PR FROM THE BEACH

On the slaying of dragons and Brexit's headless chickens

In business, we have a wealth of information available to us on leadership. From Harvard to Oxford there are tomes filled with guidance designed to develop those in leadership positions. Yet here we are. Brexit vote complete and a whole country is now 'steered' by a coop of headless chickens.

At a time when true leadership is vital, the UK parliament is peopled with buffoons and xenophobes fighting like rats in a sack for power and position rather than turning their attention to their job of serving the country and the people they represent. Cameron's last act - putting everything into a holding pattern and neatly avoiding triggering Article 50 - was probably the only thing he could do the morning after the results came through.

Wouldn't it have been tremendous if, at that point, his colleagues turned their attention to the good of the people, rather than immersing themselves in the machinations of a leadership battle, leaving the populace facing the ineptitude of  jumped-up journalist Johnson and the glacial Gove. As for the spectacle of Farage speaking at the EU Parliament - once again I had to step away from the keyboard for a while so as to not write in anger.  His behaviour, demeanour and words were utterly shameful and, wittingly, unwittingly or simply half-wittedly, echoing an infamous phrase attributed to Adolf Hitler.

The 'Leave' campaign presented the UK with a dragon. The beast was supposedly responsible for all the ills of the country and the suffering of the people and, once slain, all would be well in the kingdom. Pens would be drawn at the ballot boxes. At a stroke a new day would dawn. The beast, though mythical, was slain. But there were no knights to rally the people. Instead, the dubious and incompetent squires bickered their way into new battles of their own making and there they remain, squabbling, self-serving and divisive, ripping out the heart and cutting off the head of the country they were - and are - supposed to serve.

There isn't a single leader among them. Not one capable of stepping up to the mark and healing the bitter division that this process has caused. And it is the division, hatred and prejudice that this process has created that truly breaks my heart because those are the things that will take the longest to heal - scars that will take decades to fade.

A leader needs many qualities - listening, empathy, understanding, foresight, courage, wisdom and tenacity to name but a few. In business, leaders are nurtured, trained and the best of them understand they must learn continuously. The headless chickens of the Westminster coups say much, know little and apparently care less.

St George, a Syrian immigrant born of Greek parents who ended up a Roman soldier, was named England's patron saint by King Edward III in 1327. A patron saint is named not because they come from the country that chooses them but because they embody the characteristics the kingdom wants to project to the outside world. On current form, those in charge in the UK - and I use the term 'in charge' loosely - should perhaps take a moment to look at the legends and behaviours of this quintessentially 'English' saint who also stands as a nominal spiritual guard over other countries in Europe. Perhaps then they might realise that the characteristics they are currently presenting to the British people and the outside world belittle and shame us all.

*Image - wikicommons - Mummers  of St Albans enact St George and the Dragon

Why you need public relations

Public relations builds and sustains the relationships we need to keep our licence to operate - but what is a 'licence to operate' and why should your organisation care?  This three minute video and three minute read gives you the reasons why your licence to operate should be at the forefront of your thinking - and why you need public relations to help you keep it.

 

Unlike a statutory licence, granted by an authority - for example, government, association, academic institution - a 'social' licence to operate is the ongoing acceptance of an activity undertaken by an organisation by the community in which it operates. It is the permission we give to others to do something, make something, sell something or run something. Communities consist of many stakeholders - for example, employees, customers and suppliers in a commercial organisation -or voters, ratepayers, politicians and service providers in a public sector organisation. How the community and the organisation relate to each other will dictate the strength of the licence to operate.  

Imagine a manufacturer of goods. Customers want to know workers are not exploited, conditions are good and pay is fair. Should exploitation take place, customers will not buy the product. No sales means the licence to operate is withdrawn - not because of quality or price but because of organisational behaviour. The manufacturer would not be considered trustworthy, customers would be unsatisfied with the behaviour and any loyalty eroded. Add to that consequential reputational damage and the ability to conduct business becomes impossible.

Next, imagine a government. Over years, promises and policies put forward at the time of election remain unfulfilled. Voters have suffered economic and social hardship as a result. Jobs are few, houses are scarce, health care is negligible and everyone is disillusioned. Come the election, the sitting government is voted out, no longer legitimate and licence to operate withdrawn. Again, erosion of trust, satisfaction - even the loyalty and commitment of  long established supporters - results in a relationship breakdown and no renewal of licence.

Without a good relationship between an organisation and its communities the licence to operate is eroded and eventually withdrawn. Sometimes by the community itself - for example no purchases or a withdrawal of labour - and sometimes by legislative default - for example the UK's recent sugar tax or today's announcement in New Zealand of plain packaging on cigarettes.

