The definition dimensions and domain of PR

The definition dimensions and domain of PR

The definition dimensions and domain of PR

Permalink:

By not developing a widely accepted definition and a central organizing principle or paradigm, the field of public relations has left itself vulnerable (1) to other fields that are mak ing inroads into public relations’ traditional domain, and (2) to critics who are filling in their own definitions of public relations. While opportunities abound, public relations is unlikely to fulfill its promise until it is willing and able to identify its fundamental nature and scope. This article proposes a definition (“managing strategic relationships”), along with a three-dimensional frame- work, with which to compare competing philosophies of public relations and from which to build a paradigm for the field.

Dr. James G. Hutton teaches marketing and public rela- tions at Fairleigh Dickinson University in northern New Jersey, just outside New York City.

From its modern beginnings early in this century, public relations has suffered from an identity crisis-largely of its own making. In terms of both theory and practice, public relations has failed to arrive at a broadly accepted definition of itself in terms of its fundamental purpose, its dominant metaphor, its scope, or its underlying dimensions.

Particularly disturbing is that despite a number of clearly articulated notions about the public relations field’s nature and purpose, especially in its early decades as a modern social, political, and commercial function, there seems to have been little progress made in the way of consolidation and development of its basic tenets.

Summer 1999 199

Public Relations Review

Some might argue that the lack of consolidation has been natural, perhaps even appropriate, given that public relations has evolved and adapted to its social milieu over the first century of its existence. That argument does not fully explain, how- ever, why the field of public relations has not articulated in any depth even its most basic premises such as the nature of “relations” or “relationships.”

The void has been filled by those outside the field, primarily its critics. The result has been that public relations has come to be associated with a variety of denotations and connotations, mostly negative, including such recent monikers as “spin” or “spin control” or “spin doctoring.” While public relations is still a relatively new field of scholarship and practice, it needs to reach some sort of general agreement (“consensus” is too strong a word) if it wishes to advance as a scholarly and professional endeavor.

The purposes of this article are to propose a definition of public relations; explore some of the implications of that definition, in terms of the domain of public relations; propose a three-dimensional framework by which to analyze public relations theories and practice; and encourage the process of integration, rather than disintegration, of the field.

DEFINITIONS, METAPHORS, AND PHILOSOPHIES OF PUBLIC RELATIONS

A review of modern public relations’ short history suggests a number of definitions, metaphors or approaches to the field. Public relations pioneer Ivy Lee was never quite sure what to call himself, but focused on honesty, understanding, and compromise to ensure a “proper adjustment of the interrela- tions” of public and business. He often thought of himself as an information provider, but also as a kind of “lawyer” representing his clients in the court of public opinion.’ Edward Bernays’ definition, interestingly, also included the no- tion of adjustment: “Public relations is the attempt, by information, persuasion and adjustment, to engineer public support for an activity, cause, movement or institution.“2

In the mid-1970s, Harlow reviewed the evolution of public relations defi- nitions.3 Through the first two or three decades of this century, “using commu- nication to build and hold goodwill” was the dominant theme in public relations, according to Harlow. The focus on publicity and propaganda began to wane in the 1920s and ‘3Os, and definitions abounded during the 1940s: “a guide to social conduct”; “ social and political engineering”; “developer of goodwill”; “builder of public opinion”; “motivator”; “persuader”; “clarifier.” In the 1950s and ‘6Os, other metaphors were added to the list: “lubricant,” “pilot,” “catalyst,” “spot- light,” “interpreter,” and “devil’s advocate.”

In another mid-70s article, Harlow built a working definition that was condensed from 472 different definitions and the input from 65 practitioners:

Public relations is a distinctive management function which helps establish and maintain mutual lines of communication, understanding, acceptance and co-

200 Vol. 25, No. 2

Definition, Dimensions, and Domain

operation between an organization and its publics; involves the management of problems or issues; helps management to keep informed on and responsive to public opinion; defines and emphasizes the reponsibility of management to serve the public interest; helps management keep abreast of and effectively utilize change, serving as an early warning system to help anticipate trends; and uses research and sound and ethical communication techniques as its principal tools.*

In the mid- 199Os, Stuart Ewen’s review ofpublic relations history noted still other definitions and metaphors: public relations as educator,5 creator and/or manipulator of symbols,6 news engineer,’ publicity doctor,s perception manager,’ and middleperson.

