A radical view of PR
PR Conversations often seems to advocate the two-way symmetric “normative” approach to public relations, but it is important to recognise the limitations of this “ideal” as championed by Grunig and his followers and at the very least, engage with alternative, critical or radical perspectives.
A number of such views can be found at the Radical PR blog set up by a group of academics who “have ambitions to reform and liberate the field of public relations” most particularly from the organizational focus that has been the dominant paradigm (systems and modernist theories). A focus on societal impacts sets out to be a “powerful corrective” to the largely US-centric approaches that lead the agenda and curriculum of much reflection on public relations. The 17 abstracts published following an initial “round table” Radical PR event provide fascinating reading, and should lead us to their wider body of work.
I think it is vital that practitioners and students of public relations are exposed to such views on our profession, not least because they challenge our perspectives on communications and relationships which are largely derived from experiences gained working within organisations or agencies where we are employed to promote the interests of our paymasters.
Even if our organisation does not exist primarily to generate profit, it will have an agenda that it seeks to achieve. Seeking to raise the status of PR to a management function with the ear of the dominant coalition has in fact, embedded the function even more with the partisan perspective of achieving what the organisation’s management wants, often at the expense of others (even internal publics).
Studying the societal perspective of PR is a great opportunity to understand how others may see our “profession” and acknowledge why not everyone has the positive viewpoint that is argued for most often at PR Conversations.
I am about to engage with dozens of new students on the CIPR Diploma course, who are experienced practitioners seeking to gain a greater understanding of “best practice” and theoretical underpinnings. Their first Unit is titled PR Theory and Practice, and I have divided the syllabus into three separate perspectives: professional, organizational and societal.
The first enables us to reflect on ideas of PR as a profession, its history, ethical frameworks, associations with propaganda, spin and publicity, global perspectives, trends (including new media) and an introduction to different theoretical models and opinions.
The second presents a perspective with which practitioners are most comfortable, that of the role of PR within organisations, the classic Grunig models, systems theory and boundary-spanning, strategic communications management, organisational culture and change, planning models and evaluation, stakeholder theory, relationship building, working with dominant coalitions, CSR, issues and crisis management and so on.
My favourite, however, is the third session. Students largely buy-in to the concept of PR as a profession and themselves as an “ethical guardian”, providing a strategic management function where they are able to influence and take responsibility for building mutually beneficial relationships, etc. Even if their current role or organisation does not enable them to reflect the “model of excellence” approach, they generally desire to do so.
So bringing in the critical perspectives approach that makes them confront the reality of the modernist perspective is a joy to teach. Whether it is looking at the role of PR in society, criticisms of the “feel-good” theories of PR, rhetoric and persuasion, PR’s dark past – and present, unethical practices, feminist perspectives, the dominance of press agentry, questionable CSR activities, PR’s involvement with “democracy” and spin, or even chaos theory, there is plenty that stimulates debate and challenges practice as well as theory.
I believe this third perspective on PR is one we have to get to grips with and would like to see more discussion about here at PR Conversations.
Whether you are a practitioner or an academic, someone who believes PR is simply about generating media coverage and publicity (as many who talk about it online believe) or an advocate for the more “ethical” viewpoints expressed in textbooks or here at PR Conversations, you can only gain from confronting alternative perspectives.
If we are to truly be proud of working in public relations – and ensure it has a valued future in society – the work of those participating in the Radical PR forum needs a much wider audience.
Bob, don’t you think this should be thought through a little more.
Brian wrote and you agreed Bob:
“identifies the policies and procedures of an individual or organization with the public interest,…” “with the public interest” means not what the public is interested in, but, in the political science sense of the phrase, the “good” of the overall public.”
“… to earn public understanding and acceptance and cause actions to meet the objectives.” — Public relations must cause the various publics to understand what an organization stands for, and it must cause the various publics to accept, (in the sense of agree with the validity of) although not necessarily agree with, the objectives (buy our products, elect our candidate, come and work for us, allow us to exist within your community, etc. ) of an organization. … A public relations program must cause actions to the benefit of the organization”
Bob, you then wrote:
“If I’m working for my company and want to execute strategic plans that benefit the organization, I may not necessarily act in the best interest of many factions of “publics.” It seems to me that the PR as activist model doesn’t work here.”
