Political communication ethics: some reflections
Based on a paper given to the Institute of Communication Ethics, 2002

back to top

Most ordinary people, if prompted in an opinion poll, would probably say that politicians are economical with the truth, distort through selection and over-simplification and over-promise. In other words, they are not "honest" or "ethical" enough in they way they try to persuade the electorate to support them.

Most politicians, contrary to popular imagination, go into politics to do some good. Power, fame or wealth may also be part of the motivational package, but I suspect that for many of them these motives come later, as disillusionment sets in. And even after ‘motivation creep’ has occurred, they endeavour to maintain high ethical standards in their dealings with the public and its self-appointed representatives, i.e. the media. And yet it is an integral part of political best practice to simplify, select and over-promise in the interest of persuasion.

The resulting mismatch between public expectations and political dialogue is a contributing cause of the widespread current cynicism about politics, and ultimately adds to the democratic deficit in our society. Politicians are well aware of this dilemma. But the needs of the moment, ie winning the immediate debate, inevitably take precedence over the need to restore the credibility of politicians and politics as a whole.

Here are two thoughts that have occurred to me in connection with everyday, grass- roots political life.

Understanding ‘ethical minorities’
In listening to recent, informal discussions about political issues in London, I have found myself wondering whether politicians draw the ethical boundary line in a different place from other people.
This is an extract from a conversation about Ken Livingstone’s use of public consultations in transport planning:

Local activist: "Are you politicians some sort of ‘ethical minority group’, with rules and conventions different from ordinary people?"

Politician:"We are communicating primarily within the Westminster Village and the Town Hall, and the media are part of this. It is true that the public does not always understand the rules of the game, but the political processes would break down if we tried to stick to the same rules in political debate as in our everyday lives."

Local activist: "So the residents are just collateral damage in Ken’s war against the car, is it?"

Politician: "Well I wouldn’t go quite that far."

Are politicians an ‘ethical minority’, with principles, rules and conventions that work well as long as they stay in their own political circle? If so, how can they achieve public trust? Can society be ‘multi-ethical’ as well as multi-cultural?

The dangers of clarity
Another thought: it may be necessary, for effective dialogue and negotiation to happen, that communications be incomplete (selective) and ambiguous (open to interpretation).

In political discussions, people whose instinct is to close the debate and move on to the next item often lose the argument through excessive or premature clarification. One way to win is to put a loaded question in such a way that it cannot be answered or countered in a few words. Another is to attach your argument to the basic political and personal values of the group, which nobody wants to debate. In both methods, some essential part of the argument must remain unstated, incomplete or ambiguous.

Persuasion or manipulation?
Manipulative? The word has negative connotations; and yet manipulation is an essential part if not the main objective of political dialogue. The freedom of political debate, like the freedom of the media, is surely too important to sacrifice on any ethical altar. How, then, do we control the abuses?

Should there be an independent political communications watchdog to monitor, evaluate, name and shame and respond to complaints? A ‘Citizen Association’ modelled on the Consumer Association? Or would compulsory ethical communication training for politicians be the answer? Or should we active citizens focus on stamping out ethically dubious practices in political journalism, and then rely on the media to put pressure on their professional cousins the politicians?

Answers on a postcard…

back to top

FROM REPUTATION TO MOTIVATION
by Nick Winkfield, Managing Partner, Stakeholder Studies Ltd

back to top

The talk is all about alignment and trust. We want our employees to share our values and vision, be committed to our goals, and trust us. And when life gets tough, we ban overtime, renegotiate packages, and let them go. We may have no choice, but it causes hardship and sometimes ruins lives. In these circumstances, most employers lose employee motivation, gain the opprobrium of the community, and often have difficulties in recruitment and retention when business turns around. Great employers do all the same things, but are not judged harshly for it. Why not?

There are three factors:
- The level of trust before the event
- The way the event is managed
- The reputation of the company.

I want to focus on the third factor: reputation.
Imagine that you work as a junior in the accounts department. You are having a beer with some colleagues after work. Someone you don’t know joins the group, and asks you what you do for a living. You have three (truthful) options:

- "I am in accounts"
- "I am in the [widget-making] industry"
- "I work for XYZ Company"

Two out of three are lost opportunities to build the company’s reputation. If you work for a great employer, you choose the third, and go on to tell the stranger what a great company it is.
Now suppose you have just been laid off. You could say, "I’m an accountant", but that would probably be followed by a question you don’t want. So, unless you are shy about being out of work, you say:
"I’m job hunting at present. I used to work for XYZ Company, but…"

How you finish the sentence will depend partly on how you were treated and your current feelings about it. But also on how you think your fellow-drinkers will feel if you (a) praise or (b) criticise the company. If you expect them to think XYZ is a great employer, you will probably be forgiving. After all, you could do with a bit of peer-approval at this point. But if XYZ has a bad reputation, the same desire to please leads you to criticise it. Either way, its reputation is reinforced.

Build your reputation inside and outside the company, create a powerful corporate brand, and your employees (even ex-employees) will add value to it. And if the crisis comes, you will be able to limit the damage. But do not leave your reputation to chance. Good reputations are created by design, and maintained by a blend of professional skill and human understanding. In today’s business environment, you will need a lot of both.

back to top