Public Relations Review, 19( 1):49-57 Copyright 0 1993 by JAI Press Inc.

ISSN: 0363-8111 All rights of reproduction in any form rcsenrd.

Framework for
Analvsis of
Patricia Houlihan
Parsons I Conjlicting Loyalties
ABSTRACT: Just as the social trends of the past quarter of a
century have created an increasing need for strategic
communication between organizations and their publics, so too
have these trends resulted in increasing focus on ethics in practice.
Emphasis on social responsibility of organizations has resulted in
communications programs designed to adjust to the demands of
the marketplace often placing the public relations practitioner at
the interface between the organization and its responsibility as a
good corporate citizen. All of these factors have conspired to
generate conflicts between the loyalties now faced by practitioners.
Ethical decision-making involves not only values clarification
and application of appropriate principles, but the choosing of
priorities between conflicting duties to specific parties. This
article identities and discusses four loyalties of the modern public
relations practitioner-self, organization, profession and societ)-
in the context of the increasing emphasis on the “common
good” in North American society. Further, it presents a framework
which may be used in discussions of ethical decision-making
among public relations students and applied in practical situations
by the practicing public relations professional.
Patricia Houlihan Parsons is assistant professor in the
Department of Public Relations at Mount Saint Vincent
University, Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Spring 1993 49
 Public Relations Review

Much has happened in the world of business in the past

tvventy years since economist Milton Friedman told us that the concept of
corporate social responsibility is ~ndamentally subversive and that, so long as
business leaders use no fraud or deception, the only responsibility of the organi-
zation is to increase its profits.’ The women’s movement, consumerism, environ-
mentalism, and a host of other social trends have conspired to change the
environment in which business functions. One result of these changes is that
public relations practice is coming into its own as nlallag~mexlt begins to recog-
nize that specialists in the development of relationships betvveen organizations
and their publics must play a larger role in the planning and implementation of
socially responsible programs. Organizations that have failed to avail themselves
of this opportunity have learned to pay a high price.
With increasing emphasis on consideration of the social good in business,
politics, law and medicine among others, making morally defensible decisions has
become more difficult. One of the main contributors to this difficulty is that
individual professionals find their loyalties conflicting more often than ever
before. For the purposes of this discussion, a loyalty is defined as a constituent to
whom the public relations practitioner owes a duty and who, in return places a
trust in the practitioner. This article presents a discussion of loyalties from the
point of view of the individual public relations practitioner and introduces a
framework that might be used to assess the degree of duty owed in each case
when loyalties conflict and each cannot be equally served.

THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF PUBLIC

BELATIONS PBACTICE

Never before in history has the field of public relations

been as affected by the social climate in which it operates because never before has
the social climate demanded so much of the individual practitioner. Gone are the
days of simply churning out the “house organ” and preparing press releases for
publicity based on directives that come only from the top down. Along with this
decade of interest in ethics and social responsibility has come the era of rejuve-
nated interest in truly symmetrical two-way communication and interest in the
development of specialists in issues management or some form of environmental
scanning.
Trends which have had important impacts on the practice of public relations
and thus its increasing need to consider the common good include:

l Consumerism-Few people would argue with the notion that a

more demanding consumer has affected the way business is done
and has increased the need for communications specialists who
know how to respond to a more highly educated and concerned
audience.

SO Vol. 19, No. 1

 Framemork for Analwis of Conjlicting Lowzlties

l Environmental Activism-The dawning of the “green” era, al-

though, at least to some extent, a relative of the consumer move-
ment, has importance of such magnitude that it needs to be
considered an entity onto itself. Born in the early sixties, the move-
ment is now thirty years old but has only recently reached sufficient
adult status to make its way onto the corporate agendas of North
America. Environmentalism has come of age and is an important
component of any organization’s relationships with its publics.

l Economic Restraint-A recent phenomenon, the need for business

to look to streamlining operations has had dramatic effects on
organizational images both within and without the boundaries of
business.

l Changes in Family Structure-The word “family” is now almost as

difficult to define as the term “public relations” and has as many
interpretations. Changes in the traditional family structure have
had a direct impact on the complexion of the publics defined by
organizations.

