Do the CIPR presidential candidates appeal to women?

Both candidates standing in the CIPR President-Elect 2013 elections (who will become President in 2014) are white, 40+ years old and male. As men comprise a minority of PR practitioners, perhaps it is time to throw into the debate, a question about how appealing Stephen Waddington and Dr Jon White are to women?

It is a relevant consideration given that the UK PR Week-PRCA 2011 PR Census, revealed the occupation is dominated by the young and female.   Also, CIPR “aims to develop an inclusive culture, raise general awareness of diversity within the public relations industry and to increase the number of public relations practitioners from all backgrounds”.

What are some of the issues that face women working in PR that the candidates should address?

1. Salary disparity – women in PR are paid less than men at all levels according to the data from the PR Census study. Nearly 30 years ago, US researchers released the Velvet Ghetto study noting a million dollar income penalty over the course of a woman’s career in PR. It isn’t difficult to argue that things haven’t changed much.

2. Mid-career chasm - there also appears to be a black hole with women leaving PR in mid-career, possibly as a result of a lack of flexible options for combining family and work commitments.

3. Friendliness trap – academics have claimed that women working in PR are expected (particularly at the start of their careers, and specifically in agencies) to adopt overtly feminine behaviour, which serves as a trap to their subsequent credibility and career progression.

4. Female dominated education – the majority of PR undergraduates are women, with men often less than 10 per cent of a class. A gender imbalance is frequently notable among cohorts studying the CIPR’s professional qualifications. The willingness of women to seek qualifications (perhaps buying into the professional agenda of career development) does not seem to be generating them greater career rewards.

5. Marginalisation of women as communicators – women have traditionally occupied technician roles in PR, with claims made that they have softer skills best suited for a communications-dominated position and function. In the past, women were employed to target female-oriented media and organise parties. This continues today, but additionally, they dominate specialist areas such as internal communications and lay claim to relationship building.

Of course, these issues do not affect all women and most apply beyond public relations.  We can also argue that with self-efficacy and personal agency, women are as capable as men of building successful careers. The current CIPR President is female, as was the one before. There have been a total of eleven women Presidents compared to 52 men. The first was Margaret Nally in 1975, followed by Norah Owen in 1981 and then Carol Friend in 1986. In the 1990s, two of the ten Presidents were women; in the last decade they accounted for three out of ten. This decade, so far it is three out of four, with Jane Wilson holding the role of CEO since 2010 as well.

So let’s cut the male candidates some slack – but invite them to comment here whether they believe there are specific considerations relating to women, and other sectors of society, in building careers in public relations. And how their year in office could help address some of the issues that I’ve mentioned above.

Over to you guys… how do you appeal to women in PR?

Who you know counts in public relations – avoiding dog bites online

There is an old proverb that you may know a man by the company he keeps. In public relations, a lot is made of developing contacts and relationships – but less consideration is given to the quality of company that we keep.

Another angle on the proverb applies to organisations regarding the associations that transfer from the company they keep (for example, in supplier relationships as has been seen with the recent horsemeat issue and discussed in Judy Gombita‘s Defining Social PR Byte post).

There are also considerations about how the organisations that PR practitioners work with affect personal reputations – and vice versa. As individuals we can enhance or harm our employers/clients, and similarly, their actions can have a positive or negative impact on our reputation and credibility.

The nature of our contacts is also important, particularly in relation to whether they reflect an equality or imbalance in power. This reminds me of the two ways to train a dog:

• One is to dominate it and use your power as an owner to persuade the dog to obey your will. The dog will respond, often from a position of fear.
• The second is to earn the dog’s loyalty when obedience results from respect.

This analogy extends further into times of crisis where the dog that is motivated by loyalty will take the initiative to help and protect an owner. The dominated dog will more likely respond by adding its bite to that of any attacker.

Power is at the heart of many relationships and we need to think about this in the company we keep, whether building our personal contacts or helping organisations develop strategic partnerships. If you (or your contacts) make connections only on the basis of WIIFM (what’s in it for me?), then the company you are keeping is vulnerable to the occasional bite.

This argues for a form of due diligence to be undertaken that considers strategic relationships from a public relations perspective:

• What are the possible consequences for reputational damage as well as positive associations that can be gained?
• Can co-orientation exist in times of possible conflict or will fractures occur leading to blame and self-preservation?