A review of more recent public relations definitions in textbooks and aca- demic literature suggests a number of common themes but no true convergence.” In fact, at least two of the major introductory textbooks offer no definition per se, but outline characteristics of public relations practice. The most common defini- tional components appear to be “management,” “organization,” and “publics.” Practitioner definitions tend to focus on “management,” “organization,” and “publics” as well. For example, a widely quoted definition from Denny Griswold, which first appeared in the Public Relations News: “Public relations is the man- agement function which evaluates public attitudes, identifies the policies and pro- cedures of an organization with the public interest, and executes a program of action to earn public understanding and acceptance.”

From one perspective, it might be said that public relations has evolved from “the public be fooled” to “the public be damned” to “the public be manipulated” to “the public be informed” to “the public be involved or accommodated.” Un- fortunately, however, nothing even close to a consensus has emerged fi-om all of these definitions. The situation today seems little different than 40 years ago, when, as one writer put it, public relations was “a brotherhood of some 100,000 whose common bond is its profession and whose common woe is that no two of them can ever quite agree on what that profession is.“il

A standard criticism of public relations definitions is that they tend to be focused more on the effects of public relations and/or the specific tasks that practitioners engage in, rather than on its fundamental purpose. Another common criticism is that many of the academic definitions are normative or prescriptive, rather than descriptive of public relations’ true function in contemporary com- merceand politics. For example, the concept of persuasion is very much a part of everyday practice, yet few academic definitions include persuasion as a basic tenet. Similarly, few academic or even practitioner-organizations’ definitions of public relations address the issue of manipulating public opinion, but many major agen- cies still define their primary business in those terms. For example, two top Burson- Marsteller executives wrote: “Public relations is the art and science of creating, altering, strengthening or overcoming public opinion.“i2

Taken as a whole, academic definitions of public relations can be criticized on several other counts. For example, most definitions do not identify their core

Summer 1999 201

Public Relations Review

concept (e.g., “communication” or “relationships”), and even those that do iden- tify their core concept do not develop it in a substantive way. Virtually all of the definitions speak to the issue of “organizations,” ignoring the practice of public relations for individuals or groups of people who are not formally organized. Perhaps most important, the definitions, both individually and collectively, lack the richness of thought and the eloquence of simplicity that characterized many of the historical definitions of the field.

Complicating matters in the academic world are attempts by scholars to force-fit theory from other fields onto public relations. For example, Gordon’s13 proposal that “public relations is the active participation in social construction of meaning,” in keeping with Blumer’s14 “symbolic interactionism,” lacks discrimi- nant validity. Such definitions, which fail to distinguish public relations not just from other communication fields but also from large areas of sociology, psychol- ogy and cultural studies, simply muddy the waters. They are akin to the problems associated with Bagozzi’si5 definition ofmarketing as “exchange,” which sounded promising at first blush, but was so comprehensive that it did not distinguish marketing from economics, communication and other fields.

Interestingly, compared with the academic world, the range and diversity of terms and definitions for public relations in the practitioner world are larger and arguably more eclectic. Unfortunately, that diversity appears to be less the result of creativity and divergent philosophies than the result of misunderstanding, confu- sion, superficiality, a lack of business knowledge,r6 and an exodus from the seman- tic baggage of the term “public relations.”

The decline of “public relations” as the field’s guiding descriptive term has been noted for many years now. Olasky,17 among many others, has noted that practitioners of public relations have become associated with a litany of derogatory terms such as “tools of the top brass,” “hucksters,” “parrots,” “low-life liars” and “impotent, evasive, egomaniacal, and lying.” Adams” reports that in 1992 only about 75 of the Fortune 500 companies were using some form of the phrase “public relations” and in 1997 only six ofthe top 50 public relations firms used the term in their title. At his recent induction into the Arthur W. Page Society’s Hall of Fame, Daniel J. Edelman said that “our mission is to bring honor and respect to the term ‘public relations’ rather than discarding it.“19 Despite Edelman’s plead- ings, the temptation to get out from under the term has been too great for most top practitioners in the corporate arena, paralleling the trend toward “image/ perception/reputation management” in the agency world.