l Changes in the Internal Audience-The educational explosion, the

women’s movement, the civil rights movement, changes in family
structure have all contributed to the changing face of the North
American workplace. Employees are becoming better educated and
include larger numbers of women and visible minorities, altering
the needs and wants of the employee group.

l Professionalization-Not only public relations, but many other oc-

cupational fields including teaching, social work and nursing, to
mention only a few, have become concerned about their images as
quasi-professions. The need for professional recognition as a group,
and the power and image it might generate, is categorized as a social
trend as it is only important insofar as it reflects the perceptions of
those outside the discipline. Public relations, like other semi-profes-
sions, has not been immune to the lure of professionalization. To
carry this a step further, included in the traditional criteria for
recognition as a profession is the provision of a needed service to
society. This notion of benefiting mankind speaks directly to the
current concepts of the social responsibility of the profession2 and
thus to the individual practitioner.

Clearly, as professional power grows, so, too, must a discipline’s sense of ethical
responsibility.3 Social trends that have increased the need for public relations’
input into organizational policy-making as well as the more traditional communi-
cation programs, have created a burden that needs to be addressed by individual
practitioners.

Spring 1993 51
 Public Rehtiom R&em

As a consequence of the fact that society expects much from those who provide
services today, most professional and quasi-professional disciplines have responded
by developing codes of ethics which can be viewed as our contract with society.
While providing broad guidelines, currently these codes still probably serve their
most useful purpose in informing the constituencies ofwhat they might expect in
terms of minimally acceptable behavior from members of the public relations
field. Their major flaw, however, can be attributed to the difficulties that arise in
the application of these codes at the level of individual practitioners, as they are
faced with a multitude of loyalties.

LOYALTIES AS A COMPONENT OF
ETHICAL DECISION-MAKING

Although most public relations practitioners agree that we

have ethical responsibilities to a variety of different parties, there is little agreement
about how those duties might be balanced. Indeed, some of the lists of publics to
vvhom we owe loyalty are so daunting they seem doomed to be ignored in
practice.
Newsom, Scott and Turk” suggest that public relations practitioners have
ethical responsibility to ten different publics including: clients, media, govern-
ment agencies, educational institutions, information consumers, stockholders
and analysts, the community, the organization’s competition and critics, and
other public relations practitioners.
When one considers that ethical decision-making requires not only values
clarification and application of appropriate principles, but also the selection of
loyalties,5 the prospect of making that selection might be more than the individual
is prepared to handle in a given situation. Further, definitions of roles and
functions in public relations serve to produce additional complications. Bivin9
distinguishes between the role of the communications manager as an adviser and
the communications technician as an advocate. The very nature of advocacy and
advising points to specific, inherent loyalties to the organization, vvhich often
cannot be rationalized in the face of clarification of individual values and the need
to consider the greater good. Figure 1 presents a schematic representation of the
four major loyalties that need to be considered in making any ethical decision.
The individual practitioner must first consider loyalties to him/herself. It has
been suggested that one of the most common ethical problems that is likely to
face every public relations professional during the course of a career is the need to
make a choice between what the individual believes to be right in a given situation
and what the organization believes to be right and thus expects the practitioner to
do.7 Practitioners, then, need to clarity their values and determine how far they
are willing to go to uphold those values.
The second public to whom the practitioner owes loyalty and consideration in
everyday decision-making is the organization which provides employment.

