Category Archive

So a week has passed since the deadline for my CIPR Diploma CRT and I have been too busy enjoying having my life back to find time to blog. It’s one excuse after another with blogging - too busy working to blog then too busy having fun to blog.

I actually completed my CRT a few days before the due date as I had a busy weekend planned and did not want the CRT hanging over me. Last weekend I went to see Joe Lean and the Jing Jang Jong at Warwick University Students’ Union, the Kooks at Birmingham Academy and a friends new apartment and this weekend I went to a friends pre-wedding meal at the Mailbox and another friends engagement party! The social calendar is full to make up for the hermit I became for the month of April.

The Kooks, Naive, Live at Birmingham Academy

Joe Lean and the Jing Jang Jong (live but not at Warwick SU) - definitely worth catching live if you get the opportunity!

On Saturday I will be heading to Nottingham for the fourth of my CIPR Dimploma taught sessions and it will be the first session of the second module which focuses on planning and management in preparation for our second assessment in August. I was planning to publish my first assignment online here but I thought I should wait to see how good/bad it was before sharing! If the two essays (one on PR and Blogging and the second on PR and Ethical Propaganda) are any good then expect to see them here in June! Fingers crossed!

In the meantime, here’s a preview of my PR and Blogging essay:

Expectations from media, clients and audiences about new technologies are placing increasing pressure on public relations practitioners to increase their use of new technologies (Lordan, 2001). Whilst new technologies won’t replace traditional tools used in public relations the cost to PR practitioners in not using these tools will be in losing their competitive edge to those who have mastered new technology (Anderson and Reagan, 1992 cited in Lordan 2001). As advice to PR practitioners considering entering the blogosphere, Porter et al (2007) suggest an evolutionary approach in which “Practitioners begin using blogs routinely for informational purposes – seeking out alternative viewpoints, the latest news and experimenting with blogs for research purposes. Then use shifts to a more professional – albeit passive – orientation. This issues identification factor allows practitioners to continue to use blogs for information but in a more strategic and professional manner. The final step in the evolution of blog use is to begin engaging in two-way communication.” Whilst this model will not apply to all PR practitioners who use blogs, it does emphasise the importance of a familiarity with and a knowledge of blogs and the blogosphere before being able to use the tool for strategic and purposeful two-way communications.

References

Lordan, E. J. (2001) Cyberspin: The Use of New Technologies in Public Relations, in Heath, R. (2001) ed. Handbook of Public Relations, Sage, London

Porter, L. V. et al (2007) Blog power: Examining the effects of practitioner blog use on power in public relations, Public Relations Review 22 (2007) 92-95

Ok, so just a few days to go until my CRT essays should be complete for the first assignment of my CIPR diploma and what more productive thing to do but to take a personality test from the BBC!

So it turns out I am, rather proudly, a leader (as well as a procrastinator!)

Summary of Leaders

• Natural managers who strive for efficiency
• See the big picture and make strategic plans for the future
• Think of themselves as bright, independent and logical
• May overlook other people’s need for emotional support

More about Leaders

Leaders are strategic thinkers, planning ahead and anticipating difficulties. They quickly spot inefficiency and organise people to make improvements. Leaders like solving problems at the organisational level, but would rather leave the detailed work to others.

Leaders enjoy discussing complex issues and will challenge people’s views to spark a debate. They admire people who defend their beliefs by arguing persuasively.

In situations where they can’t use their talents or are unappreciated, Leaders may become detached, critical or aggressive. Under extreme stress, Leaders may feel isolated and doubt their abilities.

Leaders are often so ambitious in their careers that they sacrifice their personal life in the process.

And it seems so accurate…

I wouldn’t have said I was such a strategic thinker, but I do find it helpful and reassuring to plan ahead and I do feel satisfied by solving problems.

I can be quite frustrated by peoples inefficiency as I am a perfectionist and expect others to do their best. I love challenging people’s views and having a good debate so that’s true as well.

