Friday, September 10, 2010

Translucency and the No Comment Debate in the Era of Transparency (September)

The following are notes provided by GFW PRSA chapter member and past president, Holly Ellman from the September luncheon:
Rob Wakefield, Ph.D. and Susan Walton - Brigham Young University

Two years ago Brad Rawlins was one of the first to get information on transparency into the public relations body of knowledge.
Three Concepts of Transparency
1.      Embrace open and honest communication of both successes and failures
2.      Engage with your publics, facilitate ongoing dialogue
3.      Relinquish the intent to hide things to make your organization look perfect
Sometimes there are limitations to what you can say. When and how should you be transparent?
No Comment
There are traditional reasons for not being transparent:
·         You don’t know the answer
·         You feel a different spokesperson, perhaps with more or specialized knowledge, should respond
·         Response involves a legal issue
·         The activity/event deals with personal or confidential information
Consider Translucency. It’s not a replacement for transparency, but is a necessary supplement, or corollary.
Translucency discerns the outline of an object, but does not completely reveal the object.
When should you be transparent?
  1. Is what you are disclosing the truth? (Not just a collection of facts – appropriate context is important.)
  2. Does it meet cultural norms and expectations? (For example, in the Toyota recalls, the Japanese people were insulted that the Toyota CEO addressed the company’s crisis. In this culture, it is sometimes more important to save face.)
  3. Is it authentic? Does it reflect who you are and who you say you are?
  4. Is it the best ethical and emotional choice? Could reputation be damaged?
  5. If releasing the information available at the time, when you know more information will be available at a later date, would you cause someone to act too early without all the facts?
Photo: dbl90 via Flickr Creative Commons
A complaint is lodged.
An investigation is launched.
Public is informed about investigation.
The complainant is absolved.
Reputation is potentially damaged.

A complaint is lodged.
An investigation is launched.
The complainant is absolved.
Public is informed.
Reputation is maintained.

Toward Translucent Transparency
Does not give permission to hide things.
  1. Most important thing is commitment to open communication with stakeholders to the highest extent possible.
  2.  Maintain open, transparent communication always – in good times and bad – ahead of a crisis as well as in the midst of one.
  3.  Recognize and freely acknowledge that you rarely have all the answers. Say this clearly and frequently, and explain why this is true.
  4. Hold both sides of the debate accountable for transparency. What are the motives on both sides? (i.e., the media)
Question and Answer Period
Translucency is becoming more acceptable to attorneys, who are beginning to realize the importance of the court of public opinion.
In the non-profit world, transparency is hugely important. A lot of the organization’s credibility depends on its past behavior. Carefully think through and explain why you can’t share some financial information, for example. (i.e., problems the Red Cross faced when it was discovered that some of the money donated for Katrina victims went instead to operating funds or to save for future needs)

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Should PRSA Board Service be tied to Public Relations Accreditation?

This is cross-posted from a post by Ft. Worth PRSA member, Dan Keeney, APR.
The big debate in public relations circles these days has nothing to do with the outrageous efforts to sully the reputation of  Wiki Leaks founder Julian Assange and its implications for the profession and journalism in general, BP’s ham handed response to the biggest manmade environmental disaster in U.S. history or even whether PR staffers caught posting phony reviews online should be tarred and feathered. Instead, the greatest minds of our profession are embroiled in a no-win argument about whether the Public Relations Society of America should require professional accreditation before being considered for service on the Society’s Board of Directors.

Established in 1964, the Accredited in Public Relations credential (APR) is awarded by the Universal Accreditation Board (disclosure: I earned my APR in 2000). It measures a public relations practitioner’s fundamental knowledge of communications theory and its application; establishes advanced capabilities in research, strategic planning, implementation and evaluation; and demonstrates a commitment to professional excellence and ethical conduct.

The APR credential has nothing to do with a person’s ability to govern effectively on the board of a national PR society. Zip. Zero. Nada.

