“For decades a stream of bright young men and women, most of them with college degrees ranging from B.S. to Ph.D., have been coming to my office to ask me and my wife how to enter the profession of public relations.”

These words were written by Edward Bernays in his 1961 publication: Your Future in Public Relations.

In 1943, a chapter in Averill Broughton’s book: The New Profession, asked ‘Do you belong in the public relations field?  Broughton noted:

Let us grant that any really intelligent man or woman of imagination and sensitivity, who also possesses good business judgment and a wide experience with people and the practical world we live in, can become a successful public relations executive.

It seems there was real encouragement for those with intellectual capability to work in public relations.  Indeed, Bernays saw public relations practitioners as a bridge between thinkers and doers.  But I’m beginning to believe the majority of modern practitioners view PR as a non-intellectual trade, where craft skills count most, along with a friendly personality and a preference to spend time churning out releases and Tweets rather than thinking about anything more important they should be doing.

Stephen Covey has a useful time matrix comprising four quadrants.  My view is that public relations adds most value in the important and not urgent quadrant.  This is the place of pro-active, results-oriented matters; where it is necessary to “act to seize opportunity, to make things happen”.

Instead, many practitioners seems to spend their time oscillating from the stressful situation of fire-fighting the important which is urgent and the pointless position of trivial, busy work.  Just check out the typical ‘day in the life’ features about PR you can find online.

Which leads me to the question about being too smart to work in PR.

According to a report of the CIPR Profession Typology Report at PRMoment, two-thirds of UK PR practitioners (sorry I refuse to call them professionals) say their career development has mostly come from magazines.  Yes, really!

Let’s be charitable and assume they don’t mean reading Heat magazine, and are referring to articles in trade publications such as PR Week (rather than scanning job adverts).  The validity of the survey as summarised in this piece seems questionable as ‘mostly’ implies selecting a single response, where I suspect a ‘which of the following’ question was actually asked.  Nevertheless, the answers do not appear to reflect a highly pro-active approach to robust career development strategies.

This is both surprising and disappointing in the current economic climate where it is essential to demonstrate genuine continuous professional development regardless of whether or not you are looking for new opportunities.  If you are not moving ahead, then you are automatically slipping backwards as the world is moving at a fast pace.

Relying on articles in PR Week reflects a typical ‘learning on the job’ mentality which values Other People’s Experiences even when reported in a superficial, primarily positive way.  This is easier than constructing reflexive practice on a basis of intellectual frameworks that have been considered and critiqued by academics, and senior practitioners, who recognise the importance of knowing why, not simply, how to operate successfully in public relations.

This more challenging ethos is understood by many of the bright and intelligent young men and women still attracted to working in this field who have made the commitment to studying public relations at University.  This week alone, I came across two impressive examples:

• Tyler Orchard in Canada (via Judy Gombita’s usual high connector standard), a Masters graduate and Director of Communications and PR – who wrote an informed blog post railing against social media groupthink
• Rachel Barkley, studying PR at Leeds Metropolitan University– who has written two recent posts I’d recommend on What is PR? and the threat of PR apprenticeships

If we are to attract and retain the best young professionals, then we need to be smarter as an industry.  We have to:

• stop bashing academic study and intellectual understanding.
• stop arguing that University courses should focus primarily on teaching basic starter-job practical skills.
• stop recognising reading magazines and watching videos as career development.

Instead, I’d like to see us:

• set a baseline expectation for practitioners (especially those migrating from journalism, marketing or without a PR degree) to acquire professional post-graduate qualifications.
• make a commitment to career-long intellectual development based on acquiring Masters or PhD qualifications, engaging with research in our own field and elsewhere (whether that means technological developments, business management or even neuroscience) and mind-expanding communities of practice.
• celebrate what is intelligent and valuable in PR work rather than focusing on the glitzy and glamorous in PR awards, case studies and profile pieces.

I don’t want to see the smartest people avoiding public relations as a career option.  I don’t want to feel too smart to work in PR myself.  Do you?

1. The mid-to-late-majority enter social media – we’ve definitely seen continued growth in social media usage, with what I claimed would be "lots of money spent on initiatives that no-one will notice or care about".  Being on Twitter, having a Facebook page, using LinkedIn and so forth have become common practice.  One issue however, is that it is becoming harder to filter out what is interesting owing to the trend towards retweeting, "junk" commenting and general nonsense.  Where once you could search via Twitter for updates on a situation, today you’ll struggle to find the news among the spam and irreverent comments. 

2012 Thoughts: Peak presence is on the horizon with an increasing number of people abandoning or at least reigning back on their engagement in social media.  The challenge for PR campaigns will be to gain attention in an overloaded SM world.