I think the final point is also supported by the fact that it is 12:30pm and I am meant to be studying for my PR course. My personal life has disappeared for now but it will be back as soon as these essays are handed in!

Some insightful procrastination there - pity it won’t help me write my essay.

On Friday, I received the questions for my CIPR Diploma Critical Reasoning Test. On first glance I am relatively happy with the choice of questions:

1. “Public relations is most likely to contribute to organisational effectiveness when the senior public relations manager is a member of the dominant coalition – where he or she is able to shape the organisation’s goals and to help determine which external publics are most strategic.” (Grunig, L. Grunig, J. and Dozier, 2002:97 cited in Grunig, L. Grunig, J. and Dozier, 2006:34). Write a report to the Board of the organisation you work for, explaining why this is so.
2. “Propaganda is not neutral, it aims to further the aims of the propagandist.” (Wright, 1991). Discuss this definition of propaganda in the light of “ethical propaganda” campaigns, such as public safety or public health campaigns in your country.
   
3. Using the theories behind relationship management along with some practical examples and some methods, write a case for highlighting the relations in public relations.
   
4. There is an increasing number of individuals and organisations entering the “blogosphere”, where reputations are played with by almost everyone, from anonymous mischief makers to the openly concerned. Your CEO has heard that her name has been mentioned in an anonymous blog and she wants to retaliate. Before you advise her as to what is best to do, write yourself a reflective paper about public relations and the “blogosphere”.

I have to pick two of the four questions to answer and submit them by 29th April. I think I am going to choose the 2nd and 4th questions; on Propoganda and Blogging.

References:

Q. 1 – Grunig, L. Grunig, J. and Dozier (2006) “The Excellence Theory” in Botan, C. and Hazleton, V. (eds) Public Relations Theory II, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 21 – 62

Q. 2 – Wright, J. (1991) Terrorist propaganda: The Red Army Faction and the provisional IRA 1968-86, Basingstoke:MacMillan

Do you think it is the role of PR to act as an organisation’s “ethical guardian”? How do the key ideas of the rhetorical approach to public relations thinking affect the ability of practitioners to adopt this position? Is this a problem for the field?

The role of PR in society has been debated since the professions emergence and will continue to be debated as society evolves and presents new challenges. One of the more recent challenges for PR is the publics increasing demand for ethical and socially responsible behaviour. But is it the responsibility of the PR practitioner to adopt the role of ‘ethical guardian’ or is this outside of PR’s responsibility?

To establish whether it is the role of PR to act as an organisations ‘ethical guardian’, first we must understand what the term implies: “The term ‘guardian’ implies an expertise and responsibility for others, in this context, the public interest. The use of the term ‘ethics’ implies the ability to make clear moral judgments based on moral frameworks, thus overlapping with legal and religious domains. ‘Ethical guardian’ thus implies a high status in society attracting power and responsibility, so one would expect some considerable expertise to carry out that role.” L’Etang (2003) This analysis of the concept focuses on the practitioner’s ethical responsibilities to make moral judgments and decisions in the interests of the public but there are two main considerations here: who’s ethics should be applied to the decision-making process; and to whom does PR have responsibility – is it only the public?

Ethics are moral guidelines and principles which guide our behaviour, but ethics may come from many sources: PR practitioners may have their own moral beliefs, be guided by codes and guidelines of the profession as outlined in the Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) Code of Conduct and also be bound by the corporate values of the organisation which they represent and these ethics may not always be compatible. The CIPR Code of Conduct guides the profession and the CIPR has disciplinary powers to which all members adhere. The Professional Practices Committee of the Institute handles complaints against members of the Institute who may be in breach of the Code. However, there is a massive disparity between the number of PR practitioners in the UK and the number of CIPR members (48,000 practitioners, 9,000 members approx) which raises doubts over the effectiveness of this code and the influence of the Institute.