As people and organisations increasingly form coalitions to achieve their aims (proxy or collective agency), these issues need to be considered within public relations. Models of PR – and wider management – often look at stakeholders largely from the perspective of a single organization. Within organisations, stakeholders need to be mapped more universally and specifically by function, project and even individual relationships. When working in partnerships, stakeholders need to be considered from the shared position – identifying friends, foes, those with power, interest, saliency and so on.

Such relationships can also be considered in terms of the tangible and intangible benefits (and possible consequences) gained. Drawing on the work of Clark and Mills, we can distinguish between exchange and communal relationships.

• Exchange relationships: involve a familiar, economic contractural approach where something of value is directly transferred between parties. This may, or many not, be a commercial or monetary transaction.
• Communal relationships: are non-contingent, without any obligation or responsibilities between the parties.

Interestingly, this communal approach is asymmetric, in contrast to exchange relationships which are by definition, mutually beneficial. This seems to contrast with how Hon and Grunig view the typology, as they reflect a level of cynicism in exchange relationships suggesting people believe organisations only engage with them when they want something in return, and presenting communal relationships as evidencing a concern on the part of the organisation for others. Hence, they present communal relationships as symmetrical claiming both parties gain a benefit, which seems the reverse of Clark and Mills. However, Clark and Mills identify symmetry in communal relationships where the parties assume a mutual level of responsibility for each other, and asymmetry where there is variance in communal responsiveness.

What I find surprising is that there is little attention paid to educating PR practitioners in respect of relationships. The focus of training and qualifications tends to remain on communications, with an implicit belief that being competent in writing somehow equates to building positive relationships. Or the ability to build relationships is seen as personal and intuitive, something that is derived from a certain personality type, rather than a competency to be studied and improved, particularly in respect of organisational relationships.

I believe that the complexity of relationships in a modern, global, dynamic world calls for re-envisioning of the normative ideas that public relations is about dialogical, mutually beneficial communications predicated primarily on a simple, linear interface. Clark and Mills present further models of relationships, such as exploitative and a hybrid communal-exchange approach, and begin to examine various dimensions of the multiple relationships that individuals establish with others. There are many other areas of relationship thinking outside the PR literature that could be considered.

For example, social network theory considers how relationships develop within groups (formal and informal), which means grasping aspects such as culture, status, unwritten rules and inter-group dynamics. This is particularly relevant online where a pack mentality can quickly turn from tail wagging approval to a frenzied teeth-baring assault.

Online, the company we keep is likely to be out of our control. People can choose to associate with us even if we’d prefer they didn’t. When others engage with us or our organisations, we become connected to a wider network that extends the reach of influence, but also potential harm. Such contacts may increasingly assume a level of interest and indeed, power, that can have major impacts. They become publics, who form and act in relation to matters that concern them, and to which we may well need to react.

Taking this back to the personal level, it is seen in how social media have impacted on our relationships. Friends of friends suddenly can connect and take an interest in our affairs. This can be a benign comment or like, or lead to positive consequences. It can also result in harmful consequences. Perhaps this involves invading our privacy in a minor way, or more sinisterly opening us up to possible harm – 20,000 people invading a private party for example. The same ideas apply to organisations online – building a Facebook community may be attractive from a marketing perspective, but it is a ready made activist group if something we do – or are thought to do – incurs a negative reaction.

Something else we don’t always fully consider in public relations is how in the online territory, relationships are often very different from those built in the ‘real’ world. Common approaches to online relationship building are about making as many contacts as possible – with little regard to the quality or possible implications of the company we are keeping. It is all about the numbers or some unproven measure of influence. But the more contacts you have, the greater the potential risk (as well as opportunity) for negative consequences.

In the same way that the horsemeat issue raises the importance of understanding the full six degrees of separation in supplier relationships, so PR practitioners need to assess the nature of online connections – as well as those with other relevant stakeholders, influencers or publics.

We cannot possibly build in-depth personal relationships with everyone in our complex, messy online networks. And even though organisations have always had thousands of connections, and extended connections, these are amplified in potential impact online. Jokes and poor taste, let alone a disregard for convention and legal niceties, prevail online.

