Organizational Factors Encouraging Ethical Decision Making: An Exploration into the Case of an Exemplar
ABSTRACT. What factors in the organizational culture of an ethically exemplary corporation are responsible for encouraging ethical decision making? This question was analyzed through an exploratory case study of a top pharmaceutical company that is a global leader in ethics. The participating organization is renowned in public opinion polls of ethics, credibility, and trust. This research explored organizational culture, communication in issues management and public relations, management theory, and deontological or utilitarian moral philosophy as factors that might encourage ethical analysis. Our understanding of organizational ethics is enhanced by elucidating factors the case revealed as encouraging ethical analysis: an organizational culture that emphasizes the importance of ethics, Theory Y management, a symmetrical worldview valuing innovation and dialogue, a counseling role for issues management or public relations in the dominant coalition, rewarding ethical behavior, ethical analysis using moral philosophy, consistency between individual values and organizational philosophy, and ethics training. These factors, and perhaps others as yet unidentified, worked together to create an environment that encouraged ethical decision making at the exemplar organization. KEY WORDS: business ethics, communication ethics, organizational culture, issue decision making, public relations ethics, Kantian deontology, ethics training
Shannon A. Bowen
Introduction Through exploratory study of an exemplary organization, renowned worldwide for its ethics, this research sought to identify factors that encouraged ethical decision making. Learning what the exemplar organization does to enhance and encourage ethical decision making is valuable because it would allow us to devise methods of fostering ethical organizational behavior. The communication function in organizational decision making is an excellent domain in which to explore how ethical decisions are made and supported. Issues management and public relations are the communication functions responsible for helping to make decisions in complicated organizational dilemmas, counseling executives on the ethics of actions, and communicating with an organization’s external and internal publics. Ethical communication and the decision-making process that it entails are conceptually based in several disciplines. The researcher examined scholarship on organizational culture, communication in issues management and public relations, management theory, deontology, and utilitarian moral philosophy. Findings of the case study related to each area of scholarship are discussed.
Conceptualization Shannon A. Bowen (Ph.D., University of Maryland, 2000) is Assistant Professor at the University of Houston in the School of Communication. Her research focuses on the ethics of issues management and public communication. She has published numerous articles on these topics and is currently conducting grant research on business ethics.
The role of issues management and public relations in ethical decision making Scholars (Dozier, et al., 1995; Ewing, 1981; Grunig, 1992 a, b, 1997; Heath, 1997; Heath and Nelson,
Journal of Business Ethics 52: 311–324, 2004. 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
312
S. A. Bowen
1986) argued that the public relations manager is often called upon to give ethics counsel to the dominant coalition in times of issue decision making or crisis. However, the communication manager in the organization, whether titled issues management or public relations, normally has inadequate training in ethics (George, 1988; Pratt and Rentner, 1989) and little guidance from the body of scholarly knowledge in the field (Grunig, 1992a, b; Leeper, 1996; Wright, 1996). Wright (1996) found the scarcity of research on public relations ethics ironic because public relations considers itself to be the ethical conscience (Hill, 1958; Ryan and Martinson, 1983) of an organization. Further, if the communication function is to counsel the dominant coalition on matters of ethics, the organization’s top communicator should be a member of that powerelite (Dozier et al., 1995; Grunig et al., 2002). The role of the ethical conscience of the organization is largely the responsibility of issues management. Issues management is the part of public relations charged with making policy-level decisions on issues, and counseling the dominant coalition on issues of importance. These decisions must be morally sound, or as Zwetsloot (2003) declared, ‘‘do things right the first time’’ (p. 202). Gower (2003) explained, ‘‘The practice of public relations is about relationships, and relationships are at the heart of ethics’’ (p. 1). Therefore, public relations, issues management, and ethics are interdependent concerns. The communication function of an organization has a role to play not only in communicating about ethical decisions with publics, but also in performing ethical analysis and counseling the dominant coalition on the ethical course of action. The argument for ethical public relations and organizational behavior is not a new one. Heath (1997) declared: ‘‘One principle that has become increasingly central to business planning. … is that if companies want to minimize externally imposed standards, they must self-regulate by ascertaining and implementing appropriate standards of ethics’’ (p. 132). Others (Broom, et al., 1997; McElreath, 1996) argued that it is the duty of businesses to be ethical. Although the argument for ethical public relations is not new, this article addresses the practical question of how that ideal can be encouraged, implemented, and maintained in an organization.
