What are Public Relations and to what standards
should a P.R.
professional be held accountable?
How should the criteria be established? What body or organizations
should have ultimate responsibility?
Should there be required training and/or certification for individuals,
groups, and organizations? Is
legislation necessary? If so, for
what purpose and who will draft it?
These are just some of the questions that the Public Relations Society
of America (PRSA) is considering.
The simple, old, one line, ambiguous definition of Public Relations,
from 1982, “Public relations helps an organization and its publics
adapt mutually to each other” is going to be replaced. The
definition is archaic and needs to be honorably retired. A new definition of Public Relations is overdue.
The new
definition is needed because the definition’s content is outdated and it is not
flexible enough to be applied to issues prevalent in 2012. The definition seems to start with Public Relations occupying a one-sided
position, acting as the hub for dispensing and controlling information. This stance does not recognize the
impact technology has had on the roles of consumer and P.R. professional. No longer does the P.R. professional
control the arena, the consumer is an equal in the process. Along with this is the issue of adaptation,
which generally means change over time.
However with the advent of new technology time has been compacted, change
is rapid, and the change reflects the consumer’s response to the P.R. used. The consumer is likely to force a
change in Public Relations strategies
rather than P.R. changing the consumer.
The consumer now influences P.R. decisions, content, and methods used. The immediacy of the interaction
between consumer and P.R. decisions has repercussions.
The “old”
definition leaves out more than it includes. The definition lacks clarity and
does not address any major issues such as privacy, ethics, certification,
professional standards and regulations. Therefore, lines get drawn and then blurred. People and organizations, if anyone
cares, have a lot more gray area than black and white in which to work, and since
less than 10% of P.R. professionals belong to a professional organization, it
is hard to imagine that change is going to be voluntary. Systemic change is required.
Elliott and Corbett’s articles, November 20th
and 21st, 2011, respectively, articulated reasons change is
necessary. I agree with their
positions and with PRSA, which is spearheading the drive to establish more
professional and unified standards for all P.R. professionals. But, how should the new definition be
worded? Noting that Elliott and
Corbett’s articles were not current, and because Elliott provided a Dec. 2nd
date for final submissions for new definitions, I checked to see where PRSA was
in the process of determining the new definition. In Corbett’s January PRSA post, the new decision-making
timeline was revealed and with it, the three finalists for the new P.R.
definition. Rather than draft my
own competing model, I evaluated the three finalists and chose a “winner” I
feel should be adopted. Definition No. 1: Public
relations is the management function of researching, engaging, communicating,
and collaborating with stakeholders in an ethical manner to build mutually
beneficial relationships and achieve results.
This definition is clear, concise, and identifies
the position and responsibilities of the P.R. professional. It includes ethics and points to a less
manipulative approach to P.R. by indicating that both parties should profit
from the relationship. This
simultaneously honors and protects both parties. Additionally, this definition will allow PRSA to address inconsistencies
around terminology, standards for professional conduct, and codes, standards,
regulations and laws.
The fundamental
reason for a new PRSA definition is certainly ethics, including the need for
formal and consistent structure to use in evaluating ethical dilemmas and
decisions. The drafting of the new
definition has highlighted other significant “tangential issues” that have to
be addressed. The questions
currently outweigh the answers.
But, the stakes are high for everyone. We will all be impacted, directly or indirectly, P.R.
professional and consumer alike.
Therefore, to protect all stakeholders it is essential that a formal
Board be established, and a Code of Conduct, Certification and review process,
and uniform rules and regulations be drafted and enacted. Without such structure, P.R. will
remain nebulous and unprofessional, and the industry and its practitioners will
continue to suffer when scrutinized.
The need for these
guidelines is escalating. Ethical
breaches appear to be significant and their exposure contributes to the
frequently low opinion the public has toward P.R. activities. One could argue that there are many
levels of inappropriateness and degrees of ethical violations. However, I feel that once that line is
crossed the degree of the transgression is irrelevant. Once a professional strays, harm has
been done. “Harm” is the umbrella
under which all other breaches can be lumped. Every ethical choice actually has harm, or do no harm, as
its guiding principle. When ethics
are ignored, privacy, justice, transparency, autonomy, and/or community are
sacrificed with what some would view as a graduated level of harm occurring as
a result of the decision. Again, I
see no gray. Harm or damage is
done and the ethics of the individual practitioner, all stakeholders, and the
profession itself are compromised.
This perspective reinforces the drive toward uniform and systemic
requirements for all P.R. professionals and the profession.
How should these
changes be wrought? PRSA is a
great place to start. PRSA is the
industry’s standard-bearer and it is, therefore, appropriate for the
organization to be instrumental in crafting the necessary changes. However, it is somewhat questionable as
to whether the fox really can watch the chicken coop. Creating your own guiding principles is tricky at best and
suspect at worst. Transparency in
this process, and in the resulting guidelines, is integral to initial and
long-term success. Will it be
enough or is legislation necessary?
It is one thing to have a code of conduct and another to have the means
to require, monitor, and enforce compliance.
Individuals and
organizations will continue to be faced with ethical challenges and
decisions. Some of the issues will
be familiar, yet other new ones will unfold. I’m sure that no matter what system is put in place there
will be the consummate professionals who adhere to ethical principles without
guidelines and others who will not be confined by such requirements. I agree with PRSA that “ethical practice is the most important obligation of a PRSA
member” and I also agree
that this will not occur without systemic change. The process begins with the drafting and adoption of a new
definition of P.R., and it should continue with a complete overhaul of the
profession itself.