A licence to operate is nothing new or revolutionary. With its roots in the Ancient Greek concept of moral legitimacy, to the social contract theory of the 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes, last century saw further development of the principle in political, social and environmental thinking. The notion that we all do what we do only by the permission of others has gained further ground with the advent of mass digital engagement. Available technologies give voice to communities and empower them to force change, taking back those 'licences' should organisations fail to perform.  

The New Zealand Sustainable Business Council produced an excellent paper on the 'Social Licence to Operate' which makes very interesting reading and one extract illustrates the concept well:

"Society’s confidence in business has been shaken. The global financial crisis, which saw whole economies teetering on the bridge of bankruptcy, a massive destruction of personal wealth and unemployment at historically high levels called into question the right of business to operate in such an apparently uncontrolled and unregulated manner. This loss in confidence in business gave rise to a number of public uprisings, the most prominent of these being the ‘occupy movement’. This movement gained momentum using social media to organise protests and communicate their view that large corporations and the global nancial system control the world in a way that disproportionately bene ts a minority (hence the slogan ‘we are the 99%’), undermines democracy and is inherently unstable. While this movement is seen by many as a radical movement, increasingly connected, informed and financially comfortable parts of our global society are now demanding to see greater ethics, accountability and transparency from the business community. The context in which business is operating in is also changing. Global consumers have greater expectations for the role companies should play in giving back to society."

So why do you need public relations to help you sort all this out? Because our business is organisational relationships. We identify the communities and stakeholders, assess expectations and perspectives, investigate organisational values, culture and behaviour and then develop and implement strategies that will help build and sustain the relationships in question. That involves communication, behaviour and understanding - and courage on our part to challenge that rambunctious CEO or council leader and tell them the culture has to change or the behaviour has to stop. It also means us scrutinising your data, poking about in the corners of your reputation to see where cracks in the relationships are forming, alerting you and providing you with a means to repair the damage. It also means that we will be involved with reporting on the organisation's community impact, its sustainability and contribution to society - and if you are skeptical on that score, I'd suggest a visit to the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC) to become familiar with what's ahead. 

So if you were wondering why you might need public relations, now you know. You need to keep your licence to operate and we can help you build and sustain the relationships you need to do just that.

How to measure public relations

 

Following on from my last post, another dangerous perspective in public relations and communication is that it what we do can't be measured. Well, that's just not true and I firmly believe that the reluctance (even after all these years) to properly measure, evaluate and report back on public relations activity is caused by the identity crisis that grips our profession.

Because practitioners find themselves working on the fringes, directed to send stuff out, they don't see - or get involved with - the whole process of public relations - which is building and maintaining the relationships organisations need to keep their licence to operate. They get bogged down measuring (totally irrelevant) newspaper clippings or counting mentions, along with retweets, likes and shares in more recent years. While some of these things might indicate whether or not your stakeholders have heard and understood you, they don't, in themselves, tell you if your relationship has improved or if the work you are doing has adequately supported your organisational outcomes.  For example, has satisfaction, loyalty, trust, commitment or reputation been improved? Have sales increased? Has a policy change been accepted as valid? Have attitudes or behaviour changed? Has the work undertaken increased or decreased the societal or commercial value of the organisation's relationships with its internal and external stakeholders?

There has been plenty of research over the years into the nature of organisational relationships - back in 1999, Grunig and Hon produced some initial research and approaches to relationship measurement and there has been much added since.  Yet still I encounter practitioners still caught up with fake measurement models loosely based on 20th century assumptions of our purpose and its relationship to the organisation. In an attempt to encourage practitioners to think about measurement from a different perspective, here's a three minute overview of the process that I've put together and if it encourages even one person somewhere to rethink their approach to public relations research, measurement and evaluation, it's been time well spent.

Practitioners have an ethical duty to properly research, measure and evaluate their work. It is not a holy grail - more an every day cup at the back of the cupboard that few can be bothered to dig out and use. Making research, measurement and evaluation part of the daily routine will do much to demonstrate the value of public relations - particularly given we live and work in a relationship driven society - and address the question of professional identity. It really is time we measured up and demonstrated just how effective we are.

Let's break public relations - and boldly head to the future

 

Everywhere in the world you can hear the same cries - ‘business is broken’ or, more worryingly, ‘government is broken’. If we are to help assuage these cries, then PR needs to break too - break away from past misconceptions, determine its role for the future and equip practitioners with the skills and understanding they need in order to get things fixed.

Public relations builds and sustains the relationships we need to keep our licence to operate - that is what we do. 

Relationships involve trust, satisfaction, commitment, loyalty and reputation. Poor communication undermines and breaks down even the best relationships, so communication (visual, written, oral and experiential) plays a significant part in public relations practice - but it isn’t the only element. There are many facets to public relations practice and to really determine the future and relevancy of the profession, those facets need to be recognised, acknowledged and explained within all types of organisations and at all levels, as well as to wider society.

