However, I think that ‘institutionalisation’ as the focus of the Euprera Conference (and of this post) focuses on the sociological meaning. I understand that to mean that certain ways of doing things are gradually being established, acknowledged and generalised, i.e. getting to the point of reflecting a common understanding of reality, standard perceptions, taken-for-granted behaviour — the natural way of action. Simplistically put, it becomes a habit and you don’t think about it or question it any longer.

Those are actually the characteristics of a paradigm, when everybody thinks the same and does not question assumptions. But our very conversations here indicate that we are not thinking exactly the same, that we operate from different world-views/paradigms, and we are now actually having paradigm debates (which is common before the paradigm shifts). If I may use us as an example, Cathy, I think you are much ‘established’ in (even ‘locked’ in) a ‘relationship’ paradigm (the yellow T-shirt!) while I am ‘locked’ in a strategic view for PR (probably wearing a red T-shirt, since that is what many would see when I mention PR and strategic in the same breath!!).

Earlier in this post, Prof Invernizzi indicated that institutionalisation of PR/communication describes its growing relevance within organizations and its influence on their strategic decision processes. He gave as example the entry of the director of PR/communication in the Board of an increasing number of organizations as a tangible indicator of the process. I think Estelle and I took up the discussion from this point, since it of course agrees with our worldview (the latter obtained in practice, and not in academia! By the way, Cathy, not all academics have been in academia all their lives. For instance, Estelle and I have 33 years in practice between us).

Prof Invernizzi also said that ‘in order to maintain and strengthen authenticity and/or reputation, PR/ communication activities need to actively contribute to all organizational processes, beginning from the strategic decisions of the Board of Directors’. It is certainly my view that PR is NOT contributing to ALL organisational processes, but only to some. I am not saying that is all that one should be doing. As a matter of fact, a practitioner doesn’t need to do it at all. All I am saying is that, in my view, that is something that SOME PR practitioners somewhere SHOULD be doing in order to assist in organisational goal achievement.

Since the technical role of PR is already institutionalised (generally accepted and understood by all) it doesn’t present a great challenge to me as a researcher. But there isn’t a general understanding of the strategic role yet and therefore it is more interesting. However, I don’t think that the strategic role is part of an old paradigm. It has not yet been a paradigm/entrenched? (Anyway, I don’t see a difference in PR’s strategic role in a hierarchical or matrix organisation–I have worked in both and played the role in both–but think it was ‘easier’ in the matrix organisation).

If all of this makes me a ‘panglossian’, Toni—so be it. (What exactly do you mean with this word anyway—is it ‘eternal optimist’?). But that can be part of another discussion.

Cathy: You did raise a number of interesting points to discuss and I would like to come back to some later.

Estelle, I think PR has become too important for only the PR ‘manager’ to manage. (It needs a PR ‘strategist’ to lead it into new paradigms). In my experience in South Africa, especially in many smaller organisations, the PR ‘manager’ doesn’t have enough managerial training, but is an experienced technician who gets promoted to heading the function.This PR ‘manager’ then assumes the generic duties of managing, controlling, organising, doing performance appraisals and signing leave forms, etc. but is not really leading the function to new heights and more often than not, does not become involved in strategic decision making processes.

The reasons for this might have been pinpointed by Retha Groenewald’s research amongst 400 PR managers in SA, as to which skills they considered the most important in their managerial positions. Although these managers said that they were well equipped with technical PR skills, they did not consider these important in their managerial positions. They said what they lacked/needed they didn’t have—specifically strategic communication skills, business skills and leadership communication skills.

If they had these skills and played the role of the PR ‘strategist’, one could speculate that the leadership vacuum might not have arisen. But what we saw was that, as certain stakeholders became more important in specific organisations or industries, managers from other areas or from outside were appointed to handle such stakeholders and it soon developed into another functional area (i.e. government = public affairs; shareholders = investor relations, etc).

But, to bastardise a well known phrase, may the best manager lead!! However, in the end I am not convinced that it is in the organisation’s best interest to splinter the stakeholders into separate functions. If it were, why then in many large organisations with enough money to attract top communication executives, are these functions often pulled together again under a communication executive—who has a senior position and the relevant knowledge to operate at that level? Any other views on this?

Estelle, I do agree that the ‘strategic part of our discipline should be aligned with the strategic function of the organisation’. As a matter of fact, I think it should do more than just being ‘aligned’ with it. If PR wants to be a strategic function, it has to make a unique contribution to strategic decision making. I agree with Knight’s postmodern view of strategic management as “a subjective process in which the participants from different management disciplines…..assert their disciplinary identities”.