Organizational culture For an organization as a whole to be ethical, it must have an organizational culture that values ethical decision making. Examining what comprises the organizational culture should reveal some key attributes that encourage ethical behavior. Morgan’s (1997) saw an organization as ‘‘the enactment of a shared reality’’ (p. 141), encompassing the nuances of organizational culture that have implications for the ethics of an organization. Robbins’ (1990) definition of organizational culture added: ‘‘Individual initiative, risk tolerance, direction, integration, management support, control, identity, reward system, conflict tolerance, and communication patterns’’ (p. 439). All of these dimensions had an effect on ethical decision making through factors such as the level of autonomy for communication in issue decision-making, the relationship of the top communicator to the dominant coalition, and how the moral analyses of individuals were communicated about in issues management meetings. Organizational culture scholars (Falcione, et al., 1987; Smircich and Calas, 1987) placed high importance on the consistency of culture throughout the organization, in both internal and external communication, as well as in strategy. Organizational culture can have a tremendous impact on the value that is placed on ethical decision making, both for individuals and for the organization as a whole. Barney (1986) contended that organizational culture can actually contribute to a sustainable competitive advantage for businesses. Scholars who studied organizational reputation (Albert and Whetten, 1985; Dutton and Dukerich, 1991; Whetten and Godfrey, 1999) maintained that a positive reputation, such as one for ethical behavior, had a beneficial effect in the marketplace. Stormer (2003) credited neoclassical economic theory with the idea that ethical corporate behavior enhanced profitability, but called for a theory that encouraged ethical behavior from a philosophical standpoint of benefit to society. A communication perspective of organizational culture. Organizational culture and communication are linked in two ways. First, the culture of an organization is conveyed and perpetuated through the use of communication. Second, organizational culture often
Factors of Organizational Ethics dictates the type and structure of communication in a company, as exemplified by the model of public relations that the organization prefers in communicating with publics or the communication hierarchy in the organization. Grunig (1992a, b) discussed two main concepts of organizational culture and power that had a direct impact on organizational outcomes and on the communication function of the organization: authoritarian culture and participative culture. An authoritarian culture is a closed system in which there is a definite power–distance relationship between superior and subordinate. A participative organizational culture is one in which the system is open, employee input is valued, and power–distance relationships are low and less formalized. Authoritarian systems operate on an asymmetrical worldview, whereas participative cultures operate on a symmetrical presupposition (Grunig, 1992a). Authoritarian cultures, according to Grunig (1992a), ‘‘foster mechanical structures, asymmetrical systems of communication, and mediocrity and ineffectiveness’’ (p. 565). Participative cultures, on the other hand, empowered both the publics and the issues manager or public relations practitioner through negotiation and compromise. Therefore, a participative culture allows autonomy for communication and an opportunity for the highest-level communicator to counsel the dominant coalition on ethical decision making. However, the communication function must be highly valued by the CEO (Grunig et al., 2002) and its managers must have the knowledge and skills to promote inclusion in the dominant coalition (Dozier et al., 1995). The ability to engage in ethical analysis and counsel the dominant coalition on ethics varies greatly among practitioners (Leeper, 1996; Wright, 1985) and moral development tends to increase in complexity with age (Kohlberg, 1969; Kohlberg and Candee, 1984; Wright, 1985). Despite these areas of variation among professionals, the literature supports the idea that a participative organizational culture is more supportive of autonomous ethical analyses among moral agents than an authoritarian culture. Management and worldview in relation to ethics. The management style and worldview of management in an organization both have an impact on how ethics is
313
viewed. McGregor’s (1960) concepts of theory X and theory Y management were important to this research because they can encourage or hinder ethical decision making. A stratified management hierarchy is seen as necessary to control employees in a Theory X approach (Robbins, 1990), and traits that would encourage ethical analysis such as individual innovation and collaborate decision making are not highly valued. Theory X management is a pessimistic view characterized by presuppositions of central authority, conservatism, elitism, a closed system, and internal orientation. Theory Y management, in contrast, holds precepts of decentralization of management, equity, autonomy, and innovation (McGregor, 1960). Applying these concepts to ethical decision making means that a Theory Y system of management would be more likely to encourage discussion and analysis of ethical issues than a Theory X system. Although there are likely exceptions that exist, the rationale is that Theory Y management seems to provide an open environment in which ethical analyses could flourish. A symmetrical worldview applies a two-way flow of communication, taking into consideration the viewpoints originating outside the organization (Grunig, 1989). An asymmetrical worldview would hold that management knows best and rarely needs the input of publics or others outside the boundaries of an organization (Grunig and White, 1992). In most instances, organizations with a symmetrical worldview had a more participative culture than their asymmetrical counterparts, were innovative, and had an open system. Scholars (Grunig and Grunig, 1996; Grunig and White, 1992; Heath, 2001; Pearson, 1989) reasoned that these traits of open communication and dialogue are inherently ethical, concluding that they should encourage ethical behavior when applied in an organization. The emphasis of the symmetrical worldview (Grunig and White, 1992) and Theory Y management (McGregor, 1960) on autonomy, decentralization of management, equity, open communication and encouraging individual innovation is not happenstance. The parallels in the assumptions of these theories are apparent: Individual analysis, equality, dialogue, and a participative culture play a vital role in ethical deliberations and also in enabling the issues management function to have input into decision-
314
S. A. Bowen
making at the highest level of the organization. These factors should encourage ethical consideration and behavior in an organization.
Philosophical perspectives There are two primary branches of moral philosophy to which an organization desiring ethical behavior could subscribe (Christians, et al., 2001; Day, 1997; DeGeorge, 1986; Donaldson and Werhane, 1999; Jaksa and Pritchard, 1994): consequentialist and nonconsequentialist ethics. As the names indicate, consequentialist philosophy determines the ethical course of action based on the consequences or outcomes of an action. Nonconsequentialist philosophy determines the ethics of a situation by the principles or duties involved rather than the consequences. Briefly reviewed here are the main types of each approach: utilitarianism as a consequentialist philosophy and deontology as a nonconsequentialist philosophy. Because the case study organization in this research is an exemplar in ethics, the researcher reviewed each of these two competing ethical paradigms to determine which was primarily used by the organization. Utilitarian philosophy. Utilitarian philosophy (Mill, 1861/1957) is consequentialist in that it determines the ethical course of action based on the predicted consequences of various alternatives. Different forms of utilitarianism provide differing means of analyzing what is ultimately considered ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘bad’’ in the utilitarian calculation of potential outcomes, such as happiness, pleasure, intrinsically valued virtues, knowledge, and so on. This philosophy looks at the utility of a decision and deems what is ethical based on the maximins principle. Schick (1997) explained this concept as the ‘‘option whose worst or minimal outcome is the best or maximal of the different worst possibles’’ (p. 37). Utilitarianism bases decisions on maximizing good outcomes and minimizing bad outcomes for the greater good or the greater number of people. A utilitarian analysis can be used without much training in philosophy (Borowski, 1998) because it employs a cost-benefit calculation that is intrinsic to most people’s analyses (Gandz and Hayes, 1988). Mill (1861/1957) held
