Need ethics examples from practitioners!
Thank you for visiting my work on ethics! Now that you have visited the “ETHICS IN PUBLIC RELATIONS” part of the Essential Knowledge Project (generously supported by the Institute), I would like to ask—no, beg—for your feedback! I am particularly interested in hearing from practitioners.
I would love your thoughts on my work in the form of real-world examples. To help advance my work, I would also like to genrate some COMMON ETHICAL DILEMMAS PRACTITIONERS FACE, based on what you tell me. In so doing, I can (hopefully) create a section of the website along the lines of “Common Ethical Dilemmas” and provide some guidance for thinking through each type of ethical dilemma.
Before I can write that, I need your help! I would love for practitioners to post a brief summary of a REAL ETHICAL SCENARIO that you have encountered in your professional practice. SIMPILE GUIDELINES:
–>Please summarize your situation in a short paragraph.
–>Please do not use real names of others, cleients, or companies!
–>Explain a bit of how the issue came to be.
–>When did you realize it was an ethical issue?
–> Please TYPE ANONYMOUS or “NAME WITHHELD” in the identify box if you don’t want the comment attributed to you!!
A simple paragraph should give us plenty of EXAMPLES TO DISCUSS and not take up more than 5 minutes of your time. I appreciate your assistance in furthering our understanding of Ethics in PR, and I will provide any insightful comments that I can – or perhaps we can discuss the common themes emerging in ethical situations faced by practitioners.
Have things changed? What are cutting edge practitioners facing with regard to ethics today? Please take A MOMENT NOW to provide me with your real-world ETHICAL ISSUE EXAMPLES!
I invite your feedback!
Remember, ANONYMOUS SUBMISSIONS are welcome!
Thank you and best regards,
Shannon A. Bowen
lol Twitter must be outperforming other social websites
In February 2010, Kevin Smith, a well-known actor and director, was asked to leave a Southwest Airlines flight because he was too overweight to fly. Smith, who usually purchases two seats for each flight, switched to an earlier flight where there was only one seat available. Once Smith returned home he tweeted about his bad experiences with Southwest to his 1.5 million Twitter followers. Eventually he began posting many other tweets, like: “Dear @SouthwestAir – I know I’m fat, but was Captain Leysath really justified in throwing me off a flight for which I was already seated?” and “The @SouthwestAir Diet. How it works: you’re publicly shamed into a slimmer figure. Crying the weight right off has never been easier!” (McCarthy, 2010). Southwest, who also had over one million followers quickly picked up on the tweets and sent an apology letter to Smith through their blog explaining why the decision was made with a $100 Southwest travel voucher for compensation (McCarthy, 2010).
Considering how popular and opinionated Smith is in the Twitter world, Southwest should have used act utilitarianism in their effort to respond to Smith’s apparent hostility. Act utilitarianism holds that when faced with a choice to break a contract, we must first consider the likely consequences and effects and then choose what we believe will generate the most pleasure so that the good outweigh the bad (DeGeorge, 2010). Although the Southwest representative only had authority to apologize and explain the situation in a blog the night the tweet was blasted, she should have gone one step further to compensate for Smith’s despair (Dietrich, 2010). With such a high profile celebrity, Smith’s apparent disappointment was viewed by an enormous amount of people. Many of his fans were shocked by his tweets and must have been affected it. If the Southwest representative applied act utilitarianism to the case, she would perform an act that benefits the most people, regardless of personal feelings or the societal constraints such as their policies (Rainbow, 2002). In this case, she should have responded quickly with a sincere apology to Smith directly on Twitter. Then, she could have also asked Smith if she could have their CEO call him with a personal apology. Then, she could post another tweet saying, “@GaryKelly, our CEO just called Kevin Smith to personally apologize for his experiences with us this past weekend.” Then, the blog could be released from the CEO stating everything that was done by the company.
I think that handling the situation using act utilitarianism would have shown much better customer relations. Southwest didn’t treat Smith’s situation with any special considerations until early the next week; However, in the Twitter world, two or three days later may feel like months later.
