Anyone living in a cave this summer may not know why a discussion about right and wrong in the workplace is a burning topic. For the rest of us, weeks of exposure to phone-hacking revelations have given some pause for thought about ethical work behaviour. The circumstances of this summer’s hottest of hot domestic stories were highly specific but the trigger for the wrong-doing – a misguided response to an overwhelming pressure for results – will be understood in workplaces everywhere. But does such pressure always tempt people into cutting corners and breaking rules or do lapses occur because staff don’t understand how an organisation’s stated values actually translate into practice?

 

The relevance to internal communication practitioners is clear - we can play a role in helping employees to observe the ethical dimension in what they do. Yet an irresistible drive to get things done, strike deals , save money and so on often offers temptations - and sometimes outright incentives - that make it hard to live up to the fine words in the corporate values statement. A notable exception is safety, where organisations have learned that there are huge disincentives (such as corporate manslaughter charges, personal liability, loss of reputation and fines) in getting it wrong.

 

A wide-ranging discussion about ethics took place on the Institute’s LinkedIn group this month. One contributor asked ‘would you say it’s ever OK for internal comms teams to ‘mislead’ employees - even for their own good (for example, keeping quiet if a company is in financial trouble so they don’t worry about losing their jobs)?’ It’s a reasonable question, and some may answer that it’s just ‘part of the job’, because the IC specialist needs access to privileged information but also has a duty of confidentiality to the employer, or because of the ‘greater good’ argument of not prematurely sparking concerns about job security.

 

In practice, truth and honesty may be black and white, with fuzzy grey edges. An outright lie is a lie but having to be what the late historian and politician David Clark memorably termed ‘economical with the vérité’ is often the moral compromise that comes with knowing more about an issue than can be revealed at a given time. That’s why the Institute added ethics to the curriculum for its foundation-level accreditation programme for IC practitioners earlier this year.

 

An organisation’s stories and its chosen heroes can be influential in ethical terms. If a company lionises individuals who manifestly live and work ethically and penalises those who only get results by breaking ethical codes, the culture ‘learns’ a lesson and the behaviour shifts accordingly. IC practitioners have a role in this by choosing which stories to tell and whose examples to showcase.

 

But what if wrongdoing occurs and there’s no corporate narrative to serve as a reference point, no magnetic north on an organisation’s moral compass? In that case, some individuals respond by following their personal ethical beliefs and crying foul, a brave move indeed when whistleblowing is regarded as corporate treason (try unpicking the moral confusion in that). For many, fearful of the consequences and risk to livelihoods, it’s easier simply to swallow private misgivings and either say nothing or follow the prevailing corporate line.

 

However, beyond the employer and the individual, there is a third source of guidance and that’s for the IC profession itself to set out some ethical precepts. But it’s incumbent on us and on all professional bodies to raise the consciousness of members and of the wider world of work by bringing ethical questions to life, not least through active debate.