The Excellence Discussion Continues
[My reply to the conversation as it turned to Dr. Grunig’s speech at The Institute for Public Relations: “After 50 Years: The Value and Values of Public Relations”]
While not in the audience that evening, I’ve read Dr. Grunig’s speech many times on the Institute Web site. I don’t find any magic bullets in it.
As a matter of fact, I think the speech reveals some of the faults of the Excellence work. Although I loved being a professional communicator and love teaching public relations even more to hundreds of students each year, I don’t see PR playing the role of the white knight swooping in to keep evil organizations from pillaging the public.
Dr. Grunig advocates PR playing a do-gooder role based on symmetry that “helps society.” Yet, in his examples from the speech, take Ivy Lee and Rockefeller for instance, was Lee truly advocating for the public or rather for Rockefeller to take steps so that he ultimately achieved his objectives? And, I’m really looking forward to the day when some bright scholar calls Bernays out for his gimmickry and self-promotion, turning the supposed “Father of PR” into the “Father of Publicity,” which is a more accurate picture. But, I digress.
Dr. Grunig also takes a rather elitist view of the standoff between his beloved “elite practitioners” and the lowly “mass of tacticians and technicians.” I think many professionals would lose their lunch if given that section of the speech.
Dr. Grunig constructs a false fight between strategists and tacticians, but ultimately places the latter in the camp of “buffering” and those who “make decisions in isolation from publics.” Please, let the thousands of people teaching PR in on the secret to become an “elite practitioner” because I don’t want my students merely becoming one of the masses who “fly by the seat of their pants or simply do what employers or clients ask them to do.”
Furthermore, what is the good, “bridging” strategist doing after whispering in the CEO’s ear, other than going back to a staff of lowly tacticians to implement that plan?
And, while Fraser did not address this point, I’d like to ask why PR academics _automatically_ assume that as soon as one mentions any form of integrated communications that it means that PR must take a secondary/subservient role? The hangups over defining PR — for the millionth time — and posturing about its place as management or not management obfuscates the true meaning of integrated communications. Simply, that different communications divisions work together toward the goals and aspirations of the organization.
September 25th, 2008 at 01:24
I’m with you - why is it that some PR professionals take offense to integrated communications. It is not minimizing PR’s role, it is just combining related departments to work together like you said. If anything, I believe that PR is actually seen as the leader in most integrated communication departments.
September 26th, 2008 at 06:13
I have to admit, I don’t understand why your POV is so controversial. Something must be going over my head when it comes to the Excellence Theory because it didn’t make sense to me as a student, and now that I’m a practitioner it makes less sense.
My work in PR has always been a blend of strategy and tactics - while some projects required more from one than the other, I’ve learned that you need both. How does relying on tactical approaches make someone a “lazy” professional? I don’t buy it.
And while I think it’s admirable for those in our profession to try to help corporations become more altruistic, it seems to me that companies want to have more socially responsible programs to improve their reputations. Among consumers and the media. To boost sales. To increase the bottom line. There’s nothing wrong with that - it’s common sense business, right?
September 27th, 2008 at 11:21
Hi Meg, there is a ton of interesting ideas floating around right now, which is great for the field. And, of course, Dr. Grunig and others that support his ideas are a vocal bunch. My hunch is that anytime someone begins talking about integration, PR purists balk at giving up power to other parts of the umbrella marketing professions.
Corporations certainly don’t need PR people to make them more altruistic. They conduct these campaigns as part of larger branding efforts, as you explain. I don’t get why the idea of a company making money or a nonprofit raising funds is so bad. And, certainly, PR professionals aren’t superheroes fighting corporate villains, like one would imagine if reading the Excellence Theory.
I see other parts of the corporation advocating for societal rules and laws, such as attorneys making sure that companies are acting within the law. If someone sees a larger societal role for PR, then they should ask, where were the PR people during Enron, Worldcom, etc.?
Thanks for your comments, I appreciate hearing from you.