that maximizing happiness and lessening harm was a way to judge morality based on Biblical precepts of benevolence. Two main types of utilitarianism can be employed in an ethical analysis: act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. Each applies a utilitarianism costbenefit analysis, but they are applied at a different level of analysis (Gorovitz, 1971). Act utilitarianism is concerned with applying the utilitarian test to a specific situation in all of its detail. Because all cases are different, act utilitarianism holds that each should be put to a utilitarian test to determine the morally correct course of action, as defined by promoting the greatest good for the greatest number (De George, 1999). Rule utilitarianism holds that moral evaluations can be applied to entire classes of actions rather than to each specific action (Gorovitz, 1971). It looks at the general consequences of past cases and assumes that future cases will hold some similarity. The advantage of a rule utilitarianism approach is that the consequences of actions are difficult to predict, and rule utilitarianism does rely on the predictive value of outcomes in similar cases of the past. Act utilitarianism relies on guessing the consequences of a specific action, which are often more difficult to predict accurately. Utilitarianism is not without weaknesses. The majority always wins in a utilitarian analysis, reinforcing the status quo. This type of majority rule might go against what we would innately judge as ethical, as in the case of the US Civil Rights movement. Oftentimes, a small minority can raise serious ethical issues that should be attended to regardless of the number of people in agreement with the majority. DeGeorge (1999) argued that utilitarian ‘‘theory cannot account for justice and, in some instances, runs counter to it’’ (p. 67). Another problem of utilitarianism is that it must predict all potential consequences of a decision accurately (Bowen, 2004), ignoring the free will and unpredictable nature of human response. Even past cases, as used in rule utilitarianism, are often an unreliable guide to future outcomes. Utilitarianism becomes fraught with complications on a close analysis. Posner (2002) questioned how we know that happiness is what we should consider the measure of morality, rather than satisfaction or something else. What if doing something reprehensible resulted in more
Factors of Organizational Ethics happiness than doing something ethically commendable which did not have happiness as an outcome? Further, whose happiness are we to measure? Posner (2002) asked, ‘‘Does the happiness of animals count?’’ (p. 37). Though utilitarianism has complications, the theory is a useful and common approach to conducting ethical analyses when cautiously applied. Deontological philosophy. Founded in the Eighteenth Century by German scholar Immanuel Kant, deontology is a nonconsequentialist paradigm of moral philosophy in which decisions are made based on moral worth as defined by duty. This paradigm is in opposition to the consequentialist school, that is represented primarily by utilitarianism; Kant argued that the consequences of a decision should not dictate the moral principles of right (Kant, 1785/1964). Although there are many aspects to Kantian philosophy (Beiser, 1992), autonomy and the categorical imperative are most germane to the decision making called for in organizational issues management. Kant’s Law of Autonomy states, ‘‘A moral agent is an agent who can act autonomously, that is, as a law unto himself or herself, on the basis of objective maxims of his or her reason alone’’ (Sullivan, 1989, p. 48). Kant added that universality is the key on which the Law of Autonomy rests; he called this ‘‘the idea of the will of every rational being as a will which makes universal law’’ (Kant, 1785/1964, p. 98). Kant based his theory on the understanding that people have a rational moral reason that is capable of ‘‘determin[ing] how we should act and also be able to motivate us to act on [our] judgments without relying on any prior desires’’ (Sullivan, 1989, p. 45). Those ‘‘prior desires’’ were labeled subjectivity, pure self-interest, or prudential concerns. Kant (1785/ 1964) maintained, ‘‘morality necessarily presupposes freedom’’ (p. 116). Therefore, one component of deontology is the freedom to engage in moral analysis. According to Sullivan (1989), Kant regarded autonomy as ‘‘a moral absolute’’ (p. 49), meaning that it is a necessary condition for ethical decision making. Kant expounded the theory that one has the autonomous power to act as an independent decision maker, using one’s will and reasoning as the only bases for an action. Autonomy is not simply a goal in itself, but the freedom to dis-
315
cover where one’s duty lies and examine if that finding is consistent with the categorical imperative. There are three forms of Kant’s categorical imperative, but the most common version from his Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (Kant, 1785/ 1964) reads: ‘‘Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law’’ (p. 88). The categorical imperative obligates all decision makers to test the moral principle of a decision through generalizing the proposed rule to all others. This test places the agent in the position of judging the defensibility of an action, being on the receiving end of an action having all others take the same action, and so on. It creates a test in which the principle must be rational and defensible from all perspectives. If every rational, autonomous decision maker would arrive at the same decision, then the action is deemed ethical. The second form of the categorical imperative asks if the proposed decision maintains the dignity and respect of all others as well as of the moral agent. Kant (1785/1964) explained that the second form of the categorical imperative required agents to treat others ‘‘never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end’’ (p. 96). The autonomous agent must test if the proposed decision maintains self respect as well as respects others. If dignity is maintained, then the action is morally sound in this regard. Finally, Kant discussed that intention is the ultimate arbiter of moral worth. In 1785 he wrote, ‘‘Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a GOOD WILL’’ (Kant, 1785/ 1993, p. 154) [emphasis in original]. The final test of a decision in deontology is whether it is made from the basis of a good will rather than lesser presuppositions. For an action to be ethical, one must desire to do the right thing and uphold one’s moral duty. Kant’s deontological philosophy provides a clear guide to ethical decision making that can be implemented in counseling the dominant coalition on ethical issues. In summary, literature in moral philosophy, public relations, organizational culture, communication, and management indicate some initial factors of an organization that should encourage ethical analysis and deliberation, leading to more ethical organizational behavior. Research on these areas of
316
S. A. Bowen
scholarship led to the following research question to be explored empirically through case study: RQ: What factors in the organizational culture of an ethically exemplary corporation are responsible for encouraging ethical decision making?
the interviewer’s handwritten notes, interviews were transcribed from audio tapes. The transcripts allowed for the verbatim comments used in the analysis and reporting of data. Data were archived, coded, and analyzed with qualitative data analysis software and reflexively checked with participants to ensure the correct meanings were conveyed.
