The Ethical Optimist

To say I was surprised and delighted by the focus on ethics at this year’s PRSA International Conference is an understatement.  I’ve felt a bit lonely on my soapbox.

One of the hot topics of discussion and debate was on PRSA’s advocacy efforts.  Apparently, the rank and file have been crying out for our professional organization and its leaders to show a little moxy when it comes to defending and promoting our profession.  When the topic of PRSA’s response to Andrew Cohen’s comments on CBS came up, the rank and file roared with applause.  (In the event you have forgotten, this misbegotten CBS Legal Analyst was quoted as saying, “Show me a PR person who is accurate and truthful and I’ll show you a PR person who is unemployed.”)

Thousands of us bombarded CBS and its management with nasty-grams, backed up and coordinated by our professional association.  Just call it a Flak Attack.

“More!” the crowds apparently cried.  We’re tired of being the red-headed stepchild of the marketing and media industries. Like Rodney Dangerfield, we cry out for a little respect.

Obviously, this type of quick, reactive play is necessary, but we need to focus on being proactive as well. And, while the call to presidential communication ethics was well meaning (Clean and Fair Election Program), it fell a bit short.  Many of the folks I spoke to felt that PRSA (as well as members) needs to do more outreach to business schools and associations, as well as the business press to raise awareness of PR’s role in the communications mix. After all, what was once a nascent discipline is morphing into a critical and standardized profession (more on that later this week).

They also had very strong opinions on putting some bite into policing our own.  I sat with five people from five different markets, and all had a story about a firm or practitioner making local headlines for ethical violations that tarnished the profession overall.  Apparently, there’s more than one bad apple in the PR barrel.  That said, I did gain a greater understanding regarding the difficulties of sanctioning members of our profession.

Until we can do so, more of us need to speak out in reaction when those bad apples make headlines.  We also need to be proactive in our local markets so reporters know who to call for comment when they cover our industry and those who label themselves PR professionals.  While I appreciate the efforts of PRSA, each and everyone of us is accountable to the profession.

Funny thing that I was speaking earlier this week about the Emporer’s new clothes, especially in light of the Sarah Palin wardrobe debacle.

What got me going was an article titled, “Wardrobe Malfunction’ Issue Hits GOP — But Fashion Experts Say Palin’s Top-Dollar Duds Are ‘A Necessity”.

Sorry, but having been in this business for a long time, I have trouble taking the fashion press or fashion experts too seriously. After all, anyone who says $150,000 is a necessity for a candidate’s wardrobe during an economic crisis needs a reality check.

The expense “doesn’t seem frivolous to me,” says Simon Doonan, creative director at Barneys, a stop on Palin’s shopping trip.

Of course a guy selling clothes at 1,000 percent markup isn’t going to see it as frivolous. He’s in the business of ridiculous.

“When you think about costumes for literally every day of the week, for a couple-month period, it’s not outrageous,” says Susan Scafidi, who teaches fashion law at Fordham Law School.

What is shocking, Scafidi says, is the context. “When you see that number in the middle of a credit crunch” and consider the irony of “spending enormous amounts to reach ordinary people” for whom $150,000 is probably more than a year’s salary, the spree is “a political disaster,” she told USAT writer Olivia Barker.

Look, there are millions of high-ranking working women who’ve figured out how to look great on a budget. Several fashion pundits said she looked like a train wreck before she got her $150K makeover, but frankly, I can’t tell the difference. I would imagine that the average voter couldn’t tell either.

What the average voter can tell, however, is when a party or candidate is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. To say you identify with Joe Six Pack and you understand the struggles of putting your kids though college etc, and then have a headline blaring you spent $150,000 on your clothes, is credibility suicide.

The saddest part of this story, and one that is downplayed, is the fact that her wardrobe is a central issue in the first place. I don’t see too many folks talking about what the guys are wearing.

That said, this is a lesson for all in our profession. Actions have to back up messaging. When decisions are made, at every level, you have to ask yourself…if this came out, what would my mother say? How would the headline read? If you’re looking to connect with average Americans, you have to think like them.

A smart stylist would have made her look like a million bucks for considerably less and then touted the accomplishment. It would have played much better to the public.

NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman had a terrific article recently about the financial mess we’re in and some of the ethics behind it.

