2012 PROCEEDINGS - Public Relations Society of America

difference with their work, and they also reported feeling irritated when they do not think they
have the power to say anything when disagreeing with a decision and when they believe they are
not being heard (Gallicano, in press).
Frameworks for Ethical Decision Making
As Millennials discuss dilemmas in the workplace, it is important to pay attention to how
they justify whether a decision is appropriate; therefore, two broad ethical frameworks are
important to review. The first framework is deontology. People using deontological reasoning
believe that how something is done determines the ethicality of the decision (Curtin & Boynton,
2001). According to Bowen‘s (2005) Kantian model for ethical decision making, which
represents a deontological approach, decisions must be made without regard to how the
organization will benefit and without regard to pressures from workplace politics, personal
ambition, and financial influence (including job security).
The second framework is teleology, which refers to determining the ethicality of a
decision based on the good that can result from it (Curtin & Boynton, 2001). In other words,
someone adopting a teleological approach believes that the ends can justify the means (e.g., lying
was ethical when used to protect people in hiding from Nazis), whereas someone adopting a
deontological approach would not make a decision based on potential outcomes (e.g., it is never
justifiable to lie; Curtin & Boynton, 2001).
A preliminary study suggested that many Millennial agency practitioners use a
deontological approach to ethics and often rely on transparency as a guiding principle (Curtin et
al., 2011). Respondents to this survey perceived that they had a significantly better relationship
with their agency employers when they also thought that that their workplaces gave them the
autonomy to make ethical decisions, which supports Bowen‘s (2005) deontological model.
Several Millennials in the study applied a teleological approach by judging whether the
outcomes would be potentially harmful.
Ethical codes also provide a general framework for ethical decision making. Although
they do not appear to be useful to seasoned public relations practitioners (Lee & Cheng, 2011,
also see the discussion by Curtin & Boynton, 2001), nearly half of the Millennial agency
respondents to a survey expressed that the PRSA Code of Ethics is a helpful resource (Curtin et
al., 2011). A study of top public relations professionals concluded that well written codes of
ethics are important for junior practitioners; however, employers must focus on taking actions to
ensure that employers practice what they preach (Lee & Cheng, 2011), which is a point
emphasized by extant research (e.g., Bowen, 2010; Curtin et al., 2011; Seeger, 1997; Shen &
Kim, 2012). One way to do this is to focus on ―individual accountability on the part of public
relations managers and executives‖ and to focus on teaching ethical decision making by example
(Lee & Cheng, 2011, p. 68). Employers need to enforce their codes of ethics and should be
specific with their guidelines (e.g., Curtin & Boynton, 2001; Seib & Fitzpatrick, 1995).
Approaches for Influencing Ethical Decision Making
Practitioners need to learn how to effectively influence ethical decision making in
organizations to give themselves a voice (which improves job satisfaction) and to improve
organizational decisions (Garner, 2009; Kang, 2010). Not surprisingly, an ethical orientation is a
key dimension of public relations leadership and best practices (Bowen, 2004a; Kang, 2010;
Meng, 2012). A study of public relations students‘ internships concluded that new practitioners
need more guidance about how to voice their opinions when asked to implement bad decisions:
―It is a very intimidating and compromising position to be in, especially when you are…trying to
33