Showing posts with label APR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label APR. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Congratulations, Dr. Amiso George
Dr. Amiso George, APR, Fellow PRSA, was recently inducted into the PRSA College of Fellows at the 2010 International Conference.
The Greater Ft. Worth Chapter of PRSA held a reception for Amiso at Dos Gringos on October 29.
Also, please read the thank you letter from Amiso to the chapter (PDF).
Dr. George with two of her TCU students.
Group shot of the PRSA Fellows from the Fort Worth chapter, including (from left) Mary Dulle, APR; Carolyn Bobo, APR; Dr. Doug Newsom, APR; Bill Lawrence, Dr. Amiso George, APR.
Dr. George at her induction ceremony
Dr. George at her induction ceremony
Dr. George with Dr. Julie O’Neil (left) and Carolyn Bobo, APR (right)
Read the full release from PRSA on the 2010 College of Fellows Inductees. Amiso George, Ph.D., APR, Fellow PRSA, is an associate professor of strategic communication at Texas Christian University.
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:
---
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.
---
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.
---
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.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
PR Dreams for 2010
This is cross-posted from Linda Jacobson's blog, The Saltlick.
Googling 2010 predictions shows that it’s the 36th-most searched subject on the final day of the decade. I’ve read some predictions, like these, with an enthusiastic nod. Still, I think there’s some of the “daring to dream” aspect that’s missing. That’s what I crave most, the idea that as a PR professional, I can do something in a new and unique way. So, without any prediction whatsoever, here’s my wish list for PR in 2010:
Googling 2010 predictions shows that it’s the 36th-most searched subject on the final day of the decade. I’ve read some predictions, like these, with an enthusiastic nod. Still, I think there’s some of the “daring to dream” aspect that’s missing. That’s what I crave most, the idea that as a PR professional, I can do something in a new and unique way. So, without any prediction whatsoever, here’s my wish list for PR in 2010:- I want to see my elected PRSA leadership affirm accreditation with one voice and promote it. The APR conversation will continue to be circular without a strong, united voice coming from the association’s elected leadership. My wish would result in more knowledgeable PR professionals coming up through the profession and agreement on best PR practices permeating down from the top. I’m tired of hearing the same old arguments about why senior PR pros who don’t possess APR think it’s a bad idea. Get over yourselves already, and together, let’s build up the profession with professional standards and expectations.
- I’m wishing for technology that allows PR to deliver green. Instead of just talking about how green an industry is, I’d like to practice green and add in the WOW factor. I can’t wait to deliver a PR communiqué using holographic displays from smart phones and e-mails. Or how about replacing Powerpoint with this type of presentation? Steve Jobs, can you hear me?
- Quality content. Repeat that three times please. And then do it. Don’t put something out there that isn’t relevant, fresh and timely. That means PR professionals will need to hone their strategic skills and nurture their journalistic relationships. Spend time doing this instead of putting out a news release every single day. We’ll all reap the benefit of that practice.
- Play nice with others. Marketers, advertisers and PR professionals need to be on the same team. Playing to each strength usually gets targeted results. When one of the three legs decides not to do this, the result skews and doesn’t deliver full strength.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Why earn your APR? #accredchat testimonial
Diane Rhodes Bergman, APRAttaining the APR turned out to be one of the most rewarding endeavors I have undertaken. I have been practicing PR professionally for over 15 years and have always strived to stay informed and updated. As a result, I was astonished at how much I learned going through this process and the impact it has had on my daily practice of public relations.
It is true that much of the information you review in preparation for the APR covers topics you have “learned” before. The difference is that this process forces you to actively apply the details of this knowledge to your real life practice of the profession, which takes your learning to a whole new level.
Now that I’ve completed the process, I fully realize that the APR designation is much more than three letters after your name; it symbolizes a deeper level of commitment to the profession, the public and to your employers/clients.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)