Methodology A qualitative case study (Stake, 1994; Yin, 1994) of a leading pharmaceutical manufacturer was conducted. This organization was an exemplar in ethics, leading several popular polls of the most-trusted corporation in the US. As a condition for research access, confidentiality of the organization and any factors that could be used to identify it was granted. The company is referred to here with the pseudonym ‘‘Pharma Inc’’. Data were collected through interviews (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Lindlof, 1995; Spradley, 1979), participant observation (Adler and Adler, 1987, 1994; Spradley, 1980), and document analysis (Hodder, 1994; Jones, 1996). The research design was intended to include contextual conditions (Marshall and Rossman, 1995). Yin (1994) argued that case studies excel at research situations involving phenomena and contexts. A total of 23 interviews ranged from a minimum of 45 minutes to a maximum of more than 3 hours. The mean length of the interviews was 90 minutes, for a total of about 35 hours of interview time, all transcribed. Multi-site observation over a 4 month period and document analysis of 128 documents augmented interview data. In exchange for participation in the study, the organization was given two reports: One report focused on how to optimize issues management in the organization. The second report concerned ethical decision making and included the points discussed in the conclusion of this paper. Informed consent forms were signed and kept on file, and all work was approved by a university human subjects committee. Data were analyzed by using the method Miles and Huberman (1994) suggested for qualitative analysis: data reduction, data display matrix, and conclusion drawing and verification. Main themes were put into matrix form that allowed for theoretical clarity in the emerging findings. In addition to
Findings Organizational culture in the exemplar The organization studied in this case (‘‘Pharma Inc.’’) has a widely held reputation for ethical decision making, and is among a popular poll’s top rankings of the most trusted corporations in the world, although specifics cannot be revealed due to the confidentiality agreement the organization required. Pharmaceuticals and medical devices comprise the bulk of the organization’s issues requiring public relations and issues management. The organizational culture is one in which issues management is given a top priority in helping the organization adapt to an ever-changing industry. The issues managers argued that ethics plays a role in every issue decision made at the organization, and that the clear ethical mission of the company is their guide. The values and ethics of the organization are defined in an ethics statement that participants referred to frequently during interviews and researcher observation of issues management meetings. Organizational decisions are made based on the responsibilities outlined in the ethics statement and ethics training materials. An executive-level participant showed pride in sharing the ethics training materials with the researcher. The materials go into greater depth in explanation of the ethics statement, and provide models and diagrams of decision considerations to be used in issue analysis. So germane to the organization’s culture is the ethics statement that it is prominently displayed above the main entrance to the lobby and it adorns the office wall or credenza of every issues manager in this study. The issues managers in the organization regarded ethics as a chief factor in their decision making. For example, several participants’ responses echoed that of one executive who said, ‘‘I always return to the
Factors of Organizational Ethics central question [when facing an ethical dilemma]: What would the ethics statement have us do?’’ Issues managers in this organization were certain that deciding an issue ethically was their goal, and that the organization would stand behind them on an ethical decision, even if it were not the easiest solution to enact. New employees and those joining the organization through mergers and acquisitions are socialized into the organizational culture through a series of employee training programs emphasizing the values and mission of the company. There are three levels of ethics training seminars so that all employees receive training and know that they are expected and encouraged to act ethically. In addition to these major initiatives, there are ethics seminars in many of the organizations’ meetings, such as a meeting the researcher observed in Europe. The meeting was held to train European and Middle Eastern subsidiary executives in crisis management, but included three hours of training and discussion on the ethics statement, plus a two hour segment on issues management. Two participants noted that ethics training is always included in company seminars and conferences, albeit sometimes informally. One vice president said: ‘‘We reinforce our commitment to the ethics statement at every turn. It is especially important to do this with the subsidiary executives, because they have to make ethical decisions out there every day without our help … they rely on the ethics statement’’. Authoritarian versus participative organizational culture. The organizational culture in the study organization was participative rather than authoritarian. Participation and input from employees on the ethics of issues was sought and expected by senior management. The organizational culture of this company was one that valued ethical deliberation, as evidenced through what the participants discussed in the interviews. The most-senior person interviewed for this research confided: We try to establish a climate here where it’s okay to debate the ethics of a decision, to sit around and think about it and argue it out. We think that will give us better decisions and help us do the right thing in the long run. These are not easy issues … and it makes sense to think carefully if we are following the mission set out in the ethics statement when we do these things.
317
This type of commitment to group discussion and examination of ethical dilemmas is indicative of a participatory organizational culture. This organization’s participatory structure encourages innovation by allowing individual reflection and demanding input into group decision making on ethical issues. This type of encouraging ethical debate of an issue also encourages autonomy of the individual to conduct his or her own moral analysis and to have that analysis respected by others. Management and worldview in the exemplar organization. Theory Y management was found to be the predominant type of management at Pharma Inc. Communication managers told the researcher that the organization prided itself on its decentralized and collaborative management style. One executive explained, ‘‘Reporting out of lines is not only allowed, we encourage it’’. Another participant added, ‘‘Everyone’s opinion counts here. If you have an idea we want it, and if you have an opinion we want you to put it out on the table’’. The openness of communication, encouragement of dialogue, and valuing the input of others, even those outside the organization, endemic to a symmetrical worldview were all found by the researcher. Very few traits of Theory X management were evidenced in interviews or in observational data. Document analysis revealed a definite organizational structure with codified policies and procedures as one would expect in a Theory X organization. However, ‘‘dotted line’’ reporting relationships, decentralized structure, and an emphasis on personal initiative and open flow of communication in the documents supported the interview and observational data concluding that Theory Y management style is the norm. The communication managers argued that the participative organizational culture and Theory Y management style allowed them to make more ethical decisions than if they had been constrained by an authoritarian system. They explained that the decentralized management and high-level support of ethical decision making allowed them to be more innovative in their consideration of the alternatives in any given situation. Valuing such innovation is a component of McGregor’s (1960) Theory Y management. Participants expressed the opinion that their freedom to call in experts, gather information from
318
S. A. Bowen
other areas in the company, and form interdisciplinary issues management teams allowed them to consider multiple facets of ethical issues. Interviewees argued that this level of freedom resulted in better, more thoroughly considered ethical decisions than if they had not been allowed to invent new options. As illustrated in the literature review, Theory Y management and a symmetrical worldview in the exemplar organization encouraged ethical analysis among employees. The researcher observed that each person is allowed the moral autonomy to make her or his own decision regarding ethical issues. Observation yielded that employees’ opinions are respected by others in the issues management process, encouraging autonomous moral analysis (Kant 1790/ 1952) based on a collaborative worldview valuing innovation and dialogue (Grunig and White, 1992). Further, the researcher discovered that the organization was committed to encouraging ethical analysis through providing ethics training for employees. Issues managers were trained in making ethical decisions through official, in-house employee communication documents. Employee communications were said to be a priority of the organization and were directed by a vice president of communication. He emphasized that communication to senior management was of highest importance to the organization, because its leaders believed that a topdown flow of communication on ethics and values would instill those beliefs in middle management and further down the line, with everyone working to create an ethical organization. Training employees in the values and identity of the organization is encouraged by the CEO. The highest levels of the organization make a commitment to represent, in the words of one issues manager, ‘‘how things should be done’’ so that subsidiary executives look to them as a positive example. The CEO and the executives interviewed view their positive organizational identity as an asset worthy of support at the highest level. For example, a public relations director exclaimed, It’s really something. I’ve heard (the CEO) talk in a couple of forums – about the ethics statement and that kinda thing. I … you know, my feeling is I really get emotional. (Laughter) It just strikes me. But I sit there and say, boy, I wonder how many chief executives around make this kind of speech to their people?