Entering this dog-eat-dog world, organisations may be seen as tasty snacks, rather than respected as an alpha dog in the pack. They need PR practitioners who are familiar with contemporary relationship thinking to avoid suffering dog bites online. This means much more than simply collecting connections to really understand the consequences of the company we keep.

———————–

The analogy of dog bites in this post is not meant to belittle the serious impact of canine attacks

Is public relations out of touch?

Last December, Judy Gombita wrote about the pressures on PR practitioners and social businesses to remain in touch throughout the traditional Western holiday season – or at least to provide information on their availability.

One year on, and it seems most PR people are out of touch at this time of year. Their email bounce backs indicate in some cases, they are away from the office for up to three weeks. Indeed, the holiday period seems to stretch from Friday 14 December to Monday 14 January.

Of course, email is only one element of PR communications and many people work in teams, so share cover. But there’s a distinct impression that even with the advent of social media, public relations is largely out of touch.

The latest news on PR Week is around one week old now. The most recent posts at PR Moment are even older. Does this indicate an acceptance that there’s no point in talking with PR practitioners once the party season kicks in?

When I began working in PR around 20 years ago, I viewed the period between Christmas and New Year as a key time for reaching people. Back then, it meant preparing ideas in advance which the media could fit into their schedules. When I worked for a vehicle breakdown company, we issued fun seasonal stories, various weather related driving facts and advice, or reviews and forecasts, for example.

When mobile phones became more common, it was possible to have out of office contact (before then, it was usual for home numbers to be included in releases or provided to key media). Email made it possible to issue stories even when away from the desk (rather than relying on unpredictable Christmas post). Laptops and ftp enabled uploading of topical stories onto the internet.

Today we have the immediacy of social media – always on, demanding hyper connectivity from PR practitioners, or so we are led to believe. Perhaps this time of year provides a valuable silence, which I wrote about at PR Conversations in September. We all need to relax, get away from the everyday pressures and allow for calm reflection. Silent night – or a month maybe – without the cacophony of PR communications?

However, Twitter (or Instagram) shots of ‘celebs’ in their Christmas jumpers, onesies or swimwear on Caribbean getaways, shows this shade of PR has not taken a break.

Our marketing colleagues have also tapped into the shopping season. There was a seamless shift from advertising (offline and online) Christmas gifts, to last-minute vouchers, to Christmas day online shopping opportunities to full blown Sales. Promotional PR ran alongside this linear process.

Undoubtedly – or hopefully, crisis plans are in place should PR be called upon to handle some unforeseen issue over this period. The crush of meetings before the wind-down actioned planning and budgeting for 2013. Some PR people will be in the office catching up or looking ahead, making good use of this quiet period.

Others will be working in countries where the year end/start is business as usual. This is increasingly important in a 24:7 interconnected world. We need to be aware of the holiday periods in different parts of the planet. Many of these now extend into holiday weekends, providing opportunities for engagement rather than simply staying out of touch.

There are arguments both for and against a rest over the festive season – although it seems a contradictory modern phenomenon to go slow for up to a month when globalisation, multi-cultural communities and social media challenge us to be ever available.

I’ve always felt that PR blurs practitioners’ personal and professional lives, but I’m not clear whether I am out of touch given the tendency for many to be literally out of touch over the holidays.

Arrogance is the enemy of public relations

The current Instagram furore is being touted as a PR disaster, with the company’s co-founder Kevin Systrom appearing to blame poor communications of the new Terms & Conditions for the resulting crisis.

However, I wonder quite what the involvement of public relations within the organisation was prior to the issue of the revised approach. Was PR involved in the discussion and decision making process? Indeed, does Instagram have an internal PR function – or a retained agency? Its online press centre is as vague as the wording around the controversial T&Cs – with zero information, including on the latest issue. Its Twitter account is one-way rather than engaging.  Instagram’s statement intended to sooth public concerns is carried on its blog and promoted via Twitter (ironic given its recent spat there too).

This approach to communications is common with online and tech companies. Mark Zuckerberg announced the Facebook acquisition of Instagram via a post to his 16+ million subscribers. The direct route offers the benefit of complete control over the exact timing and wording of an announcement.

Missing out the traditional media gatekeeper may seem a great step forward – particularly for those in PR who tout their ability to control communications. But it misses a critical point – that others are going to talk about you, and there will still be interpretation particularly by influential people and a spread of information increasingly by new gatekeepers who react emotionally, instinctively and rapidly.