Various approaches exist to aid the PR practitioner in the decision-making process - the three main ethical systems are; the Deontological approach, the Teleological approach; and the Situational approach but there is no common agreement on which of these approaches is ‘right’. Ethics must therefore come from integrity, fairness and honesty rather than an agreed approach to decision making. The Potter Box model and the Navran model are designed to provide an ethical framework for decision-making but the PR practitioner does not always have the luxury of time and resource to carry out these analyses for each decision that needs to be made.

Whilst trying to reconcile these different ethical considerations, the PR practitioner must also consider to whom they are responsible; the public, the organisation or the profession – or all of these. L’Etang (2003) suggests ‘guardian’ implies a responsibility to public interest, and although many definitions of public relations refer to public interest and public welfare, the PR practitioner also has responsibility to others. The responsibilities of an organisation are complex; they include responsibilities for customers, employees, investors, suppliers, the local community, the physical environment, the country and even the world (Cavanagh and McGovern, 1988 cited in Daugherty, 2001). And it is not only the PR practitioner that has responsibility to these stakeholders – many different employees within the organisation will be required to adopt ethical practises when dealing with them. Employees must be clear about the organisations mission and performance standards so that they can be reinforced in all practises (Daugherty, 2001). The PR practitioner should have the best understanding of the different publics to whom the organisation is responsible, and could therefore be considered to be better placed to understand the ethical expectations demanded by these different groups but this does not constitute the title of ‘ethical guardian’. Mau and Dennis (1994, cited in Daugherty, 2001) suggested that PR practitioners should act as the ‘organisations radar’ by establishing relationships with stakeholders, understanding stakeholders needs and demands and formulating their organisations responses.

The role and function of PR is varied – this can be demonstrated by the number of different definitions of the profession. There are also different aspects of PR that require different approaches which may not always be considered ‘ethical’ for example publicity, media relations and crisis communications. Crisis communications techniques often require stemming negative publicity or withholding information which infringes the public interest which can compromise the ethics of the organisation (L’Etang, 2003, 65). We should also consider organisational practises that may be considered unethical, for example animal testing. A PR practitioner may represent an organisation which tests products on animals and may believe that the sacrifice of the animal is small in comparison to the benefits the research would bring to society. The medical researcher would also agree. However, some publics would consider animal testing to be unethical in any circumstances and other employees of the organisation may also take this view. For the PR practitioner to be an ‘ethical guardian’ protecting the public interest is a normative approach to PR that would not be practicable with such a diverse public with many different moral principles guided by religion, culture, upbringing, education and personal beliefs. With so many ethical considerations, and a responsibility to so many different groups the term ‘ethical guardian’ seems too ambiguous to encompass all of the demands on PR.

Another difficulty with the term ‘ethical guardian’ is that public relations itself is seen as morally dubious (L’Etang, 2003, 61). Historically, many practices of the PR professional have held negative connotations and been considered unethical such as propaganda, publicity and ‘spin’ hence the PR practitioner has often been required to justify their role and prove the credibility of the profession. L’Etang (2003, 55) suggests that the claim to the status of ethical guardian by PR practitioners can be seen as part of the claim for social legitimacy. This view is also held by Starck and Kruckberg (2003) who claim that an important part of the professionalisation of PR will be an articulation of the professional ethical values that define public relations practitioners’ relationship to society. In this way, the PR practitioner could be considered an ‘ethical guardian’ for the profession. In a claim for greater legitimacy, PR has tried to dissociate with these unethical practices and adopt greater association with the professional body (CIPR), ethical practices such as corporate social responsibility, and has argued for PR to adopt a more strategic role in the management of organisations rather than merely and advocate or rhetor.

Here, we could consider the role of PR as ‘ethical guardian’ to the organisation rather than to the public. The organisation should have corporate values that guide the actions of the organisation and these should be embedded in the culture of the organisation. It is suggested that PR should be involved in the establishment of these organisational codes of ethics and responsible for monitoring implementation (L’Etang, 2003). This idea supports the view of PR as a strategic management function. In this role, the PR practitioner could also respond more readily to public opinion and would have more influence in aligning the activities of the organisation with the expectations of the publics. This is reflective of the two-way symmetrical model proposed by Grunig and Hunt (1984). Considered to be the most effective and the most ethical model of excellence, this approach emphasises the need for a dialogue between the organisation and its publics with the goal of developing ideas, attitudes and behaviour on both sides. It has been suggested that the growth or corporate social responsibility exemplifies how organisations have responded to perceived societal needs and criticism of business (L’Etang, 2003). This recent emphasis on corporate responsibility and ethics isn’t a sudden burst of altruism from organisations and companies – it is a response to demand from customers.