For example, if Wal-Mart wants to build a Supercenter in a certain location, there may be groups in a community opposed and if one could look at it from a totally unbiased perspective, it might be in society’s best interest for it to not be built. However, WM still has a right to fight for what is in its best interests. In other words, to let its story be heard.”
Freedom of speech is one thing and not debatable (“In other words, to let its story be heard.”). But, what does it mean for a PR practitioner to “identify with the public interest” (good), and then “cause actions to the benefit of the organization” that might not be in the “best interest of many factions of “publics” or “society’s best interest.”
Surely, competing ideas there, right? If not cognitive dissonance in the mind of the practitioner, then what?
When I said above that some consultants don’t see a second worldview let alone know how to enact one different from what they do each day, they do as you indicate Bob: the company has a strategic plan, the plan says that W-M is to build a store in town X, my job is to use communication tactics to help get it built. End of job description. That’s the frame. One frame.
One can IC or IMC (what’s not to love about the lowest common denominator concept of the integration of sub-functions) all one wants, but do you really believe, as you said above in an earlier post that “One can work ethically and diligently toward the org’s strategic plan without providing, as you said above, “publics a voice in the decisions of organizations that affect them.”
In an age of Enron, Fannies and Freddies, is really it enough for the PR practitioner to simply work the plan? Are the concepts of public good, publics voice, relationships simply ‘nice to do’ ?
Fraser, hi, I appreciate your comments. I would enjoy reading more, particularly since you didn’t discuss my analysis of Dr. Grunig’s thoughts based on the speech.
Returning to the WM example, I would fully expect that a communicator would understand the ramifications of the new store for the “publics” and the company. I would expect that the professional inform the powers that be of potential negative attention. However, after that discussion, I’m certainly going to advocate for my company.
It is illogical to think that a PR practitioner is going to stand alone fighting “the good fight,” basically in opposition of the company’s executives. And, furthermore, what’s wrong with that? The individual communicator made a decision to work for the organization, which puts that person on the team. So, she uses her skills — both tactical and strategic — to provide advice and counsel that is ethical.
Bringing up Enron, Fannie Mae, etc. is interesting in this context. It is not really a fair playing field if you’re going to use some of the most egregious business failures of all-time to argue that the lone, white knight PR person working as a public do-gooder could have saved those institutions, particularly Enron, which had woven such lies that forensic accountants still haven’t figured them all out.
Brian amended the Canadian def. of PR by adding, “A public relations program must cause actions to the benefit of the organization.” In the example I provided, the communicator is going to work toward getting the new store built, after providing all the wisdom of her counsel, which includes outlining potential fallout.
Are you suggesting that it is PR’s function to serve as public conscious and ombudsman? If so, I don’t see that as a realistic part of the job description. And, I don’t see acting as I outline unethical. There are other entities for policing the business world. I don’t think PR is part of that process.
Bob: I agree with Fraser’s comments above (which seems to be a momentous happening since he practices and I teach
and want to provide another example (than Enron and Fanny Mae), outside the business arena, and on my continent (Africa).
At the end of May, I was in Dar Es Salaam on a consultancy contract to the Directorate of Communications, situated in the Office of the President of Tanzania. The Dir Com asked my opinion (from a strategic PR point of view) about the political situation in South Africa (SA), specifically regarding our President Thabo Mbeki’s:
1. handling of the HIV/Aids issue (the President’s stance: “there is no crisis”).
2. handling of the Zimbabwe issue, seemingly propping Pres Robert Mugabe up/keeping him in power despite all the violence towards voters/civilians and the public outcry against it (our President’s stance: ” there is no crisis in Zim”).
2. the Xenophobia issue in SA (where violence erupted against 4 million Zimbabwean refugees and others in SA).
