Also consider including the International Integrated Reporting Council’s (IIRC) newly released Consultation Draft in your research. You will find the document on their website. It links with Chapter 9 in King III, which covers the topic of integrated reporting. The integrated report is now considered to be one of the most important channels of communication with investors and other stakeholders.

In this new business environment the communication strategy has become the link between the corporate strategy and the integrated report. From this perspective it also forms part of the integrated reporting process. Organisations in business, government and the NGO sectors across the globe have issued integrated reports over the past few years, which illustrates that good governance principles can be applied in all of these spheres.

You will see that the title of the 2009 King Report on Governance for South Africa refers to ‘Governance’ and not to ‘Corporate Governance’, as King II of 2002 did. King III is therefore meant to be applicable to all types of organisations (non profit and public) and not only to the private sector.

In King III, the emphasis is on how the principles and recommendations can be applied, as opposed to whether to comply or not. This makes it easier for small and medium enterprises, state-owned enterprises, government departments and non-profit organisations to make use of King III through customised application.

The King III Report states: “The ultimate compliance officer is the company’s stakeholders who will let the board know by their continued support of the company if they accept the departure from a recommended practice and the reasons furnished for doing so.” In the case of the public sector, Parliament — on behalf of the public at large — acts as a key stakeholder and will determine the level of compliance that each public institution should strive to achieve in addition to its statutory compliance required in terms of the various acts. National and provincial institutions have similar compliance obligations that reside with the executive authority, delegated to the accounting officer or equivalent. For more on this, I recommend that you look at the PriceWaterHouseCoopers (PWC) ‘Executive guide to King III in national, provincial and local government’ (2009) on how to apply and implement King III in government and the public sector.

Also look at PWC’s 2010 position paper on ‘Local Government and King III’. Although municipal councillors do not, by law, have the fiduciary responsibilities of members of a board, there are implied fiduciary duties by virtue of the fact that the Council (through the decisions of councillors) has the power to spend taxes, which is money belonging to the community.

As a PhD student, you might want to look at:

– an academic article on non profit organisations e.g. the dangers that King III holds to non profits in South Africa (p7) and the options that NPOs have (p10). See ‘South Africa’s King III: Highlighting the need for a separate non-profit governance code’
– King 3 rules ‘can apply to nonprofit bodies’

Finally, the following blogpost in Mail & Guardian in South Africa might be interesting to you: ‘King III should incorporate non-profits’ unique needs’

Benita

Other points: I did an analysis of the PR Week assessment of who is influential in public relations in the UK (their annual Power Book exercise for 2013). Of 463 practitioners identified, 22% were CIPR members, and only 4% were fellows with the Institute. Attracting some of the influential practitioners not currently members of CIPR will also be a task for the incoming president.

Toni’s point about PR associations being ‘old fashioned gentlemens’ whist clubs’ — studies of the evolution of associations set up to bring together practitioners working in particular areas have shown that this kind of organisation is found in associations at an early stage in their evolution. CIPR and other similar associations — CPRS, PRSA, PRISA for example — have moved beyond this stage, but still have a great deal of work to do (some more than others) to develop their own governance, focus for their work, and policies to guide them in the work that they do. Again, all tasks to be picked up on by the incoming president.

And in this specific instance, decisions that were made in the past (re: CIPR’s social media council and books) are less important than how the process will be done (and decisions made) in future.

That’s why I asked the question of both gentlemen candidates, except in an oblique way. That’s sometimes the problem: unless you share a specific example or two, the crux of the matter isn’t always understood.

I’m actually coming at this question from my personal experience in association memberships where I’ve felt I’ve “given” (membership dues, volunteer time) far more than I’ve received back in terms of things being “awarded.”

I remember having a conversation with Toni Muzi Falconi many years ago (I think 2008) where he described a PR association in many ways being like “old-fashioned, gentlemen’s whist clubs.”

(Note that it wasn’t CIPR being discussed.)

I’d really appreciate hearing from Jon White on the query (as well as a second time from Stephen, if he wanted to clarify or enhance his answer.)

There is a question about how bodies initiate and welcome ideas from members for such projects – and perhaps it would be good for CIPR (and other bodies) to have a policy regarding this, much as publishers have advice on how to submit a proposal (eg http://www.routledge.com/info/authors/). Again, why not publish information openly about how initiatives are generated from within the body’s committee and executive processes? I’m sure many CIPR members have little understanding of the qualifications for example and how they could become involved in their future development. Indeed, the involvement of teaching centres, tutors and markers has lessened over the years, which I believe is an issue as this valuable experience and expertise is not being utilised.

I would also like to see exclusive panels/groups within membership organisations become more inclusive (eg could the SM panel not become a CIPR specialist group) – or at least explain the approach to selection (for example, if representation from different sectors is important) and/or have an open mechanism for others to get involved. After all, there is a lot of talent within bodies such as CIPR and we can’t all know everyone and shouldn’t just rely on those who push themselves forwards.

The question about involving non-members is interesting. It is something that baffles me in particular regarding Awards (such as those run by CIPR) where non-members are able to submit and win. I understand that maybe the aim is to recognise good work across the entire body of PR – but shouldn’t joining the relevant body be a condition then of winning?