The idea of dialogue is also prominent in the rhetorical approach to public relations although traditionally it was considered only a persuasive method providing advocacy on behalf of an organisation. This two-way asymmetrical approach focuses on encouraging publics to behave in a particular way. Whilst this approach involves obtaining the views of the publics through research, it does not take into account their ethics or views with an intention to adjust or respond to their ideas. This approach has been replaced more recently with a greater emphasis on dialogue rather than persuasion. According to L’Etang, the PR practitioner should “re-emphasis the public service values and to develop the notion of public service neutrality further in order to suggest that practitioners are not simple advocates and rhetors working on behalf or organisational interests, but specialists privy to organisational information but retaining an independent stance and, crucially, the ability and expertise to make judgements on behalf of both the organisation and the public” (L’Etang, 2003).

More recently, the rhetorical approach has emphasised debate and dialogue with the aim of uncovering the ethical truth. “The ‘truth’ can only be reached through argumentative dialogue that reveals which of the participating parties has better arguments” (Skerlep, 2001) The process is a two-way one which encourages debate through statement and counterstatement to test people’s views of reality, value and choices relevant to products, services and public policies (Heath, 2001). The process of dialogue is important here rather than the outcome of the persuasive communication – the notion is that if it is done ethically and rigorously then the outcome will be ethical (Gregory, 2002). Heath (2001) claims that rhetoric is ethical because it empowers participants to engage in dialogue but to ensure the process is truly ethical, the practitioner must facilitate the two-way dialogue, contribute information and be acceptant and responsive to the outcomes.

There are a number of criticisms of the rhetorical approach which PR practitioners should be aware of if they are to consider the ethics of this approach. It may be difficult for the public to determine what is fact and what is truth; there can be problems reaching a consensus over some complex issues; the public may not wish to engage in a dialogue; and there may be a lack of access for people who do wish to participate in the dialogue. To be considered ethical, the public relations practitioner must take steps to overcome these criticisms by enabling people to fully involve themselves with the dialogue, to encourage questioning and debate of information provided and to provide channels for this dialogue to occur.

Considering the PR practitioner in a more strategic role within the organisation allows these ethical practices demanded by society to be embedded in the culture of the organisation. It is not enough for the organisation to be seen to be ethical - chief executives must establish an ethical climate from top down (Daugherty, 2001). This must then be reinforced with action and a programme of activities that address these societal demands. The concept of corporate social responsibility began to emerge during the 1960s (Daugherty, 2001). Corporate social responsibility focuses the need for organisations to recognise the social consequences of their actions. These consequences should be managed through ethical codes, corporate philanthropy, community relations programmes and law-abiding actions (Wood, 1991 cited in Daugherty, 2001). The PR practitioner can implement these programmes of action, but these activities need to be visible in many aspects of the organisations work, which is then showcased through public relations. It would be quite simple for organisations to adopt the Fairtrade cause and consider this a demonstration of their ethics; Fairtrade has effectively become shorthand for ‘ethical’ (Mark Varney, Business Development Manager, Fairtrade, quoted by Butler, 200 but publics are becoming more socially aware and are realising that companies who adopt the Fairtrade status aren’t always truly ethical such as Starbucks, Nestle and Unilever (Butler, 2008). According to Ian Bretman, deputy director of Fairtrade, “Companies are…recognising that however well the label works on products certified as Fairtrade, it is not credible within their brand unless they are consistent with its policies” (Butler, 200 The ‘ethical guardian’ here is required to ensure the practises are embedded within the policy of the organisation and this responsibility could lie with the PR practitioner.