2. Social media demands pay to play – again, I think I was reasonably accurate with my observation that "money will replace ‘conversation’ as the core currency". Although it is still free to engage with much social media, we have definitely seen increased marketisation of social media presence.   

2012 Thoughts: We are likely to see increased acceptance of payment for privileged social media services, which may exclude advertising, offer enhanced access or greater privacy.

3. Journalists find a slower revolving door - okay, the door into PR is still open for hacks, but I’ve noticed fewer such appointments headlining in PR Week.  Mind you, criticism of PR graduates as failing to understand mainstream media needs continues which indicates ongoing focus on the traditional journo skills.

2012 Thoughts: Much of mainstream media will continue to be under pressure, and with the increased number of PR practitioners (particularly ex-public sector) in the marketplace, journalists will not find a move into PR an easy option.

4. Opportunity of too few good PR people – I was spot on with the statement that "demand for intelligent, capable PR practitioners will continue to exceed supply".  The ongoing economic situation hasn’t eased this situation as I know through the MIPAA JobSearch service that demand is outpacing supply.

2012 Thoughts: The demand for intelligent, experienced PR practitioners will escalate despite the influx of job seekers.  I do envisage that many organizations will save money by cutting top PR jobs, as the need to advocate the value of PR at the most senior level has not been won.

5. PR disasters hit record levels – I think it has been an interesting year for the "PR disaster" market.  My take is that the crisis cycle has shortened to a matter of hours or days, with many disappearing as quickly as they appeared.  We’ve definitely continued to see online commentary on situations, but there avalanche of corporate and celebrity crises has accelerated to such a pace that many are hard to recall.  In the UK for example, the Nurofen tampering crisis lasted barely a weekend.  Others such as News International’s phone hacking scandal are ongoing, but it’s hard to feel the public has as much interest as the mainstream media on that one.

2012 Thoughts: Next year will see this short-crisis cycle continue which could have a mixed-impact.  It could mean that how an organization handles a crisis becomes less important – they simply have to survive the initial attention before the heat moves elsewhere.  Alternatively, crisis management will get smarter and recognise the need for a more flexible and higher value approach that identifies risk and manages issues before the bubble of a high profile crisis occurs.

6. PR goes 24/7 - I feel that life-work integration has been an ongoing trend with the UK PR Census reporting an increasingly longer working week.  But I’m not sure 2011 was the tipping point that I predicted.  In fact, an interesting end of year story is that of VW which has introduced out of hour Blackberry restrictions for its German workers.  I doubt this applies to those in PR, but work-life tensions

2012 Thoughts: Working in PR will get tougher – with redundancies and increased expectations from clients and employers.  We’ve benefited in the past three years as marketing spend was shifted towards PR, but 2012 will see demand for proof that PR is delivering.  Rather than demonstrating value added, I believe we’ll see the industry respond by trying to deliver more for less – which will mean increased expectations on the PR function to respond around the clock.

7. Weather will worsen - my point here was to advocate "a new flexibility in leading their organizations in managing risk, issues, relationships and reputation".  I’m not sure that PR has responded in this way.  My feeling is that the industry has looked for easier money by ramping up the promotional side of PR rather than look for more strategic influence.

2012 Thoughts: Sadly as with point 6, I feel PR will continue to devalue its services.  There will be more of those made redundant working as freelancers and needing to deliver whatever is required to pay the mortgage.  

8. Everyone’s a celebrity – give me 10 out of 10 for this one.  I wrote: "those who have already had their time in the spotlight will act in ever more extreme ways to get attention".  I think that Charlie Sheen and Frankie Cocozza (UK X-Factor reject) make my case.

2012 Thoughts: There will be more attention paid to nonentities in 2012, but I think the pioneering approach of Lady Gaga will see more celebrities try to follow suit in building a profitable fan base, particularly though social media and links to big brands.  The attention and loyalty that celebrities today can achieve offers a new channel which is irresistible to consumer brands.

9. Privy to privacy - my prediction was that "secrets will make a comeback". On the one hand, people have been ever more prepared to say it all online.  We’ve also had social media successfully outplay court injunctions.  But, we have seen the backlash start – not least as a result of the News International exposure of media hacking of mobile phones. 

2012 Thoughts: I still maintain that privacy must be valued and that at some point the public will recognise that they need to protect their data and profile online.   

10. Slow is the new fast - I thought we’d see PR practitioners take more time "to develop relationships, manage a reputation, build good narratives, and respond professionally". The tortoise will win the race, but the hare appears to be ahead at the end of 2011.

2012 Thoughts: PR practitioners are missing out on real results by focusing on the short-term immediate needs of mainstream and online media.  I’m not sure this will be recognised in 2012 however.

