Bluegrass Consulting: Blueblog

Monday: 22 March

This is a summary of a post more fully explored at Public relations and managing reputation.

Nationalism is the antithesis of public relations. The former is inherently opposed to the notions of diversity, multiculturalism and the sharing of power. As such, it is exclusive and not representative of two-way symmetrical communication, the most meaningful and resonant underlying theory of public relations.

Nationalism, then, is bad PR. Or is it?

Superiority is not good PR

Nationalism is characterised by people bragging about their country’s superiority, not its collegiality. It is contradictory to the notion of multiculturalism, a notion that Australia and the United States (try to) position themselves as representing.

If governments adopted the tenets that underpin strategic public relations, it would lead to an enriched society, one where its indigenous and multicultural elements became more effectively integrated into our culture as a whole.

Government relations helping society

Governments have introduced a range of activities on Australia Day that are inclusive of multicultural and indigenous communities, but they seem to have little impact on the nature of its day or its mood. What hope do these superficial activities have when more fundamental, ongoing and ‘cultural connectivity’ policies and programs are clearly required?

It is these policies and programs (and legislation?) that have the potential to be the manifestation of a true public relations approach, one where structures and processes are changed to facilitate the equalisation of society and integration of its human elements.

Why can’t our governments adopt more of the essence of what public relations is about to help make our society a better place in which to exist? Applying the key themes of public relations means society would be more inclusive of difference by championing behavioural and cultural change.

What do you think about the arguments put forward in this post? Would nationalism be better if it replicated elements of best practice public relations? Are the fundamental underpinnings of nationalism inherently opposed to those of public relations?

Craig Pearce

Thursday: 11 March

The defining theme that, arguably, characterises the world’s leading authority on public relations, Professor James Grunig, extensive, career-long discussion of public relations is this: organisations that proactively create mutually meaningful and mutually beneficial relationships with their stakeholders, including anticipating issues and actively communicating with them during crises:

“…should be more likely to develop relationships with their publics that make it possible to achieve organisational objectives, develop a positive reputation, and reduce the consequences of poor relationships on the implementation of management decisions.”*

“In some ways,” Grunig says, “Public relations has not been changed by the revolution in digital media.” The illusion of stakeholders being controlled existed before and it still exists now. Stakeholders create their own reality. The only way to impact on this reality is to engage and share information, to evolve based on this sharing and to enhance the meaning that relationships bring.

He made this comment in his recently published article, Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitalisation (Praxis, a digital PR resource centre.) The article had as its central point the potential that social media has to, “truly revolutionalise public relations - but only if a paradigm shift in the thinking of many practitioners and scholars takes place.”

A full discussion of this article has appeared in a number of posts on Public relations and managing reputation and the PR Warrior.

Global public relations in an age of digitalisation: the story so far

The posts explored:

• how social media has complicated stakeholder targeting and communication
• the notion of ‘giving’ that characterises both public relations and social media
• the lack of control that organisations have over their stakeholders
• the participation required to utilise social media to its full effect
• the dialectic between reputation and engagement for organisational stakeholders
• social media as an issues management activity.

What social media can do for public relations

Social media, Grunig says, has “the potential to make the profession more global, strategic, two-way and interactive, symmetrical or dialogical, and socially responsible.” This will not occur, he warns, if PR pros use it as a means of “dumping messages”,

Social media, if not the ideal way to create this meaning (surely it is direct, interpersonal, face-to-face interaction which still rules here), is clearly becoming more and more influential in this regard.

Human beings are increasingly relying on these forms of communication. For some, social media/digital communication dominates their reality. And, certainly, the information they receive through these mediums, has a considerable degree of credibility. It has been argued that this is due to much of this information coming from individuals, rather than organisations.

Social media is providing public relations with an opportunity to reinforce its importance to business and society. The profession is, in many cases, trying to take advantage of this opportunity. The question is, will it succeed?

The answer, according to Grunig, is only if we institutionalise public relations as a strategic management discipline, one that provides a vitally important element to business strategy and organisational culture.

What are your thoughts on Grunig’s thoughts and on this series of posts? Did you find them of value? Were there any aspects, arguments or thoughts you disagreed with? How can public relations enhance its professional standing and achieve its potential? What role or opportunity does social media have to play in this?

Craig Pearce