The ability to announce information direct to millions – or at least thousands – using ‘owned media’ reflects a marketing mindset. In contrast, public relations practitioners should understand that earning a positive response takes more than making a statement. Relationship building with the media and other influencers is an essential element of effective PR.

It isn’t just relationships with these intermediaries that are important. Employees and customers are both strategic stakeholders. There is a clear arrogance in the way that these groups of people are often addressed. Terms and conditions are changed with immediate effect – often within small print or a sense of arrogance that there is little that those affected can do about it.

Redundancies and restructures are routine with employees forced to accept whatever occurs. My brother recently went through a situation where large scale cuts were made with little consideration or care even of the legal requirements.

As customers, we’ve all experienced the hubris of companies. Banks, utility companies, mobile phone providers, train firms and airlines, numerous shops, professional services – and the public sector – are all guilty of such arrogance. They presume they have the power to do as they wish.

Social media combined with traditional media attention may be able to change the response of companies like Starbucks and Instagram. There are small people-powered victories.

But have any valuable public relations lessons been learned? I doubt it. Arrogance is not so easily tempered. Instead, resentment is likely to be the internal response with ways around a situation being sought. That means employing legal and other counsel whose advice seems to count much more than that of expert PR people.

I can only conclude that such arrogance is the enemy of public relations.

Elections are poor public relations

An election may seem to be the essence of democracy – with public participation in a decision making process demonstrating engagement and a method of the majority selecting who they wish to represent them within a particular system.

As such, it ought to be good public relations – a time of relationship building, consideration of well-made arguments, co-orientation around issues of common consent and an opportunity for the views of the masses to be considered by those seeking office.

Plotting a personal path to PR career success

PR Academy is looking to document how studying a PR qualification has helped in developing careers. The “Your Learning Journey” concept involves posting a comment on its blog in no more than 140 words relating the influence and path taken as a result of gaining a qualification. As well as potentially winning a Trailfinders gift card to the value of £250, there’s an opportunity to feature in its campaign to encourage continuous learning. You don’t have to be a PR Academy student to take part (and you are encouraged to Tweet using the #learningjourney hashtag).

This initiative is interesting to me, not only because I’ve spend over a decade working with many students of public relations (including those enrolled with PR Academy), but for the connections it has to my own PhD studies into career strategies in PR.

If you are thinking about your next move in public relations, there are three concepts I’ve found running as threads through my research into the historical context of career strategies in the field.

PR is about action not procrastination

PR time – balancing urgency and importance (after Stephen Covey)

One of those silly PR surveys yesterday made me think – it was about procrastination and the time we waste in putting things off. I am very familiar with the idea with students – and PR practitioners – who are deadline-oriented creatures and expert also at displacement behaviour where you focus on other tasks rather than knuckling down to the priority at hand.

I also advocate Stephen Covey‘s notion of ‘first things first’ and include an adaptation of his urgent-important matrix in the forthcoming Public Relations Strategic Toolkit.

Feminization of public relations

I’ve produced this infographic as part of my presentation at next week’s International History of Public Relations Conference. My paper aims to foreground the career experiences of women working in public relations in Britain during the 1970s and 1980s. As well as reviewing the existing historical literature (where the presence of women is largely missing) and conducting qualitative interviews, I wanted to put the story into some statistical context.

Although the veracity of any data is impossible to verify, it does provide heuristic knowledge of the increased feminization of the field of public relations over the past four decades. During the 1970s and 1980s, the data indicates the percentage of women in PR in the UK increased from around 10% to 40% – from one to four in every ten practitioners. This has risen further in the last twenty years to almost seven in ten practitioners.

How many PR practitioners does it take to change a light bulb?

The answer: “I don’t know – I’ll get back to you on that”.  This joke is a reminder of the importance of having a solid understanding of your subject matter in PR practice.  This is the topic of my second post looking at the future of work in public relations.

Follow the green brick road for an ethical PR future

Last year I wrote three “Back to School” posts on Preparing to Study PR, Starting to Study, and Making the Most of Work Experience.   Each is still relevant for those starting their career in public relations, so this year I am writing a series of posts looking at the future of work in the field.

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