Leading Ladies - why the future of business is female

With the number of women on boards at woefully low levels in many parts of the world, it is unsurprising that initiatives designed to increase representation are being introduced. Trouble is, these initiatives move at a glacial pace and the big loser isn’t women - it is business itself.

The significant finding in the recently published Ketchum Leadership Communication Monitor  (alongside the poor performance of leaders in general) was ‘a new leadership model, driven by the new breed of ‘Leadership eVangelist’, centered on a more ‘feminine’ leadership archetype and based on a set of clear guiding principles’.

In short, the study found that effective communication is critical but leaders aren’t performing against expectations. However, when present, female leaders outperform male leaders when it comes to the most important ‘leader attributes’ of leading by example, communicating in an open and transparent way, admitting mistakes, bringing out the best in others and in their calm handling of controversial issues or crises.

Seven handy hints for hashtag help

Hashtags are interesting things - one minute they look cute, cuddly and amusing and the next they roar into life, turn around and bite you. I thought this post would be helpful to those wrestling with the way in which they use hashtags, with public relations and communication professionals uppermost in my mind. So below you'll find seven handy hints to help avoid hashtag horror.

Has Linkedin blown it with its new 'social popularity' tool?

I have to confess that I have never been a big fan of Linkedin. Probably wrong of me, but from the start it nagged me too much with repetitive alerts and updates. Groups were gradually taken over by sellers rather than debaters - which is fair enough, just not my thing. The news then, that Linkedin has introduced a new 'ranking' tool made me cringe, reminiscent as it is of high school popularity contests and all the angst that goes with them.

Beware the creeping algorithms softly invading your privacy

Hot on the heels of the EU Court of Justice ruling around the 'right to be forgotten', I attended the Auckland Writers' Festival debate with Iraqi/English scientist Jim Al-Khalili, Dutch historian Frank Dikotter, New Zealand privacy expert Bob Stevens, and British broadcaster, writer and comedian Sandi Toksvig.  

Under scrutiny was the topic 'Is privacy an outdated concept' and, while Jim and Bob made some interesting points around the nature and history of privacy, Sandi and Frank won the night (for me at least) with their arguments in favour of retaining and strengthening rights to privacy both online and off.

Fonterra's crisis competency falls whey short

There's been much commentary on the Fonterra botulism scare and the subsequent reputational meltdown since the company broke the news of the contaminated whey just a fortnight ago.

Heads have started to roll - first Gary Romano and now two other managers - and there will probably be other management team members looking for a new job before things settle down. 

What I have found unbelievable is the lack of unpreparedness apparent in New Zealand's biggest company. As the scare unfolded it was evident in every public interaction - and inaction - that nobody at Fonterra had ever thought to plan for a crisis. Whether this was due to arrogance or incompetence we will never know.

Given the Sanlu scandal of 2008, I would have thought that Fonterra (renamed Fonterror during that scare) might have learnt a lesson or two. But it would seem not.  

What we got this time around was a display of complete incompetence, misinformation, misinformation leading to panic, damage to the country's global reputation and the image of all manner of individuals - from the Prime Minister to small scale baby-food manufacturers - running around like headless chickens attempting to correct things but in reality making it all a lot worse.

No company or organisation can deem themselves to be 'above' a crisis. I only hope that the executive team now realises the importance of crisis planning, effective communication and the value of reputation which, to be frank, were things that they seem to have felt beneath their consideration.  I also have some sympathy with Gary Romano who from the outset was let loose on the media without - it would seem - proper preparation or support. Seldom have I seen such a shambolic performance from a such senior player.

Alongside the inquiries into how the contamination occurred, I hope Fonterra is forced to scrutinise its crisis planning and communication - it has little remaining social capital here or abroad and another bungled crisis could mean the end of the road for this farming conglomerate along with New Zealand's ability to export food products to global consumers.

Protests inevitable at Thatcher funeral

It is absolutely inevitable that there will be protests at Margaret Thatcher's funeral. She polarised people in life and the same will be true of her death - which is why I think the whole notion of the 'pomp and circumstance' farewell she is being given (at huge expense, albeit shared between the British taxpayer and her estate) is a complete nonsense.

I was a young reporter when she came to power and that election was the first I ever covered. In the months and years that followed, I covered the riots, the job losses, the broken dreams and circumstances of many, many British people and watched as those more fortunately placed in the Thatcherite system did exceptionally well.  

She was an astute politician, well served by her public relations practitioners of the time and her staunch-but-scary Chief Press Secretary Sir Bernard Ingham.  Following her death, many people have remarked that Margaret Thatcher genuinely loved the country that she served. Trouble was, she never really seemed to like the real flesh-and-blood people of Britain very much at all. And it will be those people, the ones who watched their lives and livelihoods crumble to dust under her reign, who will turn their backs on the funeral cortege as it rumbles through London beneath a silent Big Ben. 

She spoke a great deal about prudence in her time. A private funeral would have been a more prudent choice.