous that they’re probably spending a HUGE amount of money to develop and mail this multi-page application to homeowners throughout the state, staff it for execution, tracking, payments, etc. (wonder what THAT line item is in the budget) to return money they shouldn’t be taking in the first place?

Why not just properly assess and tax me? Instead, your using my tax dollars to staff and execute a program to return my tax dollars? Okay, maybe I’m a simpleton, but this strikes me as ironic at the very least. A total waste of time and money at most.

Why not put that time and money into properly adjusting the system instead of adding another layer to address the root problem?

Like many problems, this is not one of ethics, but of management. In fact, many ethical dilemmas stem from poor management/process issues. I recommend people not get hung up on the outcome, but rather focus on the root of an issue.

Perhaps Governor Corzine could use me as an advisor…