And Cathy, it is here that I have the problem with the yellow T-shirts and relationships as PR’s ultimate purpose, since I don’t consider it to be ‘a unique disciplinary identity’ (HR and marketing, to name a few, are also doing it). Even less so when the different sub-functions are splintering off and all are building relationships with different groups of stakeholders. (But my problem arises only when one has a strategic worldview for PR. If the latter is not so important, then relationships can be the ‘end all and be all’ for PR practitioners).

Estelle, there is so much to discuss here that I would rather not get into the enterprise/corporate strategy debate now. Maybe we can do that at a later stage.

I had started to digest this conversation and the related one about the Institutionalization of the PR ‘Educationist’ role and begun to prepare a comment, but after Cathy’s intervention (inspiring and thought provoking) I felt obliged to write to praise her effort and try to add two ideas related with internal communicators or employee communication specialists or whatever we want to call those of us who work mainly or exclusively in this area.

I second Fraser’s view adding that often it seems to matters more how well professionals can handle their work and how they can help their executives gain visibility and influence. So it’s possible that adjustments involving the placement of PR function in the organization are also attempts to bring closer or to keep away specific actors. Brazilian scholar Roberto Porto Simões saw PR as the way to manage the political function of organizations, dealing with information to minimize conflicts. In the internal stakeholders relations (I prefer this to internal communication which emphasises de “communicative” – and technical – part of our function, and because it can help sell Cathy’s T-shirts), a major task is indeed to navigate the whole political system of the organizations and manage different sensibilities – unfortunately this is not taught at schools and is perhaps one of the reasons many organizations find young students not prepared to enter their world. How we understand and manage the political side of PR is certainly one very important question for the debate on institutionalization.

Cathy suggests also the importance of looking to the future and wonders about the influencers of the future. Indeed, there is still a myth that stakeholder mapping concerns mostly external stakeholders (thus implying that internal stakeholders are by definition clear and straightforward), but more and more, companies are to be understood like other social environments. People have their links within the functional rationale of the organizational structure, but many other bonds too. Families, competitors, potential and former employees, communities, shareholders have become very fluid concepts. In addition, traditional “employees” are being more and more understood as networks (some with formal existence) within the organization. The so called “change agents” popular in internal change management processes, groups of high potential, subsets of employees from business units, geographical communities, etc. I would add this to the list of issues to tackle when speaking about institutionalization of PR related with its internal dimension.

this is a very thoughtful (as usual….coming from you!) contribution to our discussion.
I am sure (I for certain) many of us will agree that you have ‘one-handedly’ set a con-vincing and attractive layout for a table ( a ’space’?) around which we may, with litlle discomfort, sit to outline a generally (I hope) acceptable and, even more, stimulating conceptual framework of intelligent building blocks for scholars, educators, professionals and students.

As for institutionalization:
I very much agree that only by looking into the future (without of course avoiding the always essential historization of the phenomenon) may we deter the risk of self complacency, rigidiidity and cristallization which often accompany conceptualizations of what has and is happening.
This will allow us to better understand the apparent contradiction by which movements tend to collapse as they institutionalize.
In our case… the function becoming finally recognised by organizations in the midts of its trend to disintermediation….

Specifically on employee relationships:
you forget to note that in many countries and organizations the ‘first public’ have traditionally been shareholders rather than employees. This also could be because, at least in the european tradition, trade unions (rather than employee groups) have been the traditional interlocutors of private and public sector organizations.

Finally (but of course all the points you make are well taken..):
I do not believe we should worry too much about doing away with ‘the bastards’, as they will also exist and flourish no matter how tightly we attempt, either by self or hetero regulation, to close access (an exercise I am particularly hostile to).

What is instead of paramount relevance for our future is that, as you say, we get on with it… and capitalise now on the benefits of istitutionalization, by finding reasonable and implementable processes to deter its negatives and, most importantly, responsibily reinventing and re-intermediating our profession for the reciprocal and interrelated benefit of society, the organization and our profession.
Thank you Cathy.

Our t-shirts will read: ‘It’s About Relationships’. I will probably produce them in yellow as we are overdue for springtime here and could do with something brighter to break up the grey skies.

The posts addressing institutionalization are numerous, and rather than post on each one, I have whipped out the common strands on which I feel compelled to comment.

On ‘institutionalization’

This concept presented me with several disagreeable difficulties to begin with and the link to Douglas Harper’s etymological note at the end of my comment will, in part, explain why. I would – as an ordinary practitioner – suggest that the discussions appear to recommend that we institutionalize the practice of public relations – but against old business models! Surely, we should not be seeking to lock our profession into operational paradigms that are on the wane? Should we not instead be looking to see how we will serve our organisations, publics and communities in the operational capacities that will be required in the future, rather than the past?

From my own varied cultural and geographic perspective, to become ‘institutionalized’ is not a good thing. It has many negative connotations, some of which include a reluctance to change, undemocratic operating principles and the desire to hold fast to historic practices devised for another time and place. There is also a perception of imprisonment. On the other hand, if, as a profession, we seek legitimacy of operation within current and future organisations – and with people at large – then our terms of engagement need to be reconsidered, agreed, confirmed, communicated and understood if we are to be successful. To that end, I hope the discussions in October bear fruit.