11. Bad practices are not dead - my view was that "despite greater recognition of the need to demonstrate value and measure PR by more than advertising value equivalent (AVE), poor practices are not yet ready to lay down and die".  I know this is still the case, but some significant moves away from AVE at least have been made.  I also noted "anyone will be able to call themselves a PR professional despite lacking any evidence that they have either experience or a qualification (or ideally both) to prove their capabilities."  I think that some initiatives by the UK professional bodies have, on the face of it, undermined the arguments for better educated PR practitioners – but I’m open minded on their impact.

2012 Thoughts: Taking part in the CIPR’s 2020 Project I envisaged a schism between those focusing on tactical delivery and more strategic practitioners.  My feeling is that this is closer in 2012 – fed in part by all the above points.

12. PR won’t be a lot of fun - I’ve been researching PR in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s and something that emerges is that PR used to be more fun!  I don’t think we will see a return to those days anytime soon and perhaps calling for increased respect, intelligence and strategic thinking is part of the death of fun in PR.  But if fun means focusing on organising events, schmoozing journalists and using social media without any real purpose or benefits, PR doesn’t need to be a barrel of laughs everyday.  What I would like to see is a high level of professional satisfaction from working in a PR field that is increasingly recognised for its capabilities rather than its frivolous reputation.

As ever, I believe que sera sera – but look forward to your thoughts on what 2011 brought and 2012 will bring.

Quite often I find that if you lift the lid on a topic, any topic – there is a wealth of information, expertise, insight and theory that can be discovered.  I find it fascinating that mistletoe is a partial parasite for example, and that there are lots of theories about the mythology associated with the plant arising in different cultures.

Of course I don’t need to know about mistletoe, but you never know when knowing something will come in handy.  Besides, why not learn for its own sake?

That’s how I feel about public relations and the value of opening the lid to discover more about its underpinnings, history, practice and myriad other facets.  To paraphrase Cutlip et al, studying public relations involves taking a searching look backward , a wide look around, a deep look inside, and a long look ahead.

Those who have heard this week that they’ve graduated successfully with the CIPR Advanced Certificate and Diploma qualifications have taken this 360 degree look at their chosen field.  They will have gained practical knowledge, to combine with their existing experience, but also an understanding of theoretical principles and concepts.

This theoretical perspective on public relations is something I believe the occupation needs to value more highly – as argued by Jim Macnamara in a guest post on Craig Pearce’s blog.  My rationale is not just about improving practice, however, as there is huge merit in stretching the little grey cells in a new direction for intellectual purposes alone.

Yes, theoretical understanding helps answer the why as well as the what questions in public relations practice – and also makes you confront other viewpoints and ideas which you may accept or reject, but at the least, reflect upon.

I congratulate those students I’ve been proud to work with in gaining their shiny new qualifications.  They stepped out of their comfort zone and took on a challenge of discovering what is inside the box marked public relations.  I hope they feel they discovered more than knowledge of simplistic definitions, best practice models or new skills.

The Greek verb theoreo translates as:

to be a spectator, look at, behold – to view attentively, take a view of, survey – to view mentally, consider – to see – to perceive with the eyes, to enjoy the presence of one – to discern, descry – to ascertain, find out by seeing

Looking at the theory of public relations is like looking up at mistletoe and wondering about it.  At this time of year, who would be without wonder – the desire or curiosity to know something?  Happy Christmas!

Personally, I don’t care about this search to define public relations. 

The outcome of the process – crowd-sourcing, followed by subjective reflection from a Definition of Public Relations Task Force, and a public vote on the resulting top three definitions – will be no more than another definition. 

It is nearly 40 years since Rex Harlow co-ordinated a similar quest by 65 PR leaders to determine a universal definition (commissioned by the Foundation for Public Relations Research and Education).  That study found and examined 472 definitions, and came up with a composite drawing out the main ideas. 

Of course, the job wasn’t finished there as it seems every public relations body, book, blogger, academic and practitioner has added their own views since.  We could probably list half a million definitions by copying Harlow’s methodology.

The "What is PR?" question is one we’ve examined or danced around at the PR Conversations blog many times.  It was the topic of my inaugural post there and PRC even produced a collated publication on the topic.

The fact that the job is never done is my first reason for not caring about a new definition of PR.  For me, this is a case of the journey being more important than the destination.  There is much richness in the difference of opinion and debate that gets lost when synthesising down to one statement. 

Why can’t we embrace the qualitative, subjective aspect of our work and accept that public relations is a wide, deep, nuanced, multi-faceted, messy-edged discipline?  It is ubiquitous and not constrained within an organizational perspective – although most definitions only present it from that viewpoint.