It is good to see Stephen say that the intention is for SM panel members to join CIPR. Where such people are working in PR and eligible to join CIPR, they should certainly be encouraged to do so. I note that six out of the 20 people listed on the SM panel are not yet members and it would be interesting to know why those people are happy to be involved in the panel but not members. If they are viewed to be worthy of belonging to the SM panel, they should be the very people that CIPR is trying to attract as members.

So this leads onto the challenge for professional bodies in attracting those deemed to be experts or leaders or otherwise influential to be members. If we are holding such people up as valuable contributors to the occupation, then perhaps the presidential candidates should be targeting them for membership (ditto those in the PR Week top list who aren’t members). Do other professional bodies do this, I wonder?

Beyond this, we should of course be introducing members of professional bodies to leaders in all sorts of areas beyond PR and in that case, these should be purposefully selected. I would love to see more of this. Similarly we should invite more non-PR people to contribute to this blog where they have interesting things to share that have relevance to us.

We sought contributors from our networks – both CIPR members and non-members – reflecting the Summer Social content and ensuring that we were able to cover the range of subjects required to deliver a product to Wiley’s standards.

All contributors are recognized experts in their field and several are established authors in their own right. In an ideal world they would all be CIPR members but we took the view that professional practice is developing so fast that it was best to ensure that we had the breadth of experts.

We’re in the process of producing a follow-up edition Share This Too, edited by myself and Rob Brown, slated for publication in August 2013. This is a larger book with content from new contributors many of whom came forward with pitches following the publication of the first book. Again this includes some non-members including Brian Solis who has contributed the foreword.

The CIPR Social Media panel was set up in 2010 by the then President Jay O’Connor. In Q4 2012 it formally agreed that members of the panel would be expected to show commitment to the CIPR by joining as members in 2013.

More than happy to answer any further queries about the books or the panel.

Thanks,
Stephen

Disclosure: the supplementary question came from me, partly because this is something that has bothered me for years in regards to my own association memberships: parity when it comes to opportunities for members. (And it was at the back of my head when I wrote my recent Making Honest B2B Endorsements through Social PR, Part I.)

I have heard rumblings from more than one CIPR member about unhappiness in regards to “opportunities” presented regarding the high-profile social media initiatives. For example, concerns that even though the social media council has the CIPR “brand” attached to it, not all of the council members are CIPR members.

And the same thing with the Share This (very successful) book. Again, the CIPR imprint but contributions from non-members.

How would you (Jon or Stephen) prevent this from happening in future, i.e., the unhappiness of members who were not even told about an initiative at the front end, and be given an opportunity to apply for it?

I think the answer to this question would be valuable to many association leaders (staff and elected), not just CIPR.

Thanks.

The principal question Heather raised seems to be whether it would be good for young or new public relations theorists to discard the paradigm Toni, Rob, and I have constructed as a theory of generic principles and specific applications. I cannot answer this question much better than Rob did. He said much of what I would say about the value of new approaches and the wisdom of not throwing out the old just because it is old or still exists. He invokes the thinking of Thomas Kuhn quite well.

I think that new and different approaches are always good and that different paradigms can coexist and stimulate debate within a discipline. However, I don’t think our theory of generic principles and specific applications comes even close to being a dominant paradigm. Rob, Toni, and I have all written about the need to institutionalize our “strategic management/behavioral” paradigm in public practice and theory. I believe the institutionalized dominant paradigm still remains what I call the “symbolic-interpretive” approach–the idea that the role of public relations professionals is to craft messages to influence the interpretation or meaning that members of publics hold in their minds about the behaviors of organizations. Public relations, in the symbolic-interpretive paradigm, has no role in managing the actual behavior of the organization–only the meaning attached to that behavior. In simpler terms, this is the old whitewash or smokescreen approach to public relations. Public relations tries to make the organization look good no matter how irresponsible the behavior might be.

I see these two paradigms coexisting in public relations practice today throughout the world, but I think the symbolic-interpretive approach still dominates. Some day, I hope, the strategic/behavioral paradigm will become institutionalized as the dominant way that professionals, academics, journalists, organizational executives, and the general population think about public relations. So, please lets not throw out the theory of generic principles and specific applications until all possible improvements have been made (it is still and edifice that needs to be furnished) and becomes established in the thinking of all of the people I just mentioned.

Thomas Kuhn also said that a dominant paradigm continues until it confronts an anomaly it cannot resolve–a problem it cannot solve. Then someone who generally is young or new to the discipline comes up with a new paradigm. That is what I think we have been trying to do to replace the symbolic-interpretive paradigm with a strategic management paradigm. Evaluation research shows that the symbolic-interpretive approach does not work. It worsens relationships between organizations and publics rather than improves them. It does not have the persuasive effects claimed. It has destroyed the reputation of the public relations profession. And, it has created widespread cynicism about public relations work. I believe we need an alternative paradigm such as the theory of generic principles and specific applications.

Please give us a chance to finish the work on the strategic management paradigm before throwing it out. Someday, when it becomes institutionalized as the dominant way of thinking about public relations it may because ossified and may need to be replaced because it no longer solves public relations problems. That time has not arrived, however.