I said to the Dir Com that, from a strategic PR perspective, I could respond with one answer to all three questions and that was the following: Our President was ignoring public opinion/ societal expectations on all three issues and was obviously ill-advised by his closest advisors on them all. A president is only as good as his/her advisers and it was obvious that there was nobody close to our Pres Mbeki playing the role of the “PR strategist” (as I am teaching it to my senior students and, in this instance, to the 57 government communicators in Tanzania). This entailed inter alia informing the Pres of the citizenry’s thoughts in all of these matters, i.e. the PR strategist being an advocate of public opinion/ societal expectations and values, AND trying to persuade the Pres or any leader to pay attention and LISTEN to the choir of voices all around him.
A CEO/President/whichever leader ignores the voice of society at his/her peril and deserves everything that comes his way if he refuses to listen. (This was even more important to a leader of Govt since he/she had to answer to the voters to boot). For Pres Mbeki to surround himself with advisors and a Dir Com that toed his own line (told him only what he wanted to hear) was a sure recipe for disaster and a very sad thing to watch when it came to its natural conclusion.
And this is the second time in my working life that I have seen this. In the eighties, one of the last white presidents in SA, Pres PW Botha, did exactly the same. He narrowed his advisers to a small band of those who agreed with him, lost all sense of reality of what was going on in society/ amongst the citizens/ voters/ other stakeholders. And he was lifted from his position by his own Cabinet, in the same way that Pres Mbeki was ‘fired’ last week in SA.
Bottom line, Bob–if the PR Strategist (Dir Com) used his considerable influence over the President (and also other advisors) by ‘representing the voice of the people’, persuading him to LISTEN to his citizens, the President would have gained the most from these actions (not only SA society). That would have been a win-win situation. Recalling the President 6 months before general elections, installing an interim Pres and Cabinet, can in no way be seen to be to the good of anybody in this country. That is what I would call a loose-loose situation, wouldn’t you?
Hi Benita, thanks for sharing this interesting case study. My first thought is that you were not acting as an activist for the people/society, you were providing strategic communications advice that would enable the Tanzanian government to stay in power, i.e. do what is necessary to get re-elected.
The fact that the president had no good advisors certainly reveals the potential power of the strategic thinking done by PR professionals. However, I would say that some of the government’s initial policies were unethical, such as denying that the AIDS crisis exists and helping prop up a corrupt government. But, explaining the societal viewpoint to the powers that be does not mean that you are advocating for the public. You’re advocating for the president, whose chief “mission” is probably to stay in power, get re-elected, etc.
A corrupt government that is acting unethically and has corrupt senior officials should be ousted by the people, that is the mechanism empowered to take care of such challenges. The idea that a “white knight” PR practitioner could save these leaders or change their minds/policies is a bit naive. Certainly, that person SHOULD advise the leader of challenges as a result of such policies, but that is it.
Quite frankly, I think it boils down to an understanding of who you work for. In this case, you were under contract to the Tanzanian government. As a result, you provided strategic advice based on the skills a PR professional brings to the table — intellectual curiosity, an understanding of geo-political challenges, audiences/stakeholders, etc. But, at the end of the day, you are advising govt. leaders to do what is in their own best interest. In this case, the govt.’s best interest and the public’s intersect.
This is a far cry from Dr. Grunig’s advice that PR practitioners (“elite strategists” in his words) advocate for the public equally as one would advocate for the organization.
In fact, we can continue to discuss extraordinary cases, such as the one you present (which you’ve seen twice in your career) or Enron, etc., but I’m really much more interested in how the masses of communicators act on a day to day basis.
We bat around the notion of how a handful of top leaders or cases prove or disprove methodologies, but I wonder if this is even all that important, which is why I criticized Dr. Grunig’s speech that Fraser suggested we all read.
Hi Bob
I want to clarify a few points, where you might have understood me wrong (or I might not have expressed myself clearly enough):
1. The case study I used is the South African (SA) Government, not the Tanzanian Government. I merely used the SA case (while in Tanzania) to illustrate the importance of a senior PR/government communication practitioner playing the role of the PR strategist (since I was specifically asked to comment on the SA Government situation from a strategic PR point of view).