As Toni Muzi Falconi comments on a PRC post describing what he calls the "infantile exercise" to seek a new definition : "…we once more exhibit our inferiority complex and compulsive need for clarity in a society that is everything but clear and changes every day…"

My second objection is the lack of clarity about what is meant by a definition of public relations.  Is the point to describe what PR is, what it does, or prescribe what it should be?  Are we looking for a positivist or normative definition?

These are different – and raise a number of issues.  Describing what PR is or does in a single phrase will naturally reduce the complexity and variety of work in the field to a simplistic term such as communications or relationship building.  But doesn’t everyone communicate and build relationships?  Isn’t this part of the job description of most organizational functions?  They certainly don’t present a distinctive jurisdiction for PR.

If the point is to describe what PR is, why do this through opinion research rather than ethnography?  What the people participating in definition-seeking studies think or say may be vastly different from the reality of practice.  Are we missing something by not employing anthropologists to study PR tribe(s)?

Focusing on what PR should be – the ideal or what is considered ‘best practice’ – may set an aspiration, but expose a gap with reality that results in allegations of spin or obfuscation.

The third point I’d like to raise relates to PR’s reputational problem.  Definitions put forward a positive perspective, rather than engaging with the negative.  Indeed, one of the purposes of defining PR seems to be to distinguish it from other terms such as spin, publicity, press agentry or propaganda.  So the good is PR and the bad is something else.  Some, like Bill Sledzik, prefer to go even further and abandon the PR term to avoid the connotations and connections with our embarrassing, questionable or unethical sides.  Not only should we redefine, but let’s rebrand too, they urge. 

Next, I object to the fact that PR is being defined largely by PR people.  Where are the other voices?  If reputation is what others say about you when you’re not around (which is how I see it), then let’s ask our stakeholders and publics what they think. 

We moan a lot that marketing and management doesn’t understand PR – without engaging with why our colleagues and bosses may hold views that conflict with our own.  We also have our love-hate relationship with journalists to examine in the context of what they think about PR.  The classic media criticisms are that PR is a "latrine of public misinformation"  populated by "lying scum" spin doctors or a superficial, media-twisting, churnalistic waste of time undertaken by "PR bunnies".

My own experience of public relations has not involved either of these extremes – but that doesn’t mean there isn’t some truth in the perceptions.  Aren’t they worthy of consideration in a definition or are we just interested in the comfortable middle ground?

Or in reality, are we defining the high ground – the strategic PR perspective?  Is the purpose of a definition to influence others perhaps?  Is it a useful thing to dangle in front of those who don’t understand us so we can argue for a place at the top table?  Even if the majority of practitioners are not engaged in strategy or strategic operations, the definition says they should be because that’s what PR is.

I don’t care about defining public relations because my view is through a kaleidoscope rather than a telescope.  I see the colourful pattern created by an illuminating reflection of the many facets of public relations.  The derivation of kaleidoscope from the Ancient Greek is that of "observer of beautiful forms".  Although public relations isn’t always a beautiful form.   Indeed, my favourite definition states: "Public relations is, what public relations does."  It’s a living, breathing, dynamic, complex, real world activity that has the potential to change depending on how you view it.

Let’s be proud of our richness rather than attempting to present a single viewpoint to the world.

When looking at the traditional academic models of working in PR, a division is made between manager and technician.  The distinction here is between having the competencies (behaviour patterns that reflect knowledge and skill) to conceptualise and direct PR activities or to carry out communications activities at the behest of others.  Knowledge and skills tends to be PR specific (albeit with relevant administrative expertise for the more senior role).  Expertise is emphasised in media relations, communications and relationship management; alongside competency in planning, implementing, and (at least in theory) evaluating PR programmes.

This hierarchical approach is also evident in the training frameworks offered to PR practitioners, which are largely structured around a ladder concept based on length of experience or progression to management level.  Likewise, the structure within consultancies, and in-house departments to an extent, has reflected a pyramid approach of junior executives, middle-manager and senior directors.

But in studying the career literature, it is evident these ways of thinking reflect the bureaucratic model which dominated the 20th century.  Climbing the career ladder within organizations (in-house or consultancy) offered a pathway that involved rising through the ranks, with management competencies replacing tactical ones.  Depending on the size and nature of the organization, a career path could offer specialism in public relations, or see the PR function as one step – perhaps as a starting point, or a development opportunity for those already progressing up a more generalist ladder within the organization .

Those without opportunities within an organization, would probably forge their own career journey stepping between different employers, but again following a specialist PR technician to management route.

GolinHarris recently launched its G4 model of the future of PR, claiming to have “replaced the standard, seniority-based hierarchy with global communities of dedicated specialists who are embedded in every account”.  Their four roles are strategists (business analysts), creators (bold thinkers), connectors (channel experts) and catalysts (change agents).  The argument is against the “generalist multi skilled individual” in favour of specialist skill sets.