These findings emphasize the organizational support given to ethical decision making. Executives at the participating organization gave credence to the idea that ethical decision making must be supported at the highest organizational level and that such support permeates the culture of the organization. The dominant coalition valued ethics enough to invest resources in training employees to make decisions based on the ethics statement so that resulting decisions will be consistent with the organizational goals, mission, and culture. These findings show that an organizational culture purposefully emphasizing ethics is a primary factor in ethical decision making at the exemplar organization. Organizational philosophy The researcher sought to determine whether the organization exhibited a preference for utilitarian or deontological philosophy through observation, interviews, and document analysis. A preference for deontological ethics was expressed in the participating organization at both the organizational level and as the preference of individual issues managers. The ethics statement of the organization was clearly deontological, based on the duties and obligations the organization holds toward various publics and stakeholders. The ethics statement is a highly developed expression of what is valued in the organization, primarily the trust of publics and maintenance of those relationships. The statement provides a guide to issues managers of what is important in ethical decision making. By contrast, a utilitarian organizational culture would hold an ethics statement advising managers to seek the greatest amount of good in their decisions, or to maximize the benefits the organization can accomplish. The exemplary organization does not hold those values; instead, it holds a strong organizational vision of upholding its moral duty to publics. The deontological ethics statement commands that decisions be made that hold moral worth, without being based on the specific consequences of the decision. This view is a classic nonconsequentialist view. The ethics statement obligates all employees in the organization categorically to make the morally right decision according to their obligation of duty to publics and through their use of rational decision
Factors of Organizational Ethics making. As discussed above, decision-making autonomy of the individual is maintained and reinforced in the participating organization, providing for a consistently deontological organizational culture. Business at Pharma Inc. is conducted in a highly ethical manner because the leaders of the organization believe it is the morally right thing to do, not from a sense of altruism to a greater good but from a sense of duty. Issues managers in this case study spent a great deal of time contemplating the rightness or wrongness of decisions. One issues manager confirmed that ethical consideration was a normal part of issues management’s responsibilities, and that was exacerbated by the fact that the organization is in the field of health care. Many participants expounded on the gravity of some decisions they must make as being ‘‘life or death decisions’’. One vice president indicated that in her job, managing issues is really a question of doing the right thing. All but one of the issues managers interviewed maintained that doing what is right always took precedence over the consequences of an action. Exhibiting a nonconsequentialist view, the highest-ranking executive interviewed for this study said: ‘‘We have to make sure we are always doing what is right when these issues come up. If you do what is right, the consequences take care of themselves’’. When asked about where consequences fall in the process of the participants’ issue decision making, most said that they think about consequences but – true to a deontological paradigm – do not decide what is the right or wrong decision based on consequences. All but one participant said the consequences of an action were a secondary determinant to whether an action is morally right or wrong. The one participant who did not concur maintained that she always tried to do the right thing but the order of her considerations varied according to the issue at hand. Most participants explained that weighing decisions based on the greater good is a subjective concern, and a few argued that utilitarianism is too flawed an approach to be useful in the health-care field. Perhaps the most outspoken advocate of a deontological approach to ethics was the most senior public relations practitioner in the organization. This member of the dominant coalition said that he and the CEO ‘‘are in agreement that the morally right decision should always take precedence over other
319
factors’’. This executive’s critique of the utilitarian approach was that it is a subjective approach in which he would end up weighing possible outcomes, guessing, and making mistakes based on those projections. He explained: I don’t believe in the issue of doing what is right for the most people. I think that is a dangerous road to travel. I think that you really have to decide on the basis of what you believe is the right thing to do and nothing else.
The senior executive’s trepidation with guessing numbers of people was echoed by many of the interviewees. A few of them questioned placing a value on one human life over another human life, or attempting to weigh and compare the two. Other participants questioned the utilitarian treatment of the minority and how it could be ethical to make a decision based on a situation where there is no obvious greater good. One issues manager explained, I don’t think you ever make a decision by thinking of consequences or worrying ‘‘If you don’t do something what could happen?’’ But really you’re trying to do it based from the standpoint of ‘‘Is this the right thing to do?’’
A strong deontological framework was asserted consistently by the issues managers at the participating organization, who used the ethics statement as a rationale for their reasoning. An issues manager in charge of internal issues confirmed, ‘‘Whatever the issues are, we do the right thing. You go back to the ethics statement’’. Based on these findings, one can conclude that the organizational culture is based on and supportive of a deontological approach to ethics. Furthermore, the issues managers themselves are highly motivated by their own deontological ethical frameworks, as discussed below. Individual dedication to ethical decision making Individual ethical frameworks are an important part of making issue decisions because they allow autonomous moral analysis. These ethical belief systems in the individual affect everything from the organization for whom one chooses to work to the
320
S. A. Bowen
identification and managing of issues. In the study organization, the issues managers’ conceptualizations of ethics were based on dual frameworks: their own values and those taught in the ethics training of the organization. The participant’s own values were those that they said they held before joining the organization or those they identified as uniquely their own. Participants often cited these values as having a root in childhood or in a religious tradition. The ethics training of the organization is discussed in light of the ethical values it taught the decision makers. Autonomous, individual ethical analysis is stressed by the ethics training in an attempt to confirm the ideal that each issues manager should be a sound ethical decision maker. The participants explained that the ethics training reinforced their own belief systems and served to help clarify issues, rather than introducing new ethical guidelines. Every participant responded to questions probing the origin of their ethical belief system by stating that they had a strong sense of personal values and ethics before joining the organization. In fact, many participants mentioned the organizational reputation for ethics as the main element that drew them to a career at the organization. Even in the case of an issues manager who was recruited to the organization, the strong organizational commitment to ethics was, in the words of that participant, ‘‘the most attractive factor to me’’. Another participant responded similarly saying that the organizational commitment to ethics made him sure of wanting the job before he had even interviewed. Participants said they had a strong sense of individual ethical values before joining the organization. Most participants gave answers similar to the one in the exchange below: Interviewer: And how much of your ethics training came into being at (Pharma Inc.) and how much do you think you had as your own personal values before you came here? Participant: I think most of it I had before I came. It’s been reinforced since I’ve been here but I think I had those values to begin with. That’s how I was raised. And so I try to include that in all the decisions I make on hard issues.