Much of the conversation has centred on the present and the past, rather than looking round the corner at what is coming next. Do we want to see public relations universally recognised as an essential and integral part of organisational operation? Yes, I believe we do. Do we want to demonstrate, universally, the benefit of building and sustaining good relationships that underpin and facilitate an organisation’s licence to operate? Yes, again, I believe we do. Do we believe that in order to achieve this we must be locked – imprisoned if you will – into old school, hierarchical organisational models that rely on a few key influencers (otherwise known as the ‘C-suite’). Personally, I don’t think so, because organisations of the future will have level structures, a variety of influencers at various operational levels rendering the twentieth century ideal of the ‘seat at the top table’ simply redundant.

If we are to become ‘institutionalized’, then the purpose of public relations must be recognised across the organisations, communities and people we work with, rather than crystalised as power brokered among a few.

On authenticity

Which brings me to authenticity. In Toni’s interview, I agreed entirely with Clemente when he observed :

“Let me go back to the old fashioned “far bene e fallo sapere” (do well and tell others about it): it is much closer to the authenticity concept than the more recent reputation or perception management fads, at least it puts an accent on behaviours.”

The notion of actions speaking louder than words is as old as the hills. For many years now, old style organisations have, to a great extent, got away with saying one thing and doing another. How delightful that it will once more be fashionable to be judged on what is done, rather than what is said. But in order to make sure that what’s done is done well, the ‘internal’ publics, addressed in one of Benita’s posts, must have greater value than they have had in the past. In the discussion on internal communications, nowhere would principles aligned with, say, Ubuntu be more appropriate – I am because we all are. To consider ‘hiving off’ internal communications anywhere is quite simply barmy. Of course it is – and always has been – part of the public relations purpose. The people who make up an organisation are the ‘first’ public – the eldest child if you will – and therefore require at the very least the same attention and interaction as the many other publics that exist. Just because for years many organisations have ‘got away’ with not doing this doesn’t diminish the fact that the internal community falls within the relationship building function. And, if open, trustworthy and transparent relationships are not built first within the internal community, how can an organisation claim to be authentic? I would venture to suggest that other practitioners will – based on our collective experience over years – support this view.

On name-calling

I am not a just a strategic communicator. That is part of my role as a public relations practitioner, as are many other things. Strategic communication management, reputation management, stakeholder relationship advisor – there are dozens of new titles out there, most of which only describe a portion of my job. That’s fine if it is the only bit of the job I want to do, but then I have never wished to simply be a technician.

I understand why these titles exist. Because public relations allowed itself in some quarters to gain a bad reputation and people wanted their work, service – and in some cases basic human dignity – acknowledged and recognised, rather than slandered and denigrated. In order to achieve this, they changed or invented a new title based on a part of the work we undertake, rather than the whole job. I have always held the view that there are bad apples in every barrel and one or two bad ones shouldn’t put me – or anyone else – off this wholesome and healthy food. It has been said in this conversation-of-many-posts that CEOs and their associates increasingly recognise strategic communication management rather than public relations. I would contend that this is because that is what they are being told to recognise. So a word of warning. If this ‘title change’ persists, we will end up with a whole host of unrecognisable, misunderstood jobs. Then others will step up (as they are beginning to do already) and claim to undertake sustained relationship building and employ the services of a ‘strategic communication manager’ to help them do this. These ‘others’ will advise on strategic relationships and the manager will become the communication technician. Oops. Communication is part of, not all, that we do. I fear academia may be inadvertently ‘hiving us off’. The CEOs I have dealt with over many years are able and intelligent people who understand the role and worth of public relations. They are also quite capable of discerning good apples from bad and not throwing out babies with the bathwater (to mix up a few metaphors).

They understand too, that it is their relationships I am initiating and helping to sustain, so when it it is time to speak, they are the voice of the organisation – not me. A basic lesson in the ordinary practitioner’s handbook has always been to enable the right people to consistently front up to and engage with their publics. Don’t let them hide behind you. Often – to use the PR educationalist reference – that means we are coaches in courage, teachers of responsibility and advocates for change all with a view to building the authentic enterprise.

I believe it is high time we undertook some coaching in courage for ourselves. In a bid to ‘institutionalize’ public relations – that is to design and establish a summary of principles for ourselves that remain valid in the future – we have to be courageous enough to look at the past, (the ‘bastards’ that Toni referred to perhaps) and make sure bad practice is eliminated for the public good. Then explain, without recourse to apology or new titles, the purpose of public relations and its benefit for those we seek to serve – then just get on with the job.

