Lea P. Stewart's Commentary on "Company Interests and Employee Involvement in Community"
Author(s):
Lea P. Stewart
While reading this case, two questions kept entering my
mind: "Why are CDC employees acting this way?" and "Where is
the CDC public relations department?" Contrary to popular
belief, 'public relations' is not a dirty word. In the
contemporary view of public relations, it means communicating
the organization's message to its publics. These publics can be
outside the organization (in this case, the citizens of
Parkville and, in some sense, Elizabeth Dorsey) or inside the
organization (Elizabeth Dorsey and the other employees).
Because it did not rely on a well-defined public relations
effort, CDC, Inc. put Elizabeth Dorsey and her co-workers in
dangerous ethical territory.
CDC has decided to expand its operations by building a new
facility. The planning committee has decided that the most
desirable location would be in Parkville, a small town with
citizens committed to preserving its recreational and wildlife
areas. We can hope that the planning committee considered
citizen opposition to its plan when deciding on this course of
action and decided that other aspects of this location made the
construction of the new facility desirable in spite of
difficulties in obtaining the necessary legal permits.
Deciding on the site for the new facility was a task
assigned to the planning committee. Assuming that they did
their jobs well, CDC truly needs this particular site for its
new facility. This is a decision that is clearly within the
function of a planning committee. Nevertheless, once they have
made this decision and convinced the appropriate organizational
decision makers of the soundness of their plan, their job is
done. There is no reason for a member of the committee to
request that one of CDC's employees ask another employee to
"soften up" the Parkville City Council members. This request is
asking an employee to serve as a lobbyist for the organization.
That function requires specialized skills is not part of the
standard job of an engineer.
Asking Elizabeth Dorsey to serve as a lobbyist for CDC
places her in a precarious ethical position. She is being asked
to serve as an advocate for an organizational decision. This
role is clearly beyond her job function. In addition, she is
being asked to serve as a mediator between her employer and her
community. She is being asked to perform a task that should be
performed by employees in the public relations department.
These individuals are trained to present the organization's
position to the public and have agreed to do this task. In
addition, public relations practitioners follow a code of
ethics for their profession and can seek guidance from their
professional association (the Public Relations Society of
America) if they feel they have a potential conflict of
interest.
Clearly Elizabeth Dorsey feels caught between her desire to
serve the environmental needs of her community and the desire
of her employer for a new facility. CDC has placed her in an
untenable position. If she reveals her environmental activism
to the chief engineer of her unit she can be accused of not
supporting her organization. If she does not reveal her
previous activity in Parkville she can be accused of lying to
her supervisor. By asking her to perform an inappropriate task,
CDC has forced her to choose between her previous environmental
activities and her employer. No matter which option she
chooses, in some way she is harmed.
This case is particularly distressing because there is no
reason for Elizabeth Dorsey to be placed in this situation. If
CDC, Inc. wants to site a new facility in a town, they should
ask the appropriate organizational employees to lobby for this
effort. If the corporate public relations department is not
capable of this task, an outside firm can be hired. These
employees will follow their profession's ethical guidelines,
and CDC engineers will not be asked to perform tasks that are
not part of their organizational responsibilities.