The participants agreed that deontology is the basis for their own personal ethical belief systems as
well as the foundation of the organization’s ethics statement. One participant explained how her individual ethical values based on deontology enhanced decision making in her role as an issues manager: When I decide on an issue, I think, ‘What’s the right solution? What’s my role in helping it to be carried out? What’s my role in articulating it so that it’s understood?’ And then standing by my own convictions about what’s right in the process.
The individual ethical belief systems of the participants are of importance in public relations and issues management because decisions are made on a daily basis that can have a significant impact on the organization. The striking finding in this research is the consistency between the deontological ethical paradigms of individual issues managers and the ethical paradigm of the organization as a whole. Many participants said that they had learned about ethics or expounded on their own ethical beliefs through the organization’s ethics training, but none said the ethics training had awakened something internally that was not already present. Therefore, ethics training in the organization served to reiterate the idea that ethical behavior was expected as an employee and confirmed that ethics was a vital component of the organization’s culture. However, the ethics training did not form the basis of the communication managers’ ethical belief systems. The issues managers employed at this organization brought with them a sense of personal ethics that matched or were compatible with the deontological ethical system espoused in the organization. A decentralized organizational structure combined with the deontological framework apparent in the organization’s ethics statement allowed for a high degree of autonomy in decision making. The issues managers said that their ethics training strengthened their personal values systems and one person articulated that it allowed the communicator to know that the organization would ‘‘stand behind them in doing what is right’’. Other practitioners made similar comments about how the organizational commitment to ethical values gave them the freedom to follow conscience in issue decision making. In summary, the issues managers interviewed all maintained that they possessed a strong ethical values
Factors of Organizational Ethics system before working for Pharma Inc. Several were attracted to the exemplar organization because they felt it would be a place where their ethical convictions were valued. The organizational culture that focused on ethics supported and enhanced their ethical decision making, serving to clarify rather than instill ethical values in these individuals. Participants reported that they felt validated in their ethical analyses by an organizational culture that encouraged, valued, and supported ethical behavior. Conclusions The exemplar in this case study is well known for the premium it places on ethical decision making and open communication. A famous case involving the company is included in many public relations texts illustrating the ideal way to communicate ethically about a dilemma. Pharma Inc. considers its reputation for ethical decision making an asset as well as a duty to society. By studying this case, it is hoped that the factors enhancing ethical communication and analysis at this exemplar can be illuminated so that other organizations might employ similar methods of fostering a deep commitment to ethics. Additionally, by encouraging high ethical standards, the communicator is responsible not only to the organization but also to the publics and stakeholders who evaluate those decisions from their vantage points in society. The exploratory research question posed was: What factors in the organizational culture of an ethically exemplary corporation are responsible for encouraging ethical decision making? Scholarly literature associated with the research question revealed many factors that encouraged ethical analysis and decision making. These factors were supported by the empirical data in this exploratory case. Factors that encouraged ethical analysis at the exemplar organization were: a strong organizational culture that emphasizes the importance of ethics, a collaborative, Theory Y management style, a symmetrical worldview that values innovation and dialogue, a counseling role for issues management or public relations in the dominant coalition, rewarding ethical behavior, and a commitment to ethical analysis using one of the rigorous approaches of moral philosophy – in this case, a deontological approach consistent with the organization’s ethics statement.
321
Empirical study added two new factors that also were found to encourage ethical consideration: a consistency between individual values and organizational philosophy, and ethics training provided by the organization. All of these factors, and perhaps others as yet unidentified, worked together to create an environment that encouraged ethical decision making at the exemplar organization. The two new factors that case study data revealed as important were somewhat surprising. The high degree of consistency between personal values of the issues managers and the ethical values of the organization was intriguing. Participants believed that they ‘‘fit’’ within the organizational culture. The organizational culture supporting their desire to always ‘‘do the right thing’’ enhanced their empowerment and moral judgment. It also allowed them the security of feeling that the organization would be supportive of well-reasoned ethical decisions, akin to Kantian autonomy. Participants expressed the idea that sometimes doing the ethical thing costs the organization money rather than cuts expenditures, but they were unafraid to make such decisions if the case warranted due to the unabashed organizational commitment to ethics. A further benefit of this ideological congruence between employee and organization is a remarkable consistency in ethical decision making. One of the primary critiques of deontology is that it results in inconsistent application due to its complexity (Williams, 1985). Pharma Inc. appeared to overcome this obstacle, as other scholars (Baron, 1995; Sullivan, 1999) contended is possible. The use of a deontological approach in both the organizational culture and the beliefs of individual issues managers allowed this organization to be consistent in its ethical analyses. This consistency should make maintaining mutually beneficial relationships with publics a more manageable task because they see the organization as reliable and ethical, enhancing trust – one of the components scholars (Grunig and Huang, 2000) found essential in relationship building. The topic of ideological congruence between employee and organization is a method of enhancing ethical decision making that deserves further study. Finally, the organization’s commitment to ethics training serves to keep ethics a vital part of the organizational culture and a useful component of
322
S. A. Bowen
issues management. Pharma Inc. stands in stark contrast to organizations holding an ethics statement that is little mentioned or used, or that claim a commitment to ethics without specifying what that actually means in practice. Requiring managers to make ethical decisions but providing no means of analysis on how to determine what that course of action is places them in a precarious position (Bowen, 2002). This exemplar organization avoided that morass by clearly spelling out expectations, adhering to its ethics statement, providing ethics models and decision trees, training employees on the use of these tools, rewarding ethical behavior, conducting internal ethics surveys, and holding ethics performance reviews by superiors. True to its deontological philosophy, the ability for moral analysis in each employee was enhanced and empowered. Investing resources in ethics training also conveyed the message to employees that ethical behavior is an important part of the organization’s culture. Ethical analysis was a living part of the organizational culture rather than a lofty ideal in a dusty policy manual. The factors enhancing ethical decision making identified in this research undoubtedly play a role in the exemplary status of this company with regard to ethics and credibility. Other factors, such as the product lines and financial success of the organization also play a role in its reputation. However, an overall reputation for ethical behavior is something that the organization consistently cultivates through extraordinary attention to ethics inside the organization. Through gaining insight into what makes an organization ethical from the success of this exemplar, we can foster an organizational culture elsewhere that encourages ethical analysis and decision making.