This approach runs counter also to the military/bureaucratic model where careers start with a specialist responsibility before taking a more general perspective to become, well a General.  It is not clear whether there is a career dimension within the GolinHarris conceptualisation, or whether someone is deemed able only to execute one role for all time.

What is evident is that this supposed new approach continues the focus of PR career thinking on communication competencies.  The roles divide up the planning progress, but combined retain the focus on acting as the mouthpiece for others, or counselling them on how to best communicate their knowledge.

In 2006, I conceived a model (presented at the MIPAA PR Masterclass) for the future direction of PR based on two key dimensions:

• content – knowledge, ability and control of what is communicated in terms of actual messages, branding, technical means of communication etc
• relationships – knowledge, ability and control of connections with publics or stakeholders on whom the organisation’s success depends

Using these as axes, I proposed four possible scenarios for PR where:

1. PR is a sub-set of marketing, focused solely on achieving media coverage, where agencies were used for creative and other tactical work that did not require organizational or other specialist knowledge.  This plotted both low expertise for content and relationships.
2. PR operates as a virtual “call centre” operation.  Here,  expertise in content is high (but relationship expertise is low), being driven by technology – this model is evident today in the Ford Content Factory, for example.
3. PR’s expertise is oriented towards stakeholder influence, particularly in respect of managing risk, issues and crisis situations.  Here the function would be research and results-oriented, with a primary focus on relationships driven by a dynamic external environment – so high on relationship expertise (but low on organizational content expertise).  This could involve PR as a strategic external counsel function.
4. PR is a strategically influential function managing reputation and responsibilities. This would involve an all-encompassing understanding of internal and external forces and be driven by both strategic organizational and societal goals.  It would necessitate high expertise for both content and relationships.

Content includes expertise in the what and how of communication.  I therefore envisaged three core requirements for PR practitioners: competence in managing people, processes and product (my concept focused on motor industry PR).  This led me to the following diagram illustrating seven roles for tomorrow’s PR talent:

My premise was that the fully rounded, ultimate PR person needed to be an AMBASSADOR – an expert in organizational/topic content (product), public relations (process) and relationships (people).

Someone whose skills are essentially on the people side of PR, I termed a socialite, with a focus on product expertise creating a mechanic and skills in the process of PR resulting in a bureaucrat.

Combining two of the three requirements results in an enthusiast (knows the product and able to build relationships, but not a strategic PR person), a technocrat (lacking in the people skills), or a diplomat (lacks knowledge of the organization/topic).

I never tested these ideas further and feel they lack some emerging aspects of career theory that I have since studied.  In particular, it is a static model which, as with the GolinHarris concept, lacks connection to career strategies, although I saw the ambassador as the pinnacle role – a five star general if you like.

For me, the future of work in PR has to involve knowledge beyond an ability to communicate, and also beyond building relationships (this latter a topic I recently considered at PR Conversations).  Perhaps the model I am looking for already exists in Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point.

The connector is my relationship expert, the maven is my product expert, and the salesman being the expert in engagement and persuasion, arguably embodies the PR competencies of two-way communications (as in the mixed-motive or collaborative advocacy conceptualisation).

So what do you get if you combine all three of these categories in one person rather than seeing them as discrete (which was Gladwell’s idea)?

Is it my original idea of the ambassador?  Although the title conveys the seniority and also the idea of the PR person as a strategic representative, it feels old-fashioned and perhaps too related to a hierarchical image rather than a more creative, personal and contemporary view of careers in PR.

What I’m looking for is an idea that relates to the career literature around flexibility such as the protean and boundaryless career models.  This proposes that in future we will need to be ever more pro-active in identifying and seizing opportunities.  Something I believe applies as much to PR work as those undertaking it.

So, I’m exploring the concept of the entrepreneur and looking in particular at the entrepreneurial personality and its relevance to PR practitioners.  I see the entrepreneur as someone who understands risk and opportunity with a focus on executing effective solutions to problems.

Should my new question be how many entrepreneurial PR practitioners would it take to change the lightbulb?  Any thoughts?

This first post offers a trip down the green brick road for an ethical PR future.

We’re not in Kansas now.  Like it or not, things will never be the same again with our SatNav offering a digital road ahead to the Emerald City.  But as with most technologies, the novelty will soon wear off, and PR practitioners will be expected to integrate skills and knowledge of “new media” in their everyday work.  This could even mean working in “call centre” PR environments where practitioners spam marketing messages, craft “content”, upload multimedia nonsense and try to spin creatively in an increasingly cluttered online world.  All for a winged monkey’s pile of peanuts – ie outsourced to a low cost market.