So who should the responsibility for ethics lie with; the Chief Executive, senior management or the public relations practitioner? A survey that explored the views of CEOs towards corporate citizenship showed that CEOs felt proper exercise of CSR was vital to the company’s profitability but their concerns centred on the negative consequences of ignoring reputation more than on the potential benefits of responsible behaviour (PriceWaterhouseCooper in conjunction with the World Economic Forum). This suggests that there is a lack of genuine commitment to behaving responsibility from the top of organisations. However, in a study by Judd (1989 cited in Daugherty, 2001) public relations practitioners viewed themselves as the consciences of their organisations with 65% of respondents indicating that their responsibility to society was more important than responsibility to employers or clients. This suggests that PR is better placed to be the ‘ethical guardian’ of the organisation, understanding the demands of society and implementing programmes of CSR in response.

With so many ethical considerations, and a responsibility to so many different groups the term ‘ethical guardian’ seems too ambiguous to encompass all of the demands on PR. The PR practitioner has a responsibility to the public, to the organisation they represent and to themselves to behave in an ethical way when making decisions that will impact the public. When adopting a rhetorical approach to PR it is the practitioner’s responsibility to engage in the debate and facilitate the debate to ensure an ethical outcome but this does not constitute the role of ‘ethical guardian’. The term is an occupational myth which is now firmly embedded in the occupational culture (L’Etang 2003, p53) and whilst we cannot recognise it specifically within the role of PR, some of the ideas it stands for are very relevant to the profession.

References

Butler, S. (200 Good intentions, or just pandering to the consumer, SocietyGuardian.co.uk

Daugherty, E. L. (2001) Public Relations and Social Responsibility in Heath, R. L. (2001) Handbook of Public Relations, London: Sage

Gregory, A. (2002) To Spin or Not To Spin: The Ethics of Public Relations, Lecutre at the Annual General Meeting of the Institute of Public Relations.

L’Etang, J. (2003) The myth of the ‘ethical guardian’: An examination of its origins, potency and illusions, Journal of Communications Management (Vol 8, 1)

Moloney, K. (2000) Rethinking Public Relations: The Spin and the Substance, London, Routledge

Starck and Krcukberg (2003) Ethical obligations of public relations in an era of globalisation, Journal of Communications Management (Vol 8, 1)

Survey by PriceWaterhouseCoopers and the World Economic Forum (2003) Responding to the Leadership Challenge: Findings of a CEO Survey on Global Corporate Citizenship, World Economic Forum and The Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum

Mock Critical Reasoning Test for CIPR Diploma:

Do you think it is the role of PR to act as an organisation’s “ethical guardian”? How do the key ideas of the rhetorical approach to public relations thinking affect the ability of practitioners to adopt this position? Is this a problem for the field?

Answers on the back of a postcard (or in the comments box below) please…it’s due in today…

I will post my answer once it’s finished… try to contain your excitement!

So for our first practise assignment for the CIPR Diploma, we were asked “What contribution does public relations make to modern society?”. I kind of turned this question on it’s head, and instead I discussed “What contribution does modern society make to PR?” Admittedly not the assignment we were given, but something more interesting and relevant to my area of work…

“PR is a relatively new discipline and its role in society is a constantly evolving one. So to are the theories that guide its practice. The profession is continually facing new challenges from developing modes of communication in the Web 2.0 era to an increasingly complex and diverse society who need to be communicated with.

Previous dominant theories that have guided PR practice are becoming less relevant as new approaches are needed to respond to this changing media landscape.

In systems theory, the idea of PR practitioner as ‘boundary spanner’ between organisation and audience is harder to understand as boundaries become more flexible. Cutlip, Center and Broom (2000) emphasise the presence of an ‘established boundary’ between organisation and audience but with increasingly abundant channels of communication across the boundary, the PR practitioner can no longer be was viewed as ‘gatekeeper’ and must become facilitators enabling flow of information.

