If you are at the ’serious’ end of corporate PR in Australia (ie working for a major corporation with responsibility for managing relationships with stakeholders and corporate reputation as opposed to simply handling media relations) the Arthur Page Society in New York should be on your radar.
The organisation, which is a kind of ‘think tank’ on PR, comprises a ‘who’s who’ of US public relations. It defines its mission as being “to strengthen the management policy role of the corporate relations officer…..” and from time to time produces some of the best and most thought provoking papers, albeit that they are usually rather academic and esoteric.
Their latest 60 page ‘missive’ – ‘The Authentic Enterprise’ – which is based on extensive research with CEO’s to discover their perceptions and needs is an excellent resource for those trying to get communication/public relations a seat at the top table.
For space reasons I shall comment here on the first section – ‘Relationships, values and the evolution of Corporate Communications’. My next blog will be on the second section.
This report says US CEO’s believe that PR or Communication Managers fall into three broad categories:
- Reactive communications leaders prioritize incoming inquiries, manage the press and public events, serve as spokespersons,monitor reputation and engage in crisismanagement.
- Proactive communications leaders develop ideas and campaigns, shape messaging, monitor reputation across multiple stakeholders and
educate employees. - Interactive communications leaders collaborate with key stakeholders, employees and the public at large; clarify and disseminate the
company’s values; operate as shapers of the company’s strategic direction; and measure results in concrete, business-worthy ways.
Which role do you fall into? Is it a role you have chosen for yourself, or is it how your organisation wants PR to be?
If you are using the reactive model the bad news is that the US research showed that CEOs regarded this as now longer adequate. Even the “proactive”approaches that have strengthened during the past couple of decades, while valuable, are seen by most CEO’s as no longer sufficient. “Our leaders recognize the needfor their enterprises to engage in fully interactive ways with all their important constituencies”, says the Report.
The report includes an insightful table which traces the evolution of public relations in three periods (1945-1995, 1995-2007 and the future)covering a whole lot of criteria ranging from changes in mission of PR, the roles and responsibilities,the audiences targeted to the talent pool PR draws on.
The Report claims that Message “segmentation” is no longer practical or desirable. Despite the proliferation of diverse stakeholders, it claims all are now on a level playing field.
It asserts that communicators are uniquely positioned to become experts on the new art and science of organisational trust and looking ahead it lays out four new priorities and skills for which the Chief Communications Officer (an emerging fucntion in the US) must now assume a leadership role if they are going to be valued by the CEO:
1. Leadership in defining and instilling company values;
2. Leadership in building and managing multistakeholder relationships;
3. Leadership in enabling the enterprise with“new media” skills and tools; and
4. Leadership in building and managing trust, in all its dimensions.
As outlined in my recent blog ‘more clarity needed in internal communication roles, functions and titles’. the struggle continues to get public relations inside Australian organisations better understood. So if my comments wet your appetite then I suggest you download the full report (but you may need to settle in a quiet corner with a drink to ensure you get full value from it).
PS: In recent years I’ve also written several articles on this topic at www.prinfluences.com.au – see ‘Internal Management of PR’
|
|
|
|
|
 |