If I only had a brain/heart/nerve. PR could think of things not thunk before, be more kind-a-human and demonstrate vim and verve – that is, use its power wisely and create a different future.  Intelligence, responsibility and courage sound a more attractive scenario.  The potential exists within PR to reflect these virtues.  Rather than focusing on tactical delivery at a bargain price, practitioners can recognise they already possess what they most desire.  So if we use our brain, heart and nerve our future should involve considered, meaningful, challenging work.

Somewhere over the rainbow.  How can we ensure our promised reward is not just humbug but offers something of value where the dreams we dare to dream can come true?  It is interesting that the Wonderful Wizard of Oz was published in 1900, so is roughly the same age as modern PR, and after a troubled beginning both grew to be cultural phenomena.  Like the main characters, PR has a complex, contradictory nature and lacks the self-confidence to reflect virtues of intelligence, caring, and courage.  Rather it often presents an image of fluffy airheads, heartless spindoctors or timid technicians obeying orders.

Lions, and tigers, and bears, oh my.  Looking at the future we may wish for PR, we clearly face many challenges.   But fittingly in the PRSA Ethics Month we can draw on the lessons from Wicked and take a revisionist look at public relations.

Our parallel narrative requires reflection on what it means to work in PR and consider the ethical dimensions of our role.  By this, I mean going beyond simply seeking to distance the good witches from the wicked, or justifying bad outcomes by reference to good intentions.

Arguments for PR to secure a place in the boardroom of the Emerald City must be accompanied by evidence that we have the intelligence, responsibility and courage to lead on ethical challenges – which means having a robust understanding of the philosophical aspects of values, ethics and morals.

We need to avoid platitudes relating to codes, corporate social responsibility and social marketing approaches.  PR practitioners can only advise on ethical behaviour if they really offer more than an illusion of wizardry.  This means engaging with issues relating to power in society, ethical resistance, meta-ethics as well as normative and applied ethics.

I don’t believe the best road is to embed ethical codes within consultancies as some argue.  Rules alone do not make people ethical – rather they tend to simplify the issues that are worthy of deeper reflection and understanding.

In a complex world requiring difficult decisions to be made we need to invest in a field of ethical enquiry for public relations.  This should involve experts in areas such as moral/ethical philosophy working with leaders in PR (practice and academia) to study issues relating to our area of responsibility.  Such an approach is evident in medicine, law, accountancy and business ethics.

Let’s get serious about the road public relations needs to tread and establish a centre for ethical enquiry which would:

• draw together existing knowledge,
• undertake research, training and education,
• engage with various experts and indeed, critics of PR
• investigate and guide on issues of debate and practice
• co-ordinate the interest, commitment and plans of those who wish to reflect intelligence, integrity and intrepidus in their work
• develop a credible leadership position globally for PR ethics.

So close your eyes, tap the heels of your ruby slippers together and let’s see if we can’t reach “far, far away… behind the moon… beyond the rain…” and discover an ethical future for public relations.

This event is partly to promote the qualifications and the new book, but also aims to show the importance and value of connecting theory to PR practice.

For many people, public relations is little more than a craft – a set of skills to be learned, probably ‘on the job’ much as one learns to cook, knit, or paint (or use the photocopier, telephone system or latest computer software).  A survey published in PR Week confirms this with an article on “Career development” that purports to identify 5 key skills for the future.

Its methodology is a little muddled however since it has surveyed “the most important attribute for a successful PR person/team” by asking “96 in-house comms professionals for their views on the issues they face in daily work life”.  It is this casual approach to understanding work in PR that partly stimulated my interest in studying career theories for my PhD.  There has been little robust research into career development in relation to public relations, but lots of assumptions and opinion expressed in such articles, books and so on.

The big problem for me is that career thinking in PR is based on approaches which have long been seen as outdated in the career studies field.  For example, we see ‘matching’ in factors such as “charismatic personality”.  Indeed, as in much reflection on public relations, the focus is on the tactical ‘doing’ of the job without any real depth of understanding of either the terminology of careers, or developments in career studies that reflect the modern world of work.  So the concept of “success” is not examined in the context of contemporary career thinking but appears to be thought to evidence climbing a career ladder (another outmoded concept).

The PR Week study also lacks clarity in the attributes listed – with the choices combining totally different concepts.  For example, ‘creative and strategic thinking’, ‘open minded and able to see the bigger picture’, good organisation and leadership’.

Skill: practised ability, facility in an action

Attribute: a quality ascribed to a person

Competent: state of being adequately qualified

The number one skill for the future is stated as: digital and social media skills (the survey was even more practical stating: ability to work with social media and technology).  This would seem to reflect a current pre-occupation with little vision of how such abilities are already commonplace among the next generation and will shortly be hygiene skills (ie a minimum requirement).  This is something I wrote about at PR Conversations earlier this year: There’s no such thing as online or digital PR anymore.