Currently, PRSA requires that any prospective board member be accredited. When a ground-up rewrite of the PRSA bylaws was proposed last year, the organization’s General Assembly (the PRSA version of Congress) rejected the proposed language that would have stripped accreditation from board requirements. Despite voting a few years ago to drop the requirement that all Assembly Delegates be accredited, the Assembly balked at taking the next logical step.

The reason the PRSA general assembly voted to drop the requirement that Assembly Delegates be accredited (or “decouple” service from accreditation as we called it then) was that doing so eliminated so many highly qualified PRSA chapter leaders. How could a person serve as the president of a large chapter and not qualify to represent that chapter as a PRSA Assembly Delegate?

The rationale for keeping the accreditation requirement for Assembly Delegates then (as it is now for board service) is that it illustrates an organizational commitment to the credential. If PRSA’s leaders aren’t willing to pursue and achieve the credential, how can the organization suggest it has value for everyone else? What kind of PR practitioner would seek a leadership position but not consider it worthwhile to seek this profession’s credential?

That is a pretty good argument, but we aren’t in a world where everything makes sense. The fact is that only about 20 percent of PRSA members have achieved the APR credential. As a result, until the middle of the last decade, the organization basically had a class system of governance. Only 20 percent of the membership had the ability to serve on the PRSA General Assembly and/or Board of Directors. The other 80 percent, for which everything else was the same (including dues) could not participate in leadership.

Included in that 80 percent are highly capable PR practitioners, including accomplished leaders in corporate communications and agency management. Included in that 80 percent are people who have been leaders of the profession for 20 or more years and regularly shape thoughts about effective strategies, trends and ethics. And included in that 80 percent who, until the mid-00s, could not serve as an Assembly Delegate and STILL cannot serve as a PRSA Board Member are practitioners who have given countless hours of their time as leaders at the chapter and regional levels.

It didn’t make sense for the PRSA General Assembly and it does not make sense for the PRSA Board of Directors.

Last year when the general assembly passed an amendment to the proposed new bylaws that re-inserted the accreditation requirement for board service, I thought it was wrong. To make a point, I presented an amendment to re-insert the accreditation requirement for service as a General Assembly Delegate. I knew it would be defeated, but I wanted to make a point that their insistence on requiring an APR for board service made no sense given their vehement distaste for requiring APR for the assembly.

It was and is a blatant contradiction. If you believe accreditation should be a requirement for PRSA leadership, I respect that. But I can’t understand how you can require accreditation for one set of leaders but drop the same requirement for the other set of leaders.

I don’t think anyone really got the point I was trying to make. Turns out PR people are a very literal group and don’t really get irony.

Fast forward to today with forum posts and e-mails flying with semi-respectful insults pitting the leaders of our profession against each other. Each side is entrenched with very little likelihood that many will be influenced by the back and forth argument. But here’s the bottom line:
  • It makes no sense to require accreditation of the PRSA Board of Directors, especially since the PRSA General Assembly dropped the requirement for accreditation for itself and nearly all chapters have no APR requirements for leadership.
  • Given the fact that a majority of the leaders of PRSA chapters, regions and the PRSA General Assembly are not accredited, it is impossible to argue that accreditation has any impact on the ability to govern. The organization is already largely governed by unaccredited PR practitioners.
  • The inability of four out of five PRSA members to serve on the PRSA board regardless of their level of achievement, track record of service to the organization or interest in serving is patently unfair.
  • If the real goal is to illustrate the organization’s commitment to the credential, there must be better ways to accomplish that goal than coupling accreditation and board service.
That last point is where a meaningful and productive conversation really should start, but unfortunately year after year the PRSA General Assembly gets a glossed over report on the status of the organization’s accreditation promotion efforts. Let’s hope this year it is different.
This post was shared in the spirit of having a Point / Counterpoint discussion. What do you think? We are also open to posting a counter argument from membership.