As a passionate advocate of reflective practice and lifelong learning, it’s always useful to look back at my previous writing/thinking. Thanks go to João Duarte for providing this ‘reflexive moment’ by noting the 15-year anniversary since publication of a PRC article ‘grilling’ James Grunig. We are forever appreciative of Jim’s willingness to engage, and grateful to Toni Muzi Falconi for his facilitation.
Publication of that collective interview was prompted by my piece called A radical view of PR, which generated 48 comments including, notably, a response from Jim Grunig – one of several in the resulting lively discussion.
I recommend starting with my initial post and comment thread, before reading the subsequent ‘group interview’ post (and its 31 comments) – followed by João’s recent reflective post.
Then, please return to read this Reflexivity Memo inspired by Jim’s answers to the questions that I posed in 2008:
Q9. Do you have a view of why so many PR practitioners focus on craft skills and are reluctant to educate themselves despite many decades of body of knowledge creation? Are practitioners themselves to blame for this, or does the blame lie more with the research and education establishments?
Q10. Do you feel that the practical ideas within situational theory have not been studied, recognised, and applied as much as they could have been?
Craft skills in 2008 – such as writing or editing – were an entry point for many, expected by employers, and readily supplied by educational institutions. This formed a complete institutionalised and pragmatic ‘vicious circle’ of practice.
Looking back the time was an optimistic period for public relations – despite (or perhaps because of) the developing global financial crisis. It made sense for Jim to notice efforts to ‘reinstitutionalize public relations as a strategic management profession’ and to spot a disconnect with ‘the views of those who practice it as a craft’.
Although the accelerating decline in the influence of national and local media signalled an end to the dominance of a journalist-to-PR career pathway, it also weakened the established case for the importance of PR in the C-suite (boardroom).
Yet the rapid growth in global use of the Internet, followed by popularity of social media platforms, gave rise to blogging, citizen journalism, and user-generated content. These developments also gave life to what was known at the time as ‘digital PR’ or ‘E-PR’.
From websites to Google, YouTube and Facebook, opportunities for interactivity and two-way communication supported an argument for a strategic role for PR. After all, publics were enabled to act as equals and amplify crisis situations. They wanted access to reputable information, to build relationships, to hold organisations to account. Long-established reputations were at risk from online activism (commonly termed clicktivism) and technological advancements.
But, but, but… a post by Philip Kitchen on PRC in 2010 shared research showing PR departments were ‘now staffed mainly by young, well-informed technologically sophisticated professionals’. However, those with more experienced were noted as less ‘willing to change from traditional activities toward electronic ones’. Likewise, the personal online habits of younger practitioners did ‘not necessarily make them masters of E-PR’.
Sounds familiar? Adoption of Generative AI tools by PR practitioners to date has been slow and largely used for tactical purposes.
Other considerations have focused on threats to jobs (for ‘junior’ roles) and opportunities (for ‘senior’ practitioners) – an argument made within the industry at every point of technological change.
Again, without addressing PR’s limitations, reputation, and history, claims for expertise in respect of ESG (or DEI) are naïve at best. Not surprisingly, many PR consultants and consultancies have repositioned themselves in this space. Indeed, it’s not unusual to see calls for ESG to ‘sit’ in PR. Opportunity or opportunism?
Shouldn’t PR practitioners be qualified experts in their own discipline first?
Which brings me to education and the study/application of theory to PR practice. My knowledge is primarily of the situation in the UK, but the following trends can be seen globally if not universally.
While PR has become a graduate occupation, most practitioners are not qualified in their chosen field. This is despite availability of a greater range of undergraduate, post-graduate and professional qualifications that offer specialism in public relations or as part of another subject. A minority of practitioners are members of professional bodies, and a low percentage of members participate in formal continuous professional development programmes.
Clearly this suggests little familiarity with PR’s existing and emerging bodies of knowledge as a basis for developing capabilities as experts and/or thought leaders. Instead, there is reliance on personal experience and learning from others who are most probably equally unqualified.
There are good arguments to be made for an occupation that is open to anyone with the talents to work within it. And equally a strong rationale for an induction into PR that includes lifelong, life-wide and life deep learning – driven by employer investment, self-motivation, and/or as part of a reflexive community of practice.
In the 2008 post, Jim Grunig argued that PR would not be recognised as a strategic management discipline ‘until most people change the way they think about public relations’.
I’m not convinced this has happened. On one hand, we have the ambition of a place in the C-Suite (boardroom) and on the other, a focus on planning processes (including measurement/evaluation) in professional qualifications as well as the Global Capabilities Framework.
To be honest, I’m not convinced that institutionalising PR as a strategic management function with a place in the C-Suite should be the ultimate goal.
The world of work, the nature of organisations, and the structure of their management have changed radically in the past 15 years. However, thinking about careers within PR (and the structure of PR firms) seems stuck in the 1950s’ Mad Men era of hierarchies. This concentrates on traditional pathways for the few ‘at the top’ and not on ensuring everyone working in PR has a meaningful and fulfilling career.
Of course, there’s a need to understand planning – but within a BANI world context. Everyone working in PR should develop strategic management capabilities – not as part of a ladder-climbing career but as an operational standard.
Most of all, PR needs an occupational mindset shift from (masculine) rigidity to (feminine) liquidity, from hierarchical management to professional leadership.
This requires PR to be a ‘wise’ profession built around:
- pro-active networks and self-organising communities,
- interdisciplinary ‘living’ knowledge that synthesises theoretical and practical capabilities,
- multidimensional, kaleidoscopic careers,
- greater granularity of knowledge supporting meta-competencies including reflexivity, continuous learning and flexibility,
- multiple forms of knowledge because ‘best practice’ is in perpetual motion, and
- leadership that is inclusive, meaning-centred, collaborative, empathetic, and humble.
I’m not sure the practice will survive another 15 years without such radical revision – and the change that Jim Grunig called for in 2008 in how most people think about public relations.