Like knitting, cooking and painting, learning about public relations is often promoted through training courses rather than gaining qualifications.  I’m not criticising this, since it seems more relevant than attending conferences to hear other people share their experiences – another popular approach to professional development in PR.  I suppose that’s a bit like watching television programmes about cooking (we don’t get many knitting and painting shows however!).  Training courses can be underpinned by wider knowledge than simply the trainer’s own experiences, but it is practical experience which is predominantly promoted as evidence of someone’s credibility to run a course.

If I can take the analogy with cooking further, it is certainly possible to serve up superb meals without any depth of knowledge but plenty of skill.  But an understanding of science and other underpinnings that explain the rationale for certain approaches help avoid the trial and error that many of us experience as amateurs.

Do celebrity chefs necessarily make the best trainers or educators of future talent?  Are we happy for PR to involve this approach to developing expertise?  Or rely on a development approach akin to learning to cook at home?

Yes, practical experience is vital in a vocational occupation such as public relations.  Studying PR without being able to operate in practice if that’s your occupation is of little use – although conceptual research can open up new perspectives beyond immediate practical application.

Surely it is the grounding between knowing why and how; being informed about practice and being able to explain rather than simply tell, that is evident in those who have mastered their chosen ‘craft’.  Professor Timothy Coombs talks about the advantages of “evidence based management” in crisis communications in this YouTube video.  At the least, we need to underpin our work by informed analysis rather than unsubstantiated opinion and continuation of poor practice through unquestioned habit.

I was interested to read how the world leading England cricket team has taken a more analytical approach to managing its operations.  I’m not convinced about its use of the Myers-Briggs psychological test, but the philosophy of investing in developing talent is something that needs a similar commitment in public relations.

There is discussion in football too about the merits of a dedicated centre to train and develop young players and coaches, where education and analysis are combined with practical skills practice.  Such approaches tend to focus on spotting young talent – rather than career long development.  But in PR, we don’t really have either.

Of course, historically people have “fallen” into PR by change rather than choice.  Someone recently told me that no-one grows up wanting to be a PR practitioner – which may be true (unlike wanting to play a sport, be a chef or other craft-career).  But surely we should be encouraging talented individuals to look at PR as a strategic career option from a young age?  And, developing a culture of maximising potential for practitioners by stretching their brains rather than just their smartphone typing muscles.

There are many good undergraduate and postgraduate courses at a variety of UK universities, alongside the training and qualifications offered by the professional bodies (CIPR and PRCA) and other providers.  There are development programmes run in-house, within consultancies and companies.  There are many practitioners who are devoted to their own development and plenty of “communities of practice” (online and real world).  CIPR has developed a Research and Development Unit to connect teaching, practice and research and PRCA is also launching a partnership programme to create a formal relationship with a number of select of universities.  The new Public Relations Inquiry journal (launching in early 2012) aims to “stimulate new research agendas in the field of public relations”.

All good stuff – but PR needs to address its lack of intellectual credibility more cohesively and strategically.  Could we combine the various initiatives to create more recognition of the cerebral dimension of PR?  Can we change the focus of PR’s reputation away from being party organisers, flacks and spinners of truth?  Shouldn’t PR Week be reporting academic journal research rather than just quick and dirty surveys?  Can we ever move away from seeing PR as involving nothing more than craft skills?

The Visions of Britain 2020 study looking at “Working Women” (published today) highlights concerns over childcare issues, claiming:

women in their 30s and 40s are having the children that they put off when they were younger as they climbed through the education system and onto the career and property ladders.

This finding echoes the results of one of the undergraduate dissertations I supervised this year in which PR students identified family life rather than a glass ceiling as the most likely barrier to a successful career for men or women.

As 80-90% of undergraduate PR students are female, the statistics, and image of the occupation as one employing pretty young things, may reflect the increasing numbers of qualified women entering PR.  The PR Census appears to back this up showing 11% of females had spent 1-2 years in PR compared to 5% of men.

Data also seems to indicate a black hole where older women in particular are leaving PR owing to difficulties in work-life balance.  The percentage of women working in PR for 16+ years was 19% compared to 36% of men.  (Age and length of time spent in PR appearing to be correlated in the study.)

This suggests women in PR aren’t necessarily turning to freelance opportunities or establishing their own consultancies, which might be considered more flexible options for combining family and work commitments.

The PR Census reveals in excess of 49 hours a week are worked by more than 40% of practitioners, with average starting salaries in the region of £21k (agency) and £28k (in-house).  This does not seem particularly attractive – especially when faced with rising tuition fees for studying a PR degree.

