By Linda Forrest
In my post on the subject of the PRSA initiative to create a new definition for PR, I likened the task to that of herding cats – ultimately futile.
But others closer to home have engaged in this exercise in the past, ending up with what they consider to be a successful outcome. Back in 2007, driven by the Canadian national PR association, the Canadian Public Relations Society (CPRS), a committee of PR experts endeavoured to develop a new north-of-the-49th-parallel definition. This was a collaborative research project that resulted in the adoption of their proposed definition by the CPRS:
Public relations is the strategic management of relationships between an organization and its diverse publics, through the use of communication, to achieve mutual understanding, realize organizational goals, and serve the public interest. (Flynn, Gregory & Valin, 2008)
For a thorough read about the process and the results of that exercise, I encourage you to read Judy Gombita‘s post on PR Conversations about the “maple-infused definition of public relations.” As you can see from the healthy number of comments on that post, the endeavour itself and its outcome were a hotly contested issue when the definition was first released.
Our own Francis Moran chimed in on his perspective about the Canuck definition of public relations in his own post earlier this year. His take on the matter engaged two of the three co-authors of the definition in the comments on that post about whether public relations had to be in the public interest.
Since Canada had its definition set and agreed upon by the primary professional association in this country, I was interested to see what the Canadian response was to the US-based exercise that the PRSA was now undertaking with its #PRDefined initiative.
Canadian definition co-architect Terry Flynn wrote a thorough post on the PRSA initiative for PR Conversations. Having been a leader of the process himself, he had a lot to share – what the PRSA was doing right with its project, where it missed opportunities, and what, in his view, the best possible outcome from the exercise could be.
Flynn’s thoughts echoed my own when he stated:
… the process of discussion, debate and dialogue about the nature and definition of the profession may be the ultimate winner in this initiative.
Canada’s process at arriving at their definition was disregarded by the PRSA initiative, something for which Flynn takes the organization to task:
While it is important and necessary to ensure that our professional associations and their members agree upon a definition that is relevant to the practice and profession today, I would suggest that the #PRDefined project has missed an opportunity to look North (and into the near past, as discussed in a 2009 PR Conversations post) and incorporate the results of a redefinition project that was initiated by the Canadian Public Relations Society.
The Canadian initiative was born from the discovery that as of 2007, Canada had 13 different curriculum standards for public relations education at the post-secondary level. To plot a course forward for post-secondary PR education across the country, the CPRS national council of education first set out to determine the intrinsic values inherent to the industry and from those values, then come up with a definition of the practice. It’s this determination of values that Flynn feels is missing from the PRSA initiative:
Understanding what a professional organization values helps to conceptualize, clarify and build consensus around the eventual characteristics of a definition of the practice.
This is an important step that I believe is missing from the current #PRdefined project. While there has been tremendous interest in the initiative—including, we’re told, 16,000 web page views, 900 submissions and 70 comments—it appears obvious from the current comments on PRSA’s dedicated website that there isn’t a clear consensus among the participants on the fundamental nature of the practice.
Ultimately, though, Flynn wishes the PRSA well in its efforts:
We applaud the PRSA in embarking on their definition project and wish them much success in developing a one-size-fits-all definition for the practice of public relations in the United States.
[edited for content – LF]
Canadian communications professionals too have chimed in on both the CPRS definition and the #PRDefined project.
Martin Waxman said on his myPALETTE blog: “while I like the Canadian result, I don’t feel it addresses our role in social media…I’m interested to see how the [PRDefined] process evolves and what we come up with. I’m sure when the final result is released, there will be some controversy and not everyone will be pleased. My hope is the definition is written in plain English, embraces our changing reality and once and for all answers that eternal question about PR: So what is it exactly that you do?”
Joe Thornley commented on the InsidePR podcast that he “isn’t sure that the PRSA’s ‘fill in the blanks’ crowd-sourcing approach will yield the type of definition that truly reflects the enhanced role of PR in the era of social media.”
The Canadian perspective is one that’s well-voiced on official and unofficial social media channels, Tweets, comments, and blog posts. But beyond that, there is a Canadian playing an integral role in #PRDefined. Daniel Tisch, chair of the Global Alliance for PR & Communication Management and president and co-owner of Argyle Communications, is part of the working group tasked with determining the new PRSA definition. Mr. Tisch was kind enough to respond to my original post on the matter with a thoughtful comment, which I’ve excerpted below:
I was pleased to support the world’s largest industry association as it went about updating its definition of PR, and I saw a great opportunity to bring both Canadian and international perspectives to the table.
As Tisch went on to say in his own blog post on the matter,
Will PRSA’s definition be the last word on this question? No. But it will have currency, reach and influence – particularly if it secures widespread participation. The participation itself – and the dialogue – it generates may be the greatest gift of all.
All public relations practitioners may not agree on a set definition – Canadian, American or otherwise – of our practice, but it seems we all concur that the discussion itself is the most worthwhile aspect of the endeavour.
Image: MediaBistro
/// COMMENTS
5 Comments »Terry Flynn
December 14, 2011 12:51 pmLinda,
Thank you for your reflection on this important initiative. While I believe that you have effectively summarized both the PRSA project and our own CPRS initiative, I do believe that you have misrepresented my views on our own definition. I did not call our definition “idealistic” or “aspirational” but rather said:
“There are, of course, those that believe that our definition is too “aspirational” or too “idealistic”—and we, as the authors, don’t dispute or disagree with some of the criticism. After all, our task was partially to fill a then-existing void in Canadian public relations scholarship and practice.”