Friedman cites a book titled, “How: Why How We Do Anything Means Everything in Business (and in Life).” Its author, Dov Seidman, is the C.E.O. of LRN, which helps companies build ethical corporate cultures.

Seidman basically argues that in our hyperconnected and transparent world, how you do things matters more than ever, because so many more people can now see how you do things, be affected by how you do things and tell others how you do things on the Internet anytime, for no cost and without restraint.

We’ve all been hearing this more and more…some call it the “naked” corporation. Anyone can leak information from a board room or a lunch room. A disgruntled airline passenger can quickly send video from a cell phone to local media showing the angst caused by a plane that has been sitting on a hot runway for hours. Anyone can go online and dig deep enough to learn not only about your organization, but everything connected to your organization. We live in a transparent world.

As such, public relations professionals need to be looking at their own organizations from the outside in, to see what others can see. Often, we’re so focused on directing messages outside of our organizations, we don’t take time to look at what’s coming in. I’m always amazed when I come across a website or blog that bashes a client and the client is unaware of it. These usually turn up in the simplest of searches…reminding me of the children’s story of the Emperor who had no clothes. Everyone but the client realizes their naked!

Friedman notes:

“In a connected world,” Seidman said to me, “countries, governments and companies also have character, and their character — how they do what they do, how they keep promises, how they make decisions, how things really happen inside, how they connect and collaborate, how they engender trust, how they relate to their customers, to the environment and to the communities in which they operate — is now their fate.”

Friedman argues that we’ve gotten away from the “how.” To a large extent many financial institutions stopped asking how they were making money, as long as they continued to make more money. How often do we see this manifested in the organizations we work for and represent? We’re so intent on a goal that we lose sight of how we’re going to accomplish that goal and the potential destruction we leave in the wake of getting there.

One of the things I often discuss in my ethics lectures is the importance of slowing down to think and raise the difficult questions. Often, when I consult on ethical issues and the crises that arise from them, clients will say, “You know, I had a bad feeling about that, but everyone else seemed to think it was a good idea.”

Friedman notes how difficult it is for individuals to speak up. After all, it is human nature to operate within a herd mentality. Many fear speaking up in the rush to meet a deadline, appease a client or attain a specific goal, all of which can start the slide into the slippery slope of ethical decision making.

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”

So, what can we learn from Mr. Friedman and the current mess we’re in? Like Margaret Mead said, never underestimate the power of one. Public relations practitioners are in a unique position to scan the horizon and keep management teams tuned into the importance of “how” when it comes to decision making. We need to be the ones who speak up and become the conscience of the organization. We need to be the ones to ask the tough questions. As Friedman concluded:

And so it must be with us. We need to get back to collaborating the old-fashioned way. That is, people making decisions based on business judgment, experience, prudence, clarity of communications and thinking about how — not just how much.

Once again, my Mom summed it up when I faced the herd mentality in my youth with a simple question.  “So tell me, if all your friends decided to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you join them?”

Last week, I gave a presentation to the PR Society of Maine (thanks for the invite!).  As always, I was surprised to have a room full of people.  Usually, when you put ethics into the title of the presentation, you tend to scare off a few folks.  They think they’re about to get a lesson in morality.  Add that to the fact that all PR people like to think their ethical, and it can be a lonely room.

This was a good crowd.  Perhaps word is getting out there that ethics matter in our profession. At least these folks think so.

That said, I’m always amazed by the fact that the rank and file know so little about law and compliance when it comes to our industry.  Thanks to my friend Mike Lasky at Davis & Gilbert, LLP, I know a bit about compliance and how FTC laws apply to what PR folks do on a daily basis.  Whenever I share it in a presentation, people frantically take notes and ask questions.  For most, it’s the first time they’ve been exposed to the legalities (never mind the ethics) of our profession.

While it’s good business for Mike, it’s troubling to me that more organizations don’t focus on this.  The one’s that do, usually do it because they have a great attorney who recommends it, or because they’ve gotten into trouble for ignoring it.  And, while I’ve seen firms focus on it, I’ve rarely seen in-house corporate departments worry about it.

However, knowing the law isn’t always enough. While it may be legal, it may not be ethical or credible.  Compliance training in and of itself isn’t enough.  It needs to be balanced by training on ethical decision making, and a case study approach that ties it all together.

The more I teach, the more I learn…and I’m learning that knowledge needs to be put into context for it to make an impact.  Hopefully, I made a small impact on the folks in Maine.