As a point of interest to all readers, I might mention that the Tanzanian Government’s Communication Policy of 2005 is based on two-way symmetrical communication (so Jim, you can add another country to your list). That would explain my presence in the Tanzanian Directorate of Communications at the time. (I was inter alia contracted to teach the role of the “PR strategist”). To me, this is a reflection of the Tanzanian Government’s commitment to turn policy into action.
And I applaud the current and previous Tanzanian presidents for the route they have taken. And if you are wondering whether their approach has been to the interest of the people: Why don’t you feed “Kikwete + G8 or Pres Bush” into a Google search. You might be astounded at the way the US is pouring aid into Tanzania. Why? Because they perceive the President to be committed towards working for the betterment of his people.
2. Bob, I was not referring to the Tanzanian Govt when I talked about being an activist for the people. That was part of my case which referred to the SA Govt. (However, in my view, representing the voice of society or other stakeholders –such as business or the international community– to a government is an important role for ANY Director of Communication, be it Tanzania, SA, USA or whichever country).
3. Yes, I was indeed “providing strategic communications advice that would enable the Tanzanian government to stay in power, i.e. do what is necessary to get re-elected” (from my point of view, and to the best of my ability). And this advice was actually the very point that a few of us are arguing in this conversation, namely to heed the voice of the people/society/international community (which includes all stakeholders) is the best way to govern/manage and stay ‘in power’ (this is as valid for the CEO of a company, or the President of a country).
4. With regards to your statement “The fact that the president had no good advisors…..”, the following: The president you are referring to is the previous SA President (and not the Tanzanian President, as it appears from your comment). Also, I did not say that Pres Mbeki had no good advisors. What I said is that our President was (and I quote): “ ill-advised by his closest advisors …….and it was obvious that there was nobody close to our Pres Mbeki playing the role of the “PR strategist” (as I am teaching it”…….) unquote. One must of course keep the possibility in mind that the SA President was advised as I am suggesting, but didn’t listen to his advisors. In such a case (as I said in my previous comment), the leader deserves what he/she is getting and must suffer the consequences.
5. With regards to your point (and I quote): “ But, explaining the societal viewpoint to the powers that be does not mean that you are advocating for the public. You’re advocating for the president, whose chief ‘mission’ is probably to stay in power, get re-elected, etc.” (Unquote). Bob, it depends on your point of view. If I were the PR strategist in the pay of a government, I would execute the role according to my beliefs. And that is to try and keep my government’s policies/behaviour in harmony with society since I believe that to be in the best interests of my employer (whether government, NGO, company, etc).
6. Re your statement (quote): “ The idea that a ‘white knight’ PR practitioner could save these leaders or change their minds/policies is a bit naive. Certainly, that person SHOULD advise the leader of challenges as a result of such policies, but that is it.” Bob, what I am advocating, is that the PR strategist should try to do so. It is their duty and their role. If the President doesn’t want to listen, turn to his/her closest advisors. If none of them want to listen, then they carry the consequences. In the case of my President, normal mechanisms took care of it and he came to a fall. In the case of a neighbouring president, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, normal mechanisms has not really been able to take care of it. (But it will be interesting to see what is going to happen now that Pres Mbeki is no longer in power in SA, since he protected Pres Mugabe).
7. Re your statement (quote): “ In this case, you were under contract to the Tanzanian government. As a result, you provided strategic advice based on the skills a PR professional brings to the table — intellectual curiosity, an understanding of geo-political challenges, audiences/stakeholders, etc. But, at the end of the day, you are advising govt. leaders to do what is in their own best interest. In this case, the govt.’s best interest and the public’s intersect.” (Unquote).
In my opinion, they always do. Not only in the case of government, but also a company. Bob, I subscribe to the societal view because the interests of a company’s different stakeholders are often not the same. Therefore, a stakeholder approach presents a dilemma. How does a company reconcile the interests of the community with the interests of shareholders? Or the interests of the shareholders with the environment? So, in my view, in a situation of opposing interests one has to decide in the interest of the greater good. That will be in the interest of the biggest number of people/groups, etc.