This paragraph is under the subhead: The Critics — some critics like Francis and Caroline believe that it is too idealistic or aspirational.
Furthermore, to suggest that my closing comments are “passive aggressive” are troubling. Whether conjecture or not it is baseless.
Here are my concluding comments that I would suggest provide the necessary context for the “one-size fits all” approach:
“We applaud the PRSA in embarking on their definition project and wish them much success in developing a one-size-fits-all definition for the practice of public relations in the United States.
As stated at the opening of this lengthy post, the process of discussion, debate and dialogue about the nature and definition of the profession may be the ultimate winner in this initiative.”
In addition, Joe Thornley, in the same Inside PR podcast, stated that he like the CPRS/Flynn, Gregory and Valin definition because of concepts like “mutual understanding” and “public interest”.
We value positive, constructive, and grounded feedback. As such, I would ask that you remove your conjecture and “passive aggressive” references to more realistically reflect the nature of my comments.
Keith Trivitt
December 14, 2011 3:30 pmLinda – Thanks for sharing your detailed thoughts on the “Public Relations Defined” initiative and its value to the global public relations profession in modernizing the definition of public relations. Your point that regardless of what one thinks of the initiative, the real value comes in the dialogue that has been started by #PRDefined is spot-on.
It’s important to keep in mind two things in relation to how this initiative fits within the framework of the 2009 effort by the CPRS:
1. All of us at PRSA are big fans of the CPRS definition. It’s fantastic, in fact. We recognize and respect the important role the CPRS has played in this effort many years, and of course, do not intend to trample on that.
However, we believe there exists a demand and a need for a concise and universal dictionary-like definition that can be extrapolated out for various groups and organizations, including the CPRS’ needs. For instance, if the final definition, as voted on by the profession, ends up being (and this is a complete hypothetical) “Public relations helps individuals and organizations reach and engage stakeholders to foster collaborative relationships,” then we envision there being ample opportunity for the CPRS, PRSA, CIPR or any other organization to add their own position and organizational value points as an addendum to that definition. The point being that what our profession greatly needs is a universal, dictionary-like definition. And no definition — not PRSA’s, not the CIPR’s, not CPRS’ — fits that bill at the moment.
2. The CPRS is one of the 12 global partners that comprise the #PRDefined initiative. It was also represented during the special Definition of Public Relations Summit PRSA held in New York in September to kick off this initiative. In that regard, there exist opportunities for CPRS members and its leadership to provide formal feedback regarding the initiative and how the CPRS definition fits within the candidate definitions that will be presented to the profession. We would certainly welcome this type of formal feedback; however, at this time, no such feedback has been provided to PRSA, beyond blog posts and tweets (which we have been reading, and responding to accordingly).
Keith Trivitt
Associate Director, Public Relations
Public Relations Society of America
Linda Forrest
December 14, 2011 4:03 pmMany thanks, Terry, for setting the record straight with your comment. My sincere apologies if you were offended by my assumption; I appreciate your correcting the public record and letting me know that I was incorrect. Both myself and our readers benefit from your clearing the air with your true opinion on the matter.
Thanks also to Keith for chiming in with the official PRSA response. This project has clearly taken into consideration the global nature of our industry and the PRSA should be applauded for engaging the members of our profession beyond just your membership and geographical borders.
Judy Gombita
December 15, 2011 12:32 pmThanks for featuring both my 2009 post about introduction of the CPRS definition of public relations. Plus the guest post Terry Flynn asked if he could write, to give PR Conversations’ international readership more information on the process behind not only the definition, but also on how the definition of PR was only one part of a broader process.
I must agree with Terry that I find your choice of “passive aggressive” somewhat odd on first reading, as it seems very negative and I don’t think the structure or tone of Terry’s thoughtful post was negative at all.
I looked it up in a few place and it does not reflect the Terry Flynn I know and have collaborated on a number of things (including the CPRS webinar with Maple Leaf Foods) at all. I’d invite you to have a read and then reconsider the phraseology….
Wikipedia:
Passive–aggressive behavior, a personality trait, is passive, sometimes obstructionist resistance to following through with expectations in interpersonal or occupational situations. It is a personality trait marked by a pervasive pattern of negative attitudes and passive, usually disavowed, resistance in interpersonal or occupational situations.
It can manifest itself as learned helplessness, procrastination, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, or deliberate/repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible.[1]
Merriam-Webster
Definition of PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE
: being, marked by, or displaying behavior characterized by the expression of negative feelings, resentment, and aggression in an unassertive passive way (as through procrastination and stubbornness)
— passive–aggressive noun
Keep on posting interesting and informative posts, Linda!
Best,
Judy
Linda Forrest
December 15, 2011 5:04 pmThanks for weighing in, Judy. Upon reflection, perhaps “sarcasm” would have been a better word… By nature, I’m quite sarcastic, so my perceiving that tone in his comment perhaps says more about me than him.
Terry has corrected the public record with his comment; my initial thoughts on the matter, erroneous though they might have been, were valid at the time based on my perception but in an effort to draw this unpleasantness to a close, I’ll edit the original post to remove the troubling terms.
I’ll be more mindful in future about unintentionally casting aspersions on the subjects of my blog posts. I meant no ill will and appreciate the respectful dialogue that both yourself and Terry have engaged with me around this issue.
Thanks for reading.