David Phillips has written an excellent series of posts concerning the need to increase the productivity of working in PR.  The essence of his argument is a need to focus on higher value activities in PR, outsourcing or automating the low value work (which are generally those that impact negatively on PR’s reputation), and demonstrating the value of PR as an expert not a tactical function.  We might attract more male PR students if we can show the function isn’t all parties and press release writing.

I believe this means we have to stop portraying PR as “an inherently feminine activity” (as Craig Pearce argued) which is based on the outdated career theory of matching traits to occupations.  This perspective limits both PR and women – with feminisation of any occupation affecting both pay levels and job status.

Already we see women in PR are paid less than men: the PR Census indicates an average of nearly £63k for men cf circa £40k for women.  The message is men are holding more senior positions in PR and are better paid. 

It would be nice to think the waves of smart, young women choosing PR as their career path via a University degree (as opposed to falling into it by default as many older practitioners confess) will gain the rewards of both senior posts and high salaries.  However, I predict that, like my generation, they will find the occupation does not live up to their expectations and develop their career paths elsewhere; particularly if they are not prepared to compromise on having a fulfilling personal as well as professional life.

But let’s not wait until they abandon all hope of a rewarding PR career.  One of the biggest challenges in public relations today is finding good quality mid-career practitioners (according to those looking for talent in the motor industry at least).  If I’m right, there are plenty of intelligent, experienced, age 35+ women (probably mothers) who could be attracted back to work in PR.

They don’t want to work in press release factories or be expected to use their feminine assets to build superficial relationships.  Rather I reckon they have the capabilities to develop effective campaigns, and other more valuable PR activities, within an industry that should offer flexibility of working rather than sweatshop conditions.

What’s the future of PR?  That’s a question the CIPR’s 2020 project is aiming to address through scenario forecasting research being undertaken via a series of focus groups around the UK, led by Professor Jon White.

Taking a peek through the looking glass into another world is always fun; but is it helpful?  The idea of the CIPR project is to identify best, worst and most likely scenarios in order to develop initiatives that can move public relations in a positive direction. 

There are certainly some current trends where action would be useful to propel change for the better or to address negative issues.  But, it is notoriously difficult to predict the future since neither history nor extrapolating from the present are reliable starting points.  Imagining the unimaginable requires mental leaps that are probably beyond most of us.

Nevertheless, there were some interesting debate during the first focus group at Bournemouth University, of which I was a member.  This related to three themes:

Accessibility – covers a variety of aspects of PR; from its employment by those with powerful interests in society, to ease of entry vs regulation on practice.  Here we would seem to have a choice of paths to follow.  To the left, is an open system with freedom of practice and PR for all; to the right, a closed system with regulation and restrictions where ability to pay would affect access.

Diversity – affects the make up and culture of PR.  The PRCA/PRWeek 2011 Census shows the UK PR industry is dominated by young, white British females – at least in junior positions with senior positions dominated by men.  But it’s not just demographics that count – is there diversity of practice, thinking, social class, skills set and so on.  Again perhaps a choice of paths on the chess board offering us homogeneity with conformity in the search for professional status or variety aligned with complexity of defining PR and an element of chaos in practice.

Respect – this was seen as the big issue if PR is to reach a positive destination by 2020.  A lack of confidence and clarity in what practitioners do – by clients, the media, and those working in the field was considered.  This requires a focus on tangible outcomes – but that moves us via the chess squares of tactical implementation.  Which means respect for doing the bidding of others.  A higher level of respect for strategic competencies means engaging with intangibles; where the ability of public relations practitioners is not universally accepted.  Selling services and making money is vital for those working in an agency environment where execution dominates.  Although the returns for those consultancies who offer strategic counsel will be higher; that’s probably not the reality for the majority. 

The path here is perhaps a little different.  A schism is forecast; possible with rebranding to a name other than PR required.  We will have the pawns on the PR chess board executing largely publicity or other tactical communications work.  Then the special pieces, who will operate at a more strategic level, involved in influencing decisions and working as executives within organizations or to provide key counsel from outside.

One question is whether a pawn can ever be promoted?  Another: will tactical implementation be recognised and respected as a craft or outsourced to low-cost economies as a production process?

These discussions suggest a few possibilities for the future; undoubtedly there are many other moves which may lead to a victory or an empty board.  Whether we can manage our direction to achieve a desirable outcome is debatable; perhaps some trends are inevitable whilst other others are unpredictable.

The future will be a world as bizarre as any Lewis Carroll could have created.  As with Alice, we will experience numerous oddities, moments of nonsense and illogical shifts of direction.  Whether stepping through the looking glass proves an adventure or a nightmare, only time will tell.    And whether we can plot a successful path alongside all the eccentric characters and events we will encounter, will be fun to find out.