8. Re yr statement ((quote): “ In fact, we can continue to discuss extraordinary cases, such as the one you present (which you’ve seen twice in your career) or Enron, etc., but I’m really much more interested in how the masses of communicators act on a day to day basis”. (unquote). In my view, these are not extraordinary cases. They happen all the time, to big and small companies alike. And they seem to be happening increasingly more often. With regards to government: In my country a president can serve two terms (10 years). In my working life, say 30 years, under normal circumstances I will see 6 presidents. What I described, already happened to two. That represents a third—not so little.
9. Re yr statement (quote): “ We bat around the notion of how a handful of top leaders or cases prove or disprove methodologies…”. In my view, we are not talking about methodologies, but worldviews (in the case of practitioners) or paradigms (in the case of academic worldviews). There is no right or wrong world-view. Every practitioner or academic is entitled to his/her own—whether radical, critical or symmetrical. We can only debate its advantages or disadvantages.
A few of us have been pointing out the advantages of the two-way symmetrical approach, as we see it. Either you buy in or you don’t. What about pointing out the advantages of other world-views to me? I take it you are a critical scholar? Give me the opportunity of better understanding your approach.
Hello Benita, thank you for your ongoing interest in this discussion. I am thoroughly enjoying rethinking and engaging in such a hearty exchange. And, thank you for clarifying some of the points I misinterpreted.
My “approach” first and foremost is to avoid being explanatory or provide overarching definitions for topics under research. I see a much better approach in attacking a challenge through interrogation, exploration, and speculation. Too often, I think, scholars try too hard to give an answer or explain everything.
My criticism of Dr. Grunig’s reliance on symmetry and the larger so-called Excellence Theory includes:
– Attempting to define PR through Excellence actually made the field more self-reflective and insular. As a result, public relations is further alienated from inter-related disciplines and the broader academic community. PR scholars thus spend a lot of time spinning their wheels redefining PR and why it should be part of management, rather than tackling issues that impact practitioners.
– Public relations can be ethical, effective, and important to an organization without the emphasis on “management” or where the top communicator sits in an organizational hierarchy.
– All communications efforts (marketing, PR, and advertising) should be aligned to the organization’s overall strategic goals, as one would see in Hoshin planning.
– Two-way symmetrical communications does not take into account the power relationships involved in the relationship between an organization and all its “publics.” Furthermore, the technological age makes it nearly impossible to talk about “publics” in any uniform manner. For true symmetrical communications to occur, one would have to have countless communicators constantly negotiating with various individuals and groups.
– While communicators may have a deep knowledge of the environments inside and outside their organizations and facilitate discussions between audiences and the organization, their work is conducted to further the organization’s goals and objectives. Communicators are not society’s ombudsmen.
– Communications research should be practical and applied.
So, Benita, these are some of the ideas I have about communicators, but I’m not attempting to come up with an overriding “theory” of PR. You asked, so I jotted down some thoughts.
I do not think it is advantageous to use a single theory to explain one’s worldview. We attempt to teach our students to be critical thinkers, then watch as scholars use postmodernism, Marxism, realism, etc. as the lens through which they see their world. Dr. Grunig and his followers have been so diligent in building the work into an “ism” that its muted work on other important areas or forced others to use it as their own lens.
I don’t think that our basic ideas regarding PR are all that different, we’re just approaching some things from different vantage points. And, the differences are healthy and necessary.
While it seems I’m the lone dissenting voice in this discussion, there are others in the field (both professionals and academics) who share similar feelings.
In Public Relations Theory II, edited by Carl Botan and Vincent Hazleton, the editors write, “Most scholars would agree that Symmetrical/Excellence Theory is, at least potentially, a paradigmatic theory. Most would also agree that it is the only such paradigmatic theory yet developed in public relations. This speaks well for the Symmetrical/Excellence folks, and ill for the rest of the field” (9).
And, “According to Kuhn (1970), theoretic paradigms frame and guide research in a field. However, they may also stifle and prevent the consideration of innovative ideas and theories. Regular and frequent public examinations of theories by scholars not directly tied to those theories may help a naturally polyparadigmatic field like public relations avoid the unhealthy condition of a lack of paradigmatic struggle.”