52 Vol. 19, No. 1

 Framework forAnalysLs of Conflicting Loyalties

F&ye 1. Loyalties in Public Relations Practice

Acceptance of a position with an organization implies the acceptance of that

organization’s philosophy and a contract to carry out the functions for which the
practitioner is willing to accept payment. If for no other reasons than these, the
public relations practitioner owes a degree of loyalty to an employer. Sullivan’s
Theory of Public Relations Ethics describes this as a component of “partisan
values” which encompass the concepts of commitment, trust, loyalty and obedi-
ence toward the employer and suggest that, taken to extremes, may have negative
consequences.’ These consequences are manifested by the attitude: “My organi-
zation, right or wrong,” to the detriment of objective reasoning.
The third loyalty in public relations practice is duty to the profession. If
public relations is to be considered a professional discipline rather than a technical
skill, then the value of responsibility to one’s peers is a necessary component. The
true professional will place recognition from fellow public relations peers above
recognition from an employer, while a careerist will indicate more concern for
acceptance from an organizational superior who has input into salaries and
promotions.9
Finally, and gaining in importance, is the duty of the professional to society.
WrightlO suggests that social responsibility of an organization is closely aligned
with its ethical standards. Similarly, for the individual practitioner, this norm
holds that there must be an accountability to society for any misdeeds. Harm to
society, however, “is much harder to identify than harm done to specific individu-
als by unethical professional conduct.“ll Even if a harm cannot be identified by
the perpetrator, it still exists and provides no exoneration for misdeeds.
The framework clearly indicates that society as a loyalty encompasses the other
three loyalties identified and this fact cannot be ignored in assigning value when
loyalties conflict
Once practitioners have identified that their loyalties are to themselves, their
employers, their profession and society, then they need to be able to determine
when and to what extent these loyalties conflict.

Spring 1993 53
 Public Relations Review
- __.-.I_

CONFLICT ANALYSIS

There seems to be considerable agreement that there is a

need for ethics and social responsibility to be a priority in the field of communica-
tions, but there is little agreement about what tools ought to be introduced to
practitioners to solve the dilemmas in everyday practice.‘2*‘3 How, then, might we
develop a framework for analysis of these conflicting loyalties the objective of
which would be to make defensible ethical decisions about how to meet our
obligations?
Figure 2 indicates a framework that might be used as a tool in situations where
the loyalties may be unclear and their conflicts even less so. In practice it may assist
the practitioner to consider each loyalty and determine where, and to what extent
each conflicts with another.
Consider the follo~~ing hypothetical case:

Susan F. received a degree in public relations two years ago. Since that time,
she has been happily employed as a public relations officer in the three-person
communications offtce of a seafood processing organization. Six months ago,
eight people became violently ill as a result of eating seafood processed by her
organization. Scientists initially believed that the products had been

Choice of Alternatives

Self Organization Profession Society

‘\\
*‘// *

// *
*

*
*Potential conflict situations
Figure 2. Framework for Assessing the Viability of Alternatives in Ethical
recision-Making

54 Vol. 19, No. 1

 Framenwrk for Analysis of Conjlicting Loyalties

contaminated prior to harvest but were unable to pinpoint the exact culprit.
Since that time, the quality control department in Susan’s organization has
discovered that the contamination occurred at the plant during processing, a
fact which has never been made public. New testing procedures have been
implemented but have not been enough to bring the levels of consumer
consumption back to pre-crisis levels and the whole situation has begun to
affect sales of other products. Susan is assigned the task of developing a public
relations strategy to turn this situation around.

The director of public relations, her boss, wants Susan to concentrate on the
improved testing procedures with particular emphasis on the fact that they are
now ahead of the competition in this area. She has been told in no uncertain
terms, that the fact that the safety of the products cannot be guaranteed is not
to be mentioned. In addition, she is to foster the supposition that the products
had been contaminated before their arrival in the plant since this is apparently
what the public thinks anyway. No guarantee of complete safety, however, is
to be made either.

Using the framework as a guide, and, for the sake of illustration, taking the
position that Susan highly values truth-telling in her practice and the belief that
the public has a right to true information, we can determine how her loyalties
might assist her in making a difficult decision. First, Susan needs to identify what
she must do to serve each individual loyalty. Susan has a number of alternative
approaches to this situation, one of which is to do as she has been instructed. The
following sequence suggests how she might analyze this choice:

l To serve her loyalty to herself, she may need to keep her job, but in
order to do that she will have to carry out a program that is not
entirely truthful and violates one of her own principles. This alterna-
tive, then, brings her into conflict with herself.

l To serve her loyalty to her organization, she will carry out the
directions she has been given. As a faithful employee she would
believe that the end will probably justify the means. If, however, she
thinks this through a bit further, she might decide that, should the
full truth ever become public, as so often happens, the organization
might suffer anyway.

l To serve her loyalty to her profession, she is obliged to refuse to

carry out the directions by either attempting to change the position
of her superior or resigning. The codes of ethics of all reputable
organizations representing communications and public relations
professionals are clear on the unethical nature of providing the
public with misleading information.

l To serve her loyalty to society, she will have to refuse to follow the

Spring 1993 55
 Public Relations Review

directions and attempt to change the position of the organization.

