The Model of The Principled Advocate and The Pathological Partisan: A Virtue Ethics Construct of Opposing Archetypes of Public Relations and Advertising Practitioners

Abstract

Drawing upon contemporary virtue ethics theory, The Model of The Principled Advocate and The Pathological Partisan is introduced. Profiles are developed of diametrically opposed archetypes of public relations and advertising practitioners. The Principled Advocate represents the advocacy virtues of humility, truth, transparency, respect, care, authenticity, equity, and social responsibility. The Pathological Partisan represents the opposing vices of arrogance, deceit, secrecy, manipulation, disregard, artifice, injustice, and raw self-interest. One becomes either a Principled Advocate or a Pathological Partisan by habitually enacting or embodying the virtues or vices in the context of professional practices.

The transparent communicative organization and new hybrid forms of content

“…While there is no universal definition of transparency (Sisco & McCorkindale, 2013), scholars agree that it is related to openness, truthfulness, public information needs (Baker, 2008;Rawlins, 2009), credibility (Miller & Sinclair, 2009;Plaisance, 2007;Sisco & McCorkindale, 2013) and trust (Miller & Sinclair, 2009;Plaisance, 2007;Rawlins, 2009). Some disagreement is also apparent as to whether transparency is an umbrella concept or merely a vital part of another concept such as authenticity or ethics (Gilpin, Palazzolo, & Brody, 2010).…”

“…Gilpin et al (2010) related transparency to enabling publics to know what is happening and making it possible to confirm the provided information. Thus, transparent processes require the disclosure of information (Baker, 2008;Rawlins, 2009). However, openness and disclosure of information are not enough to build transparency (Albu & Wehmeier, 2014;Baker, 2008;Rawlins, 2008).…”

“…Thus, transparent processes require the disclosure of information (Baker, 2008;Rawlins, 2009). However, openness and disclosure of information are not enough to build transparency (Albu & Wehmeier, 2014;Baker, 2008;Rawlins, 2008). Organizations should seek to deliver relevant information (Rawlins, 2009), as transparency is more related to the "quality of openness" than to openness per se (Baker, 2008, p. 243).…”

“…On the other hand, lack of organizational engagement and listening may lead to underestimating stakeholders' expectations and depreciating their needs and wants, therefore endangering the organization's reputation, credibilityand trust. Transparency ideally makes it possible for stakeholders to participate in the discussion of their information needs (Rawlins, 2009), which should correlate with the relevant information given to the publics (Albu & Wehmeier, 2014;Baker, 2008;Rawlins, 2009;Shen & Kim, 2012).…”

A Jungian conscience: Self-awareness for public relations practice

“…Is the reliance on idealised codes an avoidance of the conflicts that face practitioners every day (Kang, 2010)? While such observations have relevance for the development of ethical theory, this polarity has also generated divisions in ethical identity among practitioners, casting them as either "ethical guardians" (Bowen, 2008) or anti-ethical partisans (Baker, 2008) while most are both "saints and sinners" (Fawkes, 2012). This separation of aspects is indicative of shadow dynamics.…”