Good quotations on which to end this conversation, Bob.
In summary,
- there is a dominant paradigm in public relations scholarship (“the only such paradigmatic theory yet developed in public relations”);
- it was built over the course of many years by academics and practitioners (the so-called “Symmetrical/Excellence folks”)
- there are those not aligned with the theory (“the rest of the field” and “by scholars not directly tied to those theories”)
- Critical address of dominant theories may be good for the field (so as to not “stifle and prevent the consideration of innovative ideas and theories”)
- Non S/E folks will conduct the “struggle” – non S/E scholars will develop a research program to test those theories and models and practitioners will apply those theories and models in their day to day activities – to see what works and what doesn’t (“Regular and frequent public examinations of theories by scholars not directly tied to those theories”)
So, let’s see if the cream floats or if it doesn’t!
Really, it comes down to critical scholars and practitioners doing more than providing commentary on “S/E Theory.” There has been enough of that. Time for them to show the results of their research.
Realizing that you are just beginning your tenure as an academic Bob, I honestly can say that that I look forward to following your S/E research from the perspective of a critical scholar.
As the instigator of the post leading to the fascinating discussion, I believe the conversation has helped to achieve the original aim of encouraging reflection and questioning of theories/worldviews/paradigms.
I still maintain the need (as Bob has stated), for students (and I would extend to practitioners and academics) to be “critical thinkers”.
Whether or not the symmetrical model is a “dominant paradigm in public relations scholarship”, its advocates can only gain from being challenged rather than expecting everyone to be “aligned with the theory”.
It can seem ironic that the arguments presented here are largely seeking to persuade, but it is encouraging to see co-orientation and common agreement, as well as differences, emerge.
There are lots of challenges that remain to PR scholars and practitioners – indeed, we could argue this to never be more so than in the current economic and social climate.
The advocates of the “S/E theory” do still need to address criticisms, not just challenge back those who disagree with them (which doesn’t sound like practising what you preach to me).
Likewise, those with a more radical perspective, need to be constructive as well as critical in their research.
The reality of PR, which can be found in under 5 minutes desk research, is that a huge number of practitioners are not engaged with any reflection on their work.
PR is often not rated highly and there is a long way to go to be seen as being professional, let alone as a profession.
There is too much spin, puff and unethical practice perpetuated in the name of PR. Those who see PR in this way are not participating in this conversation.
Our biggest challenge is surely to ensure PR comprises a more professional, knowledgable and capable body of practitioners.
We live in dynamic times, where trust and respect are at risk, where reputations can be destroyed overnight, where ethical behaviour is challenged by the harsh realities of survival.
Regardless of your viewpoint on PR – there is a need for strategic advice and tactical implementation that helps organisations and society through these stormy waters.
Sometimes we may be steering our boat with the aid of “S/E theory”, but let’s not ignore other options.
Surely PR needs to reflect its times and at present I think there’s much to learn from areas such as chaos or complexity theory.
Looks like I came in late. Here’s what I posted on Bill Sledzik’s site about the 2-way symmetrical model:
It is a tactical process model, not a strategic model. What is the goal of a public relations campaign? The ultimate goal is to get someone– or a group of someones–to think, believe, or act in a certain manner because they are convinced that doing so will be beneficial. In the Grunig model, strategy formation is just part of a four-step process–not a means of setting, modifying or (most importantly) achieving objectives.
It isn’t really a model at all, but a prescription. A true communications model describes how communications work—all of the time. No exceptions. But there are numerous exceptions to the 2-way symmetrical model. Bernays’ “Engineering of Consent” was basically a 2-way asymmetrical model. The current government bailout plan started as a 1-way asymmetrical model, and is evolving by fits and starts into a 2-way asymmetrical model. Why? Because people absolutely detest the underlying premise of the plan, which is to throw good money after bad in an attempt to re-capitalize the financial system. Therefore, any attempt to modify this flawed plan based on feedback will result in failure.
BTW, the academy is not where radical change in PR will happen. The platform on the web site reads like Al Gore meets the United Nations.