PR-Bridge

The Canadian Public Relations Society adopted the following English-language definition of public relations in February 2009. Judy Gombita posted it at PR Conversations on June 17, 2009 (see below).

“Public relations is the strategic management of relationships between an organization and its diverse publics, through the use of communication, to achieve mutual understanding, realize organizational goals, and serve the public interest.” (Flynn, Gregory & Valin, 2008)

I applaud the effort to create a new definition of public relations. While the blog title muses that it is “maple-infused,” I would counter that it is more closely “Grunig-infused.”

When one reads “strategic management,” “mutual understanding,” and “serve the public interest,” obviously this is a nod to Grunig’s work, particularly his thoughts about two-way symmetrical communications.

As a result, I wonder if “maple-infused” communicators (and others around the world, if the many commentators posting the definition in their languages is any indication of its burgeoning popularity) who do not see Grunig as the end-all theorist of public relations will get much out of this definition.

I am dubious of “official” definitions, particularly of a field as amorphous as public relations. Why, for instance, the never-ending emphasis on “strategic management,” as if the only way businesspeople will take the field seriously is by throwing “strategic” in? And, why the need for “through the use of communication?” This clause broadens the definition to include so much, but says little about what the field actually is.

If one looks at the three-pronged monster of what public relations “is,” then, it is “mutual understanding,” “realize…goals,” and “serve the public interest.” Under this new definition, does that mean that if realizing org goals are independent of mutual understanding that it is no longer public relations?

My thought after reading this definition was basically, “why, why, why?” Do we need yet another attempt at fencing the field in? And, if so, then why does it just have to be derivative of Grunig and all the other tired definitions that already exist?

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 18th, 2009 at 13:10 and is filed under Main Page. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.