Southwest should have taken more immediate consideration to Smith’s case showing both of their followers that the company deeply cares about their customers. This may have kept Smith’s angry Tweets to a minimum or possibly stop altogether and it would have kept majority of the company’s followers, customers, and stakeholders happy. Unfortunately, the representative’s blog entry did not stop Smith’s angry tweets and he continued to badmouth the company to his followers. Whether or not Smith took his Tweets too far, more could have been done to keep him and majority of his followers happy. For example, Southwest could have openly said that they value and respect each and every customer of all sizes. In this particular case, we must judge Southwest’s actions in terms of the goodness of their consequences, without regard for the rules of action.
In Southwest’s case there were no financial considerations that were made for this to have happened, except for the $100 they gave him in sympathy. But nowadays that kind of money will not get you anywhere, and instead a corporation that large and powerful could have also offered Smith a free trip on a complete refund.
If they followed some of these communication strategies, there could have been much more potential for maintaining a long-term relationship with Smith in the future.
Sources:
De George, R. T. (2010). Business Ethics: Seventh Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Dietrich, G. (2010). Kevin Smith and Southwest Airlines: Crisis via Twitter. Spin Sucks. Access date: Mar. 29, 2011. Full text available:
http://www.spinsucks.com/communication/kevin-smith-and-southwest-airlines-crisis-via-twitter/
McCarthy, C. (2010). What Kevin Smith means for the future of PR. CNet News. Access date: Mar. 28, 2011. Full text available:
Rainbow, C. (2002). Descriptions of Ethical Theories and Principals. Davidson College. Access date: Mar. 29, 2011. Full text available:
On March 9, 2011, Chrysler posted an inappropriate tweet from its handle, @ChryslerAutos. The tweet read: I find it ironic that Detroit is known as the #motorcity and yet no one here knows how to f**king drive, (http://twitter.com/#!/ChryslerAutos). The tweet was quickly removed and Chrysler posted an apology. Soon after, Chrysler learned the tweet was posted by an employee from New Media Strategies (NMS), its hired social media agency. The employee was terminated. Chrysler released a statement on its blog (http://blog.chryslerllc.com/blog.do?p=entry&id=1337), apologizing for the tweet, and explaining the company does not tolerate inappropriate language.
This situation could’ve been handled more ethically, without resulting in employee termination. A deontological theory can be used to analyze Chrysler’s action. First one must state the action. Chrysler terminated the employee of NMS who posted one inappropriate tweet. Then, since this action cannot be absorbed under generally acknowledged duties (i.e. do not kill), the action must be submitted to a few tests. First, can the action be performed by everyone without any contradiction developing to prevent continued performance? If every employee who posted an inappropriate tweet was fired, it is unlikely that any logical contradiction would develop. Therefore, the action passes this test and is not immediately immoral. It must be further examined. Second, does the action respect the person involved as ends, or simply as means? Chrysler’s decision to fire the employee treated him as disposable and not worthy of a second chance. Since Chrysler did not treat the employee as ends, the action fails this test and is immoral. Third, would all rational beings will all others to act in the same way? There are many who would act differently. Many people each day mistakenly utter curse words. It is not automatically moral to fire someone for making this mistake, and it is likely that other executives would have chosen to act with mercy and forgiveness, traits that are often non-existent on the corporate level. Had Chrysler acted with this mercy and forgiveness, it could have built feelings of trust and care among its customers. Since it is questionable whether or not it is best to terminate, one cannot say that everyone would universally act in this way, so the action fails the test and is immoral.
Chrysler is now in the position to be criticized during future situations when employees makes mistakes and is not terminated. In order for an action to be moral, it must be rational, and therefore “consistently universalized,” (DeGeorge, 65). In order for Chrysler to be moral in this way, every time an employee makes a mistake in the future, that employee should also be terminated. This is unlikely to occur, as different future mistakes will not result in termination. If Chrysler acts hypocritically it could destroy relationships and cause more issues among its investors, audience members and consumers who become angered by the hypocrisy.
It was appropriate for Chrysler to issue an apology and to ensure appropriate steps were taken so as not to repeat the problem. Chrysler could have provided educational programming to employees on all aspects of the situation, including actions and consequences, so that it would not happen again. Chrysler could have promoted two-way communication with Twitter followers post-scandal that embraced the situation and moved forward. For example, followers could tweet about driver-related events they experienced that pleased them, to promote positive discussion.
Since Chrysler’s action failed all aspects of the Deontological Analysis Approach, its action to terminate the employee was unethical.