“Let’s be blunt about the issue of accreditation. Who of us hasn’t heard colleagues be sarcastic about it? I have heard everything from tongue-in-cheek comments to direct criticism of the imprimatur. But does that sarcasm or criticism ever come from one who holds the APR designation? Never….”
- – Susan Prather, APR Principal Prather PR
The problem for PRSA these days is multifaceted. As the leading public relations organization in America, the entity has been a consistent cheerleader for its accreditation process, one that helps to ensure a higher standard among those of us in the profession. Its comPRehension blog is ripe with testimonials touting the benefits of becoming accredited.
The lone voices who are critical of PRSA tend to be marginal, a symptom of the nature of an organization that values glad-handing over critical thought. More problematic is the fact that as a PR organization, PRSA frequently sets a lousy example in handling its own PR problems. When criticized, the responses have at times been bizarre, questionable and time-wasting. Usually, the organization does what too many in the profession do: ignore that a problem may exist or gloss it over.
This dynamic has been most noted in the recent controversy wherein notable PR figures began promoting a petition to remove the requirement for having the APR designation in order to participate in PRSA’s national governance opportunities. The issue went viral fairly quickly and has sparked a debate about how an organization can officially exclude the bulk of its members from governance thereby reifying its own accreditation process.
Despite what Prather, quoted above, says – maybe she hasn’t been on the Internet lately – the Society has plenty of critics, including myself, who view the APR as being over-promoted and overvalued by the Society when in fact the APR designation is typically viewed with, at best, a question as to what it is by those outside of the profession. It’s a self-serving designation.
The official response from PRSA about the petition, however, has been either one of silence or one of putting the decision for the APR requirement back on to the PRSA board, which consists primarily of APRs.
[EDIT: July 21, 2010: Based on this discussion on LinkedIn, I learned this is in fact not the case. Debra Bethard-Caplick, MBA, APR, explains: "But, Bob, the PRSA board didn't 'levy the APR requirement as a prerequisite to its own governance.' Quite the contrary. As I said in my earlier post, eliminating the APR as a requirement for board service was part of a package of bylaws changes put forth at last year's Assembly, at which I was a voting delegate. It was voted down by that Assembly, where delegates holding accreditation were in the minority, yet they voted to keep that requirement for the national executive board." I apologize for posting incorrect information. -- Bob]
[EDIT: July 27, 2010: It turns out that my original statement was probably correct. Arthur Yann, APR, writes in response to Debra's comment: "Debra -- quick point of clairfication. You're correct that a recommendation advanced last year by PRSA’s Bylaws Rewrite Task Force (with the Board's approval) would have allowed any PRSA member in good standing who is APR; and/or a Chapter, District, Section or Committee leader; and/or has more than 20 years of public relations experience with increasing levels of responsibility, to run for the Board. You're also correct that the PRSA 2009 Assembly voted down this recommendation.
"However, the number of delegates, including proxies, registered prior to the 2009 PRSA Assembly was 313; of those, 227 (72.5 percent) held the Accredited in Public Relations (APR) credential. So, the delegates holding accreditation were actually in the majority.
"Hope this helps to inform the discussion." The discussion may be followed here.]
Should such a group actually take the petitioners seriously it would set a precedent by devaluing its own accreditation. What is more likely to occur is that the APRs will vote to keep the APR requirement and the Society’s leaders will continue to defer to the board as being the policy makers.
Like the APR itself, this kind of governance and decision-making process serves to preserve the status quo. Nothing could be more apropos for an organization dedicated to such a lustrous profession.
—
Like this post? Buy the book. Available in paperback or as an eBook. Or download the Kindle version.
Rich Becker
1 year ago
Bob,
When an organization begins to serve itself and not its members or its cause, it ceases to be relevant as an organization. Many nonprofit professional organizations have this challenge, when they begin to focus on increasing revenue and/or membership and forget the reasons they were founded in the first place.
Best,
Rich
Bob
1 year ago
Thanks, Rich. I would add that the nature or tenor of the organization exacerbates the problem. Too many are afraid or unwilling to protest poor policy. Doing so would be very un-PR-like.
b
Sandra Fathi
1 year ago
Hi Bob,
Thanks for sharing your views. I agree that the longevity and relevance of PRSA depends upon its ability to adapt and change – as well as address critics both from within and from without.
I’m part of the committee pushing for the change to eliminate the APR requirement for serving on national committees and the board. Maybe you or your readers would like to sign the petition as well? http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/prsa
Just to clarify, our group does not have an issue with APR itself, however, we believe that it should not be a barrier of entry into a volunteer leadership position in PRSA. We don’t think that APR as a credential, qualifies an individual for the position nor should it be an obstacle for prospective leaders in the profession to volunteer.
Thanks,
Sandra
Debra Bethard-Caplick
1 year ago
Bob, a further point of clarification on the question over the number of APRs. I based my statement on the number of APRs voting on the issue on a show-of-hands poll requested by one of the delegates during the discussion period on the issue. The number of those who raised their hands in response to the question “Who has an APR?” was clearly less than those who raised their hands to indicate they did not. Now whether a significant number of APRs either didn’t respond, or were out of the room at that point, I don’t know. While I’m willing to accept Arthur’s registration numbers, I can only report on what occurred in the room during the debate. I do know the speaker who asked that question proceeded to state her point based on the assumption that there were fewer APRs than non-APRs.