The rise of terms such as “reputation management,” “perception manage- ment,” and “image management” appears to be an ominous trend for the field, partly because they have come into favor for most of the wrong reasons: the tendency of managers who lack training in public relations to think in superficial terms like “image” and “perception”; the large number of major public relations firms that are owned by advertising agencies,20 who tend to be more comfortable with such terms; and the desire to bury the negative connotations of “public relations,” once and for all. As David Finn,21 Doug Newsom22 and others have pointed out, however, concepts such as “reputation” and “image” are not gener-

202 Vol. 25, No. 2

De&&on, Dimensions, and Domain

ally something that can be managed directly, but are omnipresent and the global result of a firm’s or individual’s behavior.

Further complicating things in the practitioner world, beyond the addition of new terms, is the use of old and new terms in different ways. “Corporate communications,” which used to be mostly a synonym for “public relations” in corporations, is now being used by many individuals to mean an organization’s internal communications. “Public affairs,” which used to refer to government relations or a combination of government, community, and related communica- tions, is now a frequent substitute for “public relations.”

A major consequence of the semantic confusion surrounding public rela- tions is that, contrary to much talk about “integrated” communications, the public relations field is generally disintegrating. Particularly the higher-end functions (i.e., those that are best paid and closest to top management), such as investor relations and government relations, are being lost to other liurctional areas within organi- zations.

For example, the National Investor Relations Institute reported that the percentage of investor relations managers reporting to the chief financial officer or treasurer (rather than the chief public-relations officer) rose horn 44% to 56% in just the 4-year span from 1988 to 1992.23 Similarly, many corporate public rela- tions departments have lost responsibility for crisis communications to manage- ment consulting firms and marketing departments (e.g., the American Marketing Association now publishes a book called Crisis Marketing); responsibility for cor- porate identity programs has sometimes been lost to marketing; government rela- tions to the legal department; and internal/employee communications to the human resources department. The extreme of this phenomenon was illustrated by Burger King a few years ago when it “integrated” its communications function into the organization by disbanding the public relations department. Its media relations (the only communications function that could not half-way logically be assigned to another functional area with the organization) was given to the “diversity” depart- ment.

To the extent it loses key components to other functional areas, public relations becomes more vulnerable to being subordinated entirely by another function, such as marketing or human resources. In some cases, public relations people are willingly subordinating themselves to functions such as marketing. One agency owner, for example, declared that “the central doctrine of public relations is molding news and public opinion to match a marketing strategy.“24 Another possible threat to the whole of public relations is represented by “stakeholder relations,” a growing topic in the management departments of business schools.

“DIMENSIONS” OF PUBLIC RELATIONS: THE MISSING THEORJZTICAL LINK?

One of the major problems in reconciling the long list of public relations definitions is that little research has explored what might be termed

Summer 1999 203

Public Relations Review

the fundamental “dimensions” of public relations. Grunig and Hunt’s25 “four models” typology is the basis for numerous articles and the largest sponsored research project in the field’s history,26 yet there is little evidence that the under- lying dimensions-direction of communication (one-way or two-way) and bal- ance of intended effects (asymmetrical or symmetrical)-discriminate among the many public relations theories or practice philosophies,27 or are causally related to any substantive measure of organizational success.

Cancel et aL2’ question the discrete nature of the “four models” dimensions by suggesting that a continuum is a more appropriate framework. They also focus on only one of the two dimensions (the “balance of intended effects,” or how much the public relations activities are intended to serve the client’s versus the public’s interest) as the basis for their “Contingency Theory ofAccommodation in Public Relations.” While their premise represents an important step forward in theory development, neither theory nor empirical data suggest that only one dimension is likely to provide a framework for all of the basic public relations theories, philosophies, or orientations. Among the many other candidates to rep- resent the underlying critical dimensions of public relations theory and practice: perception vs. reality, short-term vs. long-term goals, degree of honesty, amount of research, number of stakeholders (and the specific stakeholders selected), inter- nal vs. external orientation, image vs. substance, level of effect (awareness vs. attitude vs. behavior), and level of initiative (reactive vs. pro-active).

While yet to be tested, the hypothesis presented here, based largely on a reading of public relations theories-in-use but also on existing academic theory, is that three dimensions are the candidates most likely to explain the substantive differences among the various orientations or definitions of public relations. For the sake of simplicity and memorability, the dimensions may be referred to as the “3 I’s”: interest, initiative, and image.