I fully accept that my fellow conversationalists will agree with little, or nothing, above but Toni did ask for views and sometimes – as in another of Benita’s posts – academic thought and practical reality are far apart, mainly because as practitioners we spend a great deal of time doing while our cherished academics spend a great deal of time thinking. The gulf widens when practitioners forget to think and academics forget to do. I’ll be very interested to hear the outcome of the discussions in October – there should be some fascinating talking going on. Yet on the back of the ‘authentic enterprise’, will actions result – or just more words? Will we think and then do? Or, in the style of Frank Sinatra, will we simply end up chorusing ‘b’do be do be do’… a pleasant tune, but no memorable result?

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=institutionalize&searchmode=none

In my humble opinion and experience it is the technical PR functions that are moved to other divisions like HR, Marketing, etc. (It is often regarded as something that “anyone can do”, especially now that people can easily develop their own newsletters, websites etc and obviously arrange their own functions – in most cases the secretary is used for these PR tasks, as is currently the case in one of the largest JSE listed companies in South Africa).

If the abovementioned is a trend, then we need to align the strategic part our function with the strategic management division/team in the organisation. The Excellence Study (and subsequent studies on the same topic) has shown that senior management wants us to play a strategic role. Since the management of stakeholder relationships; communication; and corporate reputation are now regarded as strategic processes and part and parcel of the strategic management process in the organisation, it is only logical that the strategic part of our discipline should be aligned with the strategic function of the organisation – the enterprise AND the corporate strategy. (I know Benita will differ from the latter statement.)

Europe’s number two insurance company, Assicurazioni Generali, recently went through a similar transition.
While to the contrary, at Telecom Italia, following a couple of years of negative years of integration, the internal communication function went back to hr…and this is a shame, mostly due to the disinterest of the communicators from the preceding management team, much more interested in hitting the first page of the dailies (albeit negatively…) than in boosting a desperate employee motivation….

In both the Chrysler and the Generali cases (the second of course I know better) it is, I suspect, a people issue.

I personally could not give a toot if the person who heads of the pr/hr function comes from either professional background.
I am not in favour of protecting any single professional or a colleague only because such, but the function…

By the way, this reminds me very much of those professional associations who lobby or, in any case, would not object to the regulation of the profession (as long as someone else begins the process…), in the inane objective of safeguarding their members from what they believe is unfair competition.
This apporach to regulation is utterly ridiculous, preposterous, and damages our reputation as a professional community.

If one is in favour of regulation (as I am, altough I am well aware of being a minority) it is in the effort to protect the publics from our actions, rather than to protect ourselves from the bastards who would flock our profession anyhow, with or without regulation….

Please… let us not turn the istitutionalization of the function issue into a navel gazing exercise of how wonderful our colleagues who made it to the c-suite are….

Bravo Fraser, I owe you a tour in southern tuscany and southern liguria next time round…

It is a question of PR reporting to a (powerful?) senior executive – an executive who happens to also oversee HR – and thus not having it’s own (powerful) senior executive. This arrangement happens all the time in organizations, both for shared service or staff functions and for line functions. In a leader’s attempt to reward and/or retain a talented and/or loyal executive, the organization enlarges the scope of the assignment. It would seem that this is more a move based on ‘people’ rather than a move based on ’structure’ or even ’strategy.’

History does show that as the pendulum of organizational change swings, sooner than later it will swing back. It would have been more troubling if internal comms moved to HR, away from PR.

Furthermore, “You have to have the guts to tell the CEO when he’s naked and to be able to say it without fear of retribution” (which opportunity the PR person will not have when reporting to an HR executive). It is also unlikely that the HR exec will do this either, if only for the reason that he/she doesn’t have the deep insider knowledge of PR/communication as to why something should or shouldn’t happen). In looking at Prof Puth’s description of the knowledge/skills necessary for bringing about behavioural change through communication , it is obvious that special skills/knowledge is required. It is unlikely that the HR exec will have this. Admittedly, the PR exec might not have it either. Not because they are too dumb to function on the strategic level, but because they have not been trained to make line communication (for instance) a core competency of the organisation (according to the criteria spelled out by Prof Craig Fleisher). This is an oversight in most PR curriculum development, something that hopefully will be addressed by the current GA initiative Jean Valin has been talking about in Judy’s Canada post.

The reason given by Chrysler for moving PR to HR is that it is “part of the culture transformation” and that they were “going to rely on human resources and communications as two strategic organizations to drive this culture transformation.” But why should it be necessary to have one function report to the other to achieve such a goal? Will the PR function be moved around every time there is a new strategic goal? Should Chrysler decide next year that a ’service driven’ culture needs to be instilled amongst the employees, are they now going to move PR to marketing?

In the words of one of the critics in the article: “Show me an organization that has PR reporting into HR and I’ll show you an organization where the CEO has not seen the value in what PR can deliver.”