Dan Griswold: Blog #3 – Ben Bronstein Lecture
Due to a scheduling conflict, I attended the Ben Bronstein Lecture in Ethics and Public Relations, featuring Steve Manuel, a senior lecturer in PR at Penn State, Jim Lukaszewski, of The Lukaszewski Crisis Communications Group and Genaro Armas, a reporter for The Associated Press. The lecture was titled Integrity in Times of Crisis, and dealt with the Sandusky scandal at Penn State, and within that broader topic, I decided to focus on the issue of leadership and the balance between ethics and execution.
Steve Manuel brings up the topic of leadership by saying when mentioning that for years, the Penn State Board of Trustees operated “almost in a cone of silence”. There was no conversation or discourse going on. This is bad for the community and the organization because it leaves everyone in the dark. Likewise, it is a bad practice for any good field of employment, but especially for journalism, which deals in communication itself. A. A. Powers defines leadership as “communication which positively influences the group to move in the direction of the group’s goals.”(Powers, 1991, p.773). The same article also notes a study which showed that “participative or democratic leadership” resulted in job satisfaction and production, whereas the opposite was true when managers made most decisions themselves(Powers, 1991, p.775).
Having discovered that it doesn’t seem as surprising that certain authorities at Penn State tried to keep the scandal under wraps. As Manuel said in the lecture, “everything flows from the top down”
Manuel also brought up a good point about the balance between one’s ethics, morality and integrity, and one’s goal to get things done. Manuel says, “And I would add to that saying, ‘I agree’, when accomplishing a mission, ‘whatever it takes’, within the bounds of ethics, morals, the law and propriety.” Manuel goes on to mention that if you don’t start that way, that’s when you begin to cut corners. And it is here that we fall back on the Stephen Glass case once again. In his 60 Minutes interview he mentions how “if I just had the exact quote that I wanted, it would be perfect…”(Shapiro, 262-263, 2006). Sure enough, Glass went ahead and wrote it in his story, and it ran in the magazine. And it would appear that Glass did have some semblance of morality in him, as he would tell himself “You must stop” each time he fabricated(Shapiro, 263, 2006). But, in the end he never did until he was fired, explaining, “I wanted every story to be a home run”(Shapiro, 263, 2006). He did whatever it took, sans integrity, and ended up fired.
Admittedly, while I did attend the lecture, I sat on the floor next to the last row of chairs and recorded the lecture on my phone as best as I could, as I was in the throes of a bad cold, and had a hard time paying attention at that time. But I did learn that if I want to be a leader, I have to be more open. While I enjoy letting people make their own decisions, my usual preference is to lead quietly by example. Which could be ok, but it would probably be better to open the doors of communication. Also, as hard as I work, I think, and as much as I try to accomplish, I must remember Stephen Glass’ mistake and not let anything deter me from executing my assignments, except for integrity, morality and ethics.
References
Powers, A. A. (1991). The Effect of Leadership Behavior on Job Satisfaction and Goal Agreement and Attainment in Local TV News. Journalism Quarterly, 68(4), 772-780.
Shapiro, I. (2006). Why They Lie: Probing the Explanations for Journalistic Cheating. Canadian Journal Of Communication, 31(1), 261-266.