Marketing communication: principles and practice

P R O F E S S I O N A L I S M
332

---

what is to be known (Hayek, 1990); creating and operating systematically
distorted communication systems (in which the conduit metaphor for
‘communication’ precludes participation; and our argument culture in which
we persuade and argue, when dialogue and partnership are more constructive
(remember Vickers’ ladder of communication forms?). Thus, mere inter-
action becomes interchange (Tannen 1999).
ETHICAL COMMUNICATION
Management textbooks do not deal adequately with ethical questions, 
and even much of the growing literature on corporate communication
management fails to engage with the issues. Avoidance of the question 
of ethical communicative behaviour presupposes the neutral social role or
conservative or radical advocacy roles of communication management.
Clampitt (1991) is an exception, and explains the paucity of ethical con-
siderations in contemporary texts, as follows:
1 Many people believe that discussing ethics will inevitably lead to imposing
one’s morality on others, thus undermining their discretion and
responsibility. Ironically, argues Clampitt, this stance is itself unethical.
2 Ethics is often seen as irrelevant to the basic purpose of business. The
argument focuses only on the ‘bottom line’ and job satisfaction. But people
are the heart and soul of business, and so any human community must
be concerned with the human condition.
3 Ethical discussions are avoided because they are complex and ‘it all
depends on the situation’. Because every situation is unique, it is argued,
any attempt at fundamental ethical principles is likely to fail. Clampitt
does not accept such a relativistic view.
In debating the ethical conduct of communicators (i.e. those who communi-
cate), Clampitt (1991) raises three fundamental assumptions:
1 Every communication decision has some ethical dimension, whether
acknowledged or not. In choosing to speak, the communicator chooses
to disclose information, motives, or feelings. Judging whether this
communication should occur is partly an ethical decision, if only because
silence signals acquiescence or tacit agreement. So are questions of how
and when to communicate. People inevitably make ethical judgements in
choosing the time, the subject, and the mode of the communication they
initiate. In every act of listening we are also making a moral stand, by
deciding whether we wish to know what the speaker can tell us.
2 Communication ethics inevitably involves both motives and impacts.
When the motive for someone’s behaviour is deceit, then the outcome is
immoral. But what about good motives that produce bad impacts? Both
actions and their ultimate impacts must be considered.
3 In considering the ethical nature of communication, we must consider
simultaneously who communicates what with whom, where, and when.