The 21^st century has seen a massive rise in the number of people publishing content online. Access to new technologies and the availability of web publishing has introduced two fundamental changes for communicators and audiences: who provides information and how audiences get the information they need (Holtz, 1996).

New communications channels such as blogs, social networking sites, RSS feeds, video-sharing sites, wiki’s allow publics to become more discursive and find their own voices and communities who share their voices. The dialogue’s that user-generated content allows is in keeping with more recent rhetorical perspectives.

Heath (2001) supports the rhetorical approach as the primary perspective through which PR should be viewed: “Through statement and counterstatement, people test each other’s views of reality, value, and choices relevant to products, services and public policies”.

Skerlep (2001) also advocates the rhetorical approach as it allows multiple viewpoints to be given on situations, allowing the PR practitioner and audiences to arrive at the truth; “The ‘truth’ can only be reached through argumentative dialogue that reveals which of the participating parties has better arguments” (Skerlep, 2001). By rigorously questioning and challenging statements, we can arrive at the ethical truth. For this approach to be truly ethical, the PR practitioner must be responsive to these multiple viewpoints and not ignorant to them.

As new challenges are emerging for PR practitioners, Mackey (2003) suggests that more traditional PR theories are left wanting. In the globalised world, we are witnessing a more “plural society that is becoming even more postmodern and difficult to stereotype”. New theories of communication are needed that help map the apparently teeming and far harder to see and understand lateral communication between targeted publics and others (Mackey, 2003)

PR practitioners are required to continually address the challenges that are encountered as society evolves, re-evaluating the boundaries of the profession. Whilst this is necessary for its practice it can also confuse the publics understanding of the profession. PR practitioners must continue to look at new challenges to communications whilst re-enforcing the role of the PR professional in society as a facilitator of information exchange.”

References

Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., and Broom, G. M. (2000) Effective Public Relations (8^th ed) Englewood Cliffs, NJ; Prentice Hall.

Heath, R. L. (2001) Handbook of Public Relations, London: Sage

Holtz, S. (1996) Communication and technology: The complete guide to using technology for organizational communication. Chicago: Lawrence Regan Communications.

Mackey, S. (2003) Changing vistas in Public Relations theory. PRism 1(1)

Skerlep, A (2001) Re-evalutaing the role of the rhetoric in public relations theory and in strategies of corporate discourse. Journal of Communications Management 6(2) 176-187

So this is the first ‘critical reflection’ assignment I have been given for my CIPR Diploma.

Critical reflection is the ability to analyse carefully and logically, information and ideas from various perspectives. It involves gaining an understanding of, and evaluating, claims and viewpoints from wide-ranging reading. You need to demonstrate an ability to think, not simply show knowledge.

At the moment my answer is a stream of thoughts including the following…

PR as a relatively new discipline…problem of defining PR…role of journalism…changing media landscape…web 2.0…user generated content…diversity of audiences…professionalism in PR…

Not much of a ‘critical reflection’ yet - I think I need to consult the text books. Anyway, that’s just a rough idea of some of the ideas I want to discuss in my meager 500 word limit.

Feel free to share your views on the role of PR in modern society and I will read them with great interest!

The story of the relationship between Sigmund Freud and his American nephew, Edward Bernays. Bernays invented the public relations profession in the 1920s and was the first person to take Freud’s ideas to manipulate the masses. He showed American corporations how they could make people want things they didn’t need by systematically linking mass-produced goods to their unconscious desires.

Bernays was one of the main architects of the modern techniques of mass-consumer persuasion, using every trick in the book, from celebrity endorsement and outrageous PR stunts, to eroticising the motorcar.

His most notorious coup was breaking the taboo on women smoking by persuading them that cigarettes were a symbol of independence and freedom. But Bernays was convinced that this was more than just a way of selling consumer goods. It was a new political idea of how to control the masses. By satisfying the inner irrational desires that his uncle had identified, people could be made happy and thus docile.

It was the start of the all-consuming self which has come to dominate today’s world.

Taken from BBC Four