The “interest” dimension is analogous to the “balance of intended effects” proposed by Grunig and Hunt and refined by Cancel et al.29 The question it answers is, “To what degree is the public relations function focused on client interests versus the public interest ?” At one extreme lies a philosophy of “The public be damned,” while at the other extreme lies a belief that the public’s interest should supersede the client’s interest (not eliminating the possibility, of course, that the organization will ultimately benefit by its beneficence).

The second dimension, “initiative,” answers the question, “To what extent is the public relations function reactive versus pro-active?” Almost every practitio- ner can relate to this issue, which can be measured largely by public relations activities designed to anticipate and help shape emerging organizational issues. Among the common practitioner techniques indicative of pro-activity are stake- holder surveys, communication audits, crisis planning, issues management, and strategic communications planning.

The third dimension, “image,” answers the question, “To what extent is the organization focused on perception vs. reality (or image vs. substance)?” Certainly the two ends of the scale are not mutually exclusive, but this dimension represents the general focus of an organization’s or individual’s philosophy, thoughts and

204 Vol. 25, No. 2

Definition. Dimensions. and Domain

actions. As a practical matter, it is generally not difficult to determine the relative focus of a given public relations function on a perception/reality or image/ substance continuum. Richard Nixon’s admonition during the Watergate scandal, “Let’s PR it,” might represent one end of the continuum, while an anonymous corporate gift to a charitable organization might represent the other extreme.

It is important to note that a given public relations mnction can cover a range of territory on each dimension, given the contingency nature of public relations practice. It is quite conceivable that an organization’s public relations activities can be pro-active and reactive, oriented toward image and substance, and client-centered and public-centered-all in the same day. Even a brief reading of the organization’s public relations structure, plan and general activities, however, normally would be enough to locate the organization’s general orientation along each dimension.

It is also quite possible that a fourth dimension or additional dimensions (e.g., “interactivity,” to capture one-way vs. two-way communication) might pro- vide additional insight, but such additions might destroy the model’s parsimony and its ability to be depicted in a relatively simple graphic form.

A FRAMEWORK FOR DEFINITIONS OF PUBLIC RELATIONS

The three-dimensional cube created by “initiative,” “inter- est,” and “image” provides a framework by which to analyze various definitions of public relations. Figure 1 (“A Three-Dimensional Framework for Analyzing Public Relations Theory and Practice”) provides a judgment-based interpretation of where current public relations definitions may lie, in three-dimensional space.

When analyzed in the context of this framework, there appear to be six relatively distinct orientations or models of public relations practice: persuasion, advocacy, public information, cause-related public relations, image/reputation management, and relationship management.

Persuasion

This category includes those philosophies of public rela- tions that are pro-active and oriented toward persuading audiences to think or act in ways that benefit the client-organization (“client-organization” referring to either an individual, group, or organization). Public relations programs or cam- paigns that focus on promotion, propaganda or the “engineering of consent” all fall in this category, distinguished from each other primarily by their strategic tenets and choice of tactics rather than their basic purpose. For example, a promo- tional campaign that utilizes media publicity and product placements in feature films might be using an agenda-setting style of persuasion by attempting to place the client-organization’s product on consumers’ mental agendas, with the goal of increasing awareness and ultimately sales of the product. In contrast, a pro-choice

Summer 1999 205

Public Relations Review

(top view)

initiative 4 b

pro-active reactive

(front view)

1. persuasion 2. advocacy 3. public information 4. cause-related public relations 5. image/reputation management 6. relationship management

4 image

b

perception reality

(side view)

Fz&ure 1. A Three-Dimensional Framework for Analyzing Public Relations Theory and Practice

or antiabortion campaign might utilize propaganda as its fundamental communi- cations strategy, including standard propaganda tactics such as demonizing oppo- nents, telling only the client-organization’s side of the story, creating or manipu- lating symbols of various kinds, exploiting young people, and appealing to emotions much more than reason in order to affect public opinion and effect legislation favorable to the client-organization’s position. It is important to note that persuasion, as used here, encompasses a wide range of strategies from a variety of fields, including sociology, social psychology, experimental psychology, cogni- tive psychology, semiotics, communications and marketing.