Limitations and suggestions for future research A limitation of this research is that the organization studied is one committed to ethics, and it is probable that ethical decision making would differ greatly in another organizational culture. Organizations less committed to ethics would likely provide drastically different results than those presented here. Caution should be exercised when considering the research findings in light of another organization with a different ethical values system. It should also be noted
that the organization studied here represents merely one approach to ethics. As with any qualitative study, findings are exploratory and suggestive in nature rather than generalizable. Because the exemplar organization in this study had a deontological orientation, does that mean utilitarianism cannot also be excellent? The consistent deontological approach in the exemplar was certainly a strong factor in its ethical decision making. However, a consistent utilitarian approach at another organization could also provide a rigorous means of ethical analysis. This question is one of many that this exploratory case study of an exemplar identified as a fertile area for future study. References Adler, P. A. and P. Adler: 1987, Membership Roles in Field Research (Sage, Newbury Park, CA). Adler, P. A. and P. Adler: 1994, ‘Observational Techniques’, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), pp. 377–392. Albert, S. and D. Whetten: 1985, ‘Organizational Identity’, in L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7 (JAI, Greenwich, CT), pp. 263–295. Barney, J. B.: 1986, ‘Organizational Culture: Can it be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage?’ Academy of Management Review 11, 656–665. Baron, M. W.: 1995, Kantian Ethics Almost Without Apology (Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY). Beiser, F. C.: 1992, ‘Kant’s Intellectual Development: 1746–1781’, in P. Guyer (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), pp. 26–61. Borowski, P. J.: 1998, ‘Manager–Employee Relationships: Guided by Kant’s Categorical Imperative or by Dilbert’s Business Principle’, Journal of Business Ethics 17, 1623–1632. Bowen, S. A.: 2002, ‘Elite Executives in Issues Management: The role of Ethical Paradigms in Decision Making’, Journal of Public Affairs 2(4), 270–283. 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. Broom, G. M., S. Casey and J. Ritchey: 1997, ‘Toward a Concept and Theory of Organization–Public Relationships’, Journal of Public Relations Research 9(2), 83–98.
Factors of Organizational Ethics Christians, C. G., M. Fackler, K. B. Rotzoll and K. B. McKee: 2001, Media Ethics: Cases and Moral Reasoning, 6th Edition (Longman, New York). Day, L. A.: 1997, Ethics in Media Communications: Cases and Controversies, 2nd Edition (Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, CA). DeGeorge, R. T: 1986, Business Ethics, 2nd Edition (Macmillan, New York). DeGeorge, R. T.: 1999, Business Ethics, 5th Edition (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ). Donaldson, T. and P. H. Werhane: 1999, Ethical Issues in Business: A Philosophical Approach, 6th Edition (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ). Dozier, D. M., L. A. Grunig and J. E. Grunig: 1995, Manager’s Guide to Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ). Dutton, J. E. and J. M. Dukerich: 1991, Keeping an Eye in the Mirror: Image and identity in Organizational Adaptation, Academy of Management Journal 34(3), 517– 554. Ewing, R. P.: 1981, Issues Management: Public Relations Comes of Age. Paper presented at the Counselors Academy, Public Relations Society of America, Chicago, IL. Falcione, R. L., L. Sussman and R. P. Herden: 1987, ‘Communication Climate in Organizations’, in F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts and L. W. Porter (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (Sage, Newbury Park, CA), pp. 195–227. Gandz, J. and N. Hayes: 1988, ‘Teaching business ethics’, Journal of Business Ethics 7, 657–669. George, R. J.: 1988, ‘The Challenge of Preparing Ethically Responsible Managers: Closing the Rhetoric– Reality gap’, Journal of Business Ethics 7, 715–720. Gorovitz, S. (ed.): 1971, Utilitarianism, with Critical Essays (Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, IN). Gower, K. K.: 2003, Legal and Ethical Restraints on Public Relations (Waveland Press, Prospect Heights, IL). Grunig, J.E.: 1989, ‘Symmetrical Presuppositions as a Framework for Public Relations Theory’, in C.H. Botan and V.J. Hazleton (eds.), Public Relations Theory (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ), pp. 17–44. Grunig, J. E.: 1992a, ‘Symmetrical systems of internal communication’, in J. E. Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ), pp. 531– 575. Grunig, J. E. (ed.): 1992b, Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ).