Resigning without making an attempt to change the organization’s
approach will not serve her duty to society which will still be at risk.

Susan would then carry out the same analysis of any other alternative that she
might consider. If she can determine that any choice of alternatives does not
provide a conflict in loyalties, or at least fewer conflicts, she is looking at a
defensible ethical choice. If she does not value t~th-telling, her loyalty to herself
is not in conflict with her loyalty to her organization but it is in conflict with her
loyalties to both her profession and society. With an equal number of conflicts
and non-conflicts, Susan needs to use currently acceptable valuations of priority
values to make her decision.
With considerations of duty to the greater good receiving more attention in
current practice, in situations like the one presented, we need to look at the
serious consequences of not fulfilling our obligations to society and consider the
trickle-down effect that these approaches could have on the profession’s image,
the organization’s image and future reputations of individual practitioners. All in
all, it appears that duty to society outweighs all other duties in this case. In fact,
when an alternative choice results in a conflict with what is best for the greater
good, the public relations professional should have other ~~$2~~~~~~ reasons for
choosing that alternative.
This framework is presented as a guideline to assist the individual practitioner
often forced to make decisions in relative isolation so that in addition to the
application of codes and principles, as well as personal values, loyalties might be
examined in some systematic way. This is one step toward making defensible
ethical decisions in practice.
As we teach beginning students in public relations classes:

As the internal conscience of many organizations, the public relations

department has become a focal point for the institutionalization of ethical
conduct. Increasingly, management has turned to public relations officers to
lead the internal ethical charge, to be the keeper of the organizational ethic.‘”

There is no question about the fact that the burden is awesome. As we take the
time to develop and test some guidelines for ethical decision-making, the public
relations profession will be able to meet the challenge and live down a less than
unblemished history.

NOTES

1. Milton Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits,” In

Deborah Poff and Wilfred Waluchow (eds.), Rusinexs Ethics in ~~n~~~ (Scarborough,
Canada: Prentice-Hall Canada Inc., 1987), pp. 7-11.

56 Vol. 19, No. 1

 Framemork for Analysis of Conflicting Loyalties

2. Donald K. Wright, “Social Responsibility and Public Relations: A Multi-Step Theory,”

Public Relations Review (Fall 1976), p. 25.
3. Bruce Jennings, Daniel Callahan and Susan M. Wolf, “The Professions: Public
Interest and the Common Good,” Hastings Center Report 17 (February 1987), pp.
3-10.
4. Doug Newsom, Alan Scott, and Judy VanSlyke Turk, 7%is is PR: The Realities of
Public Relations (Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1989).
5. Clifford G. Christians, Kim B. Rotzell, and Mark Fackler, Media Ethics, 3rd ed. (New
York: Longman, 1991).
6. Thomas H. Bivins, “Ethical Implications of the Relationship of Purpose to Role and
Function in Public Relations,” Journal of Business Ethics 8 (1989), pp. 65-73.
7. John D. Pettit, Bobby Vaughn, and Kathy J. Pulley, “The Role of Communications in
Organizations: Ethical Considerations,” Joutmaf of Business Ethics 27 (Summer 1990),
pp. 233-249.
8. Ron Pearson, “Albert J. Sullivan’s Theory of Public Relations Ethics,” Public Relations
Review XV (Summer 1989), pp. 52-61.
9. James Grunig, “Organizations and Public Relations: Testing a Communication
Theory,” Journalism Monographs46 (November 1976).
10. Donald K. Wright, op. cit.
11. Bruce Jennings, Daniel Callahan, and Susan M. Wolf, op. cit., p. 3.
12. Thomas H. Bivins, “Applying Ethical Theory to Public Relations,: Journal of Business
Ethics 6 (1987), pp. 195-200.
13. Catherine A. Pratt and Terry Lynn Rentner, “What’s Really Being Taught About
Ethical Behavior?” Public Relations Review XV (Spring 1989), pp. 53-66.
14. Fraser P. Seitel, The Practice of Public Relations, 4th ed. (Columbus, OH: Merrill
Publishing Co., 1989), p. 104.

Spring 1993 57