323
Grunig, L. A.: 1992, Toward the Philosophy of Public Relations’, in E. L. Toth and R. L. Heath (eds.), Rhetorical and Critical Approaches to Public Relations. (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ), pp. 65–91. Grunig, J. E. and L. A. Grunig: 1996, May, Implications of Symmetry for a Theory of Ethics and Social Responsibility in Public Relations. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago. Grunig, J. E., and Y. H. Huang: 2000, ‘From Organizational Effectiveness to Relationship Indicators: Antecedents of Relationships, Public Relations Strategies, and Relationship Outcomes’, in J. Ledingham and S. Bruning (eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ), pp. 23–53. Grunig, J. E. and J. White: 1992, ‘The Effect of Worldviews on Public Relations Theory and Practice’, in J. E. Grunig (ed.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ), pp. 31–64. Grunig, L. A: 1997, ‘Excellence in Public Relations,’ in C. L. Caywood (ed.), Handbook of Strategic Public Relations and Integrated Communications (McGraw-Hill, New York), pp. 286–300. Grunig, L. A., J. E. Grunig and D. M. Dozier: 2002, Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organizations: A study of Communication Management in Three Countries (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ). Heath, R. L.: 1997, Strategic Issues Management: Organizations and Public Policy Challenges (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA). Heath, R. L.: 2001, ‘A Rhetorical Enactment Rationale for Public Relations: The Good Organization Communicating Well’, in R. L. Heath (ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), pp. 31–50. Heath, R. L. and R. A. Nelson: 1986, Issues management: Corporate Public Policymaking in an Information Society (Sage, Beverly Hills). Hill, J. W.: 1958, Corporate Public Relations: Arm of Modern Management (Harper and Brothers, New York). Hodder, I.: 1994, ‘The Interpretation of Documents and Material Culture’, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), pp. 393–402. Jaksa, J. A. and M. S. Pritchard: 1994, Communication ethics: Methods of Analysis, 2nd Edition (Wadsworth, Belmont, CA). Jones, M. O.: 1996, Studying Organizational Symbolism: What, How, Why? (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA). Kant, I.: 1952, in J. C. Meredith (ed.), Critique of Judgment (Trans. 1952 ed.) (Oxford University Press, Oxford). (Original work published 1790).
324
S. A. Bowen
Kant, I.: 1964, in Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (H. J. Paton, Trans.). (Harper and Row, New York). (Original work published 1785). Kant, I.: 1993, Metaphysical Foundations of Morals (C. J. Friedrich, Trans.). In C. J. Friedrich (Ed.), The Philosophy of Kant: Immanuel Kant’s Moral and Political Writings (pp. 154-229). (The Modern Library, New york). (Original work published 1785). Kohlberg, L.: 1969, ‘Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive Developmental Approach to Socialization.’ in D. A. Goslin (ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory of Research (Rand McNally, Chicago), pp. 347–480. Kohlberg, L. and D. Candee: 1984, ‘The Relationship of Moral Judgment to Moral Action’, in W. M. Kurtines and L. Gewirtz (eds.), Morality, Moral Behavior, and Moral Development (Wiley, New York), pp. 52–73. Leeper, K. A.: 1996, Public Relations Ethics and Communitarinism: A Preliminary Investigation’, Public Relations Review 22(2), 163–179. Lincoln, Y. S. and E. G. Guba: 1985, Naturalistic Inquiry (Sage, Beverly Hills). Lindlof, T. R.: 1995, Qualitative Communication Research Methods, (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA). Marshall, C. and C. B. Rossman: 1995, Designing Qualitative Research, 2nd Edition (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA). McElreath, M. P.: 1996, Managing Systematic and Ethical Public Relations Campaigns, 2nd Edition (Brown and Benchmark, New York). McGregor, D.: 1960, The Human Side of Enterprise (McGraw-Hill, New York). Miles, M. B. and A. M. Huberman: 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd Edition (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA). Mill, J. S.: 1861/1957, Utilitarianism (The Liberal Arts Press, New York). Morgan, G.: 1997, Images of Organization, 2nd Edition (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA). Pearson, R.: 1989, ‘Business Ethics as Communication Ethics: Public Relations Practice and the Idea of Dialogue’, in C. H. Botan and V. Hazleton, Jr. (eds.), Public Relations Theory (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ), pp. 111–131. Posner, R. S.: 2002, ‘Some Problems of Utilitarianism,’ in L. P. Hartman (ed.), Perspectives in Business Ethics, 2nd Edition (McGraw-Hill, Boston), pp. 37–42. Pratt, C. A. and T. L. Rentner: 1989, What’s Really Being Taught About Ethical Behavior’, Public Relations Review 15(1), 53–66. Robbins, S. P.: 1990, Organization Theory: Structure, Design, and Applications, 3rd Edition (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).
Ryan, M. and D. L. Martinson: 1983, ‘The Pr Officer as Corporate Conscience’. Public Relations Quarterly 28(2), 20–23. Schick, F.: 1997, Making Choices: A Recasting of Decision Theory (Cambridge University Press, New York). Smircich, L. and M. B. Calas: 1987, ‘Organizational Culture: A Critical Assessment’, in F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts and L. W. Porter (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (Sage, Newbury Park, CA), pp. 228–263. Spradley, J. P.: 1979, The Ethnographic Interview (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York). Spradley, J. P.: 1980, Participant Observation (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York). Stake, R. E.: 1994, ‘Case studies’, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), pp. 236–247. Stormer, F.: 2003, Making the Shift: Moving from ‘‘Ethics Pays’’ to an Inter-Systems Model of Business’, Journal of Business Ethics, 44, 279–289. Sullivan, R. J.: 1989, ‘Immanuel Kant’s Moral Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). Sullivan, R. J.: 1999, ‘How Bernard Williams Constructed his Critique of Kant’s Moral Theory’, Kantian Review 3, 106–113. Whetten, D. A. and P. C. Godfrey (eds): 1999, Identity in Organizations: Building Theory Through Conversations (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA). Williams, B.: 1985, ‘Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy (Harvard: Cambridge, MA). Wright, D. K.: 1985, ‘Can Age Predict the Moral Values of Public Relations Practitioners?’ Public Relations Review 11(1), 51–60. Wright, D. K.: 1996, ‘Communication Ethics’, in M. B. Salwen and D. W. Stacks (eds.), An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ), pp. 519–535. Yin, R. K.: 1994, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd Edition (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA). Zwetsloot, G. I.: 2003, From Management Systems to Corporate Social Responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics 44(201–207).
School of Communication, University of Houston, 101 Communication Bldg., Houston, TX 77204, USA. E-mail:
[email protected]
