The problems with the public relations industry extend far beyond its frequent infractions and the unwillingness to follow the profession’s code of ethics, despite lecturing others for not doing the same.
As a generalist profession, public relations frequently steps into territory for which its practitioners are not technically trained. A recent tract claimed that PR pros would make great CEOs. “After all, who else besides a CEO or chairman has their finger on the pulse of a business more deeply or prominently than a PR professional?” asks the Public Relations Society of America.
Although PR training involves extensive study into PR planning, “research,” case-study analysis and news release writing, PR commentators frequently provide unsolicited expertise on all manner of business and leadership: policy, finance, laws, human resources, operations – and now, the ability to be a CEO and chairman.
The classic case of legal counsel micromanaging PR responses during a controversy frequently pales in comparison to PR counsel extending into leadership and business issues for which PR pros are frequently unqualified. As documented here and here, PR folks are quick to rush to judgment when a high-profile crisis makes news. PR people, especially empowered commentators, are no friends of those being vilified in the press.
This post, for example, benefits from a liberal amount of hindsight bias in regards to Penn State. It has three points.
The first is that “they failed to express concern for the victims.” Such a statement relies on news reporting as being representative of truth. It’s safe to assume that with her experience, the author has witnessed misrepresentations of her clients in the press; ignoring this, however, she does not give Penn State the benefit of doubt.
The second point is that “they forgot their key audience … children.” Higher education institutions operate and serve multiple – and frequently competing – constituencies, some of which are amorphous, especially during a crisis event. To assume that “children” are key among audiences prior to a press shitstorm is fantasy based only on cheap hindsight.
The third is that “they failed to plan ahead.” Ahead of what? The student reaction to JoePa’s firing. Apparently under the gun to do something right, Penn State trustees acted rashly. By definition, though, a crisis is something that cannot be fully anticipated; therefore, responses will nearly always be imperfect.
The very nature of complex organizations means that there is always a potential crisis lurking. It’s disingenuous to assume PR counselors can conjure which will become national headlines at any given moment.
Another point about acting with good intentions is also made. Ask the presumed villains at Penn State if they acted appropriately, and the answer will be an unequivocal “yes.” In fact, they have.
These points, while appropriate from a PR perspective (yes, organizations should plan for crises; yes, they should behave positively in society; and yes, they need to consider unintended audiences), ignore the complex and unique structure of universities.
As loosely coupled systems, higher education institutions frequently operate as their own quasi-governmental organizations, similar to a city government but more complex because an institution’s service area is frequently not always based on proximity to constituents. Such organizations are simply too unwieldy to fully comprehend what is and is not going on at any given moment.
This means there is no perfect response to a crisis without some level of negative press or “bad PR.” In regards to both Penn State and UC Davis, the latter having been dubbed UC PepperSpray this past weekend, it is likely a number of questions behind the scenes are being entertained:
- “Which decisions will defuse the situation the quickest?”
- “Which decisions will risk losing confidence of law enforcement?”
- “Which decisions will risk losing confidence of faculty?”
- “Which decisions will risk losing more confidence of students?”
- “Which decisions will risk losing confidence of donors and alumni?”
- “Which decisions will cost the least in terms of litigation?”
- “Which decisions will have the least negative consequences for the institution over the long term?”
- “To what degree should solid legal grounding sacrifice transparency, and vice versa?”
Acting on any one of these means there will be losers, a common consequence of decision-making in higher education; it is a rare leader who can weather these kinds of storms with grace and equanimity.
Ask Lt. John Pike, and undoubtedly the law enforcement union the likely backs him, how supported by Davis officials he feels right about now. His answer is probably akin to Duke’s lacrosse team players in 2006. They ultimately received settlements from suing Duke after being falsely accused of crimes. Arguably, Duke President Richard Broadhead handled that situation as best as possible given the circumstance.
Therefore, to look at these situations in terms of being “right” or “good” is PR nonsense. Public relations in higher education is far more complex than to embrace basic rules of crisis communications.
Bill Sledzik
3 months ago
Enjoyed the post, Bob. Three quick comments.
First, on PRSA’s notion that PR people are somehow qualified to be CEOs. OK, I’m guessing a few of them may be. But I could say the same of engineers and accountants. Yet we see damn few PR people running F-500 corporations. Why is that? Could it be that PR professionals understand the communication problem, but not the business problem? How else can you explain the incessant whining in PR circles that we deserve a “seat at the table.” Perhaps we’ve not yet earned one.
Second, on the failings of PR in the academic setting. This, too, is no surprise. Most colleges and universities are run by academics who are often ill-suited to management roles. At my own university, no strategic communicator sits on the president’s cabinet. So when crises hits, we tend to fumble it. I wrote about this back in 2009, and you posted the first comment. Imagine that! http://toughsledding.com/2009/04/bad-craziness-how-kent-state-failed-crisis-101/
Finally, to your point about lawyers. We all know the attorneys took over at Penn State. And I agree with you that most Monday morning quarterbacking in PR circles is little more than blog fodder.
And at UC-Davis. Yeah. Any response would have resulted in negative press. But the image of an overweight cop in full riot gear spraying kids who presented no threat to him? Well, I drew my own conclusions — as did millions of others. From where I sit, it’s unprovoked police brutality. Perception is reality. And we don’t have to be CEOs to know that.
Hope you are well, man.
Bob
3 months ago
Thanks, Bill. As usual we (mostly) agree. I only add that rights and responsibilities of law enforcement have to also be considered in decision-making — for better or worse, in this case. Frequently in PR, our perceptions blind us to other organizational fundamentals.
B
Bill Huey
3 months ago
Couldn’t agree more with Prof. Sledzik: Most universities are run by people who couldn’t manage a moderately busy convenience store and gas station, but each year the public hands them hundreds of millions of dollars and says, “Here, give us some of the higher education, whatever that means and however you define it.”
Spanier was probably more competent than most, but he failed to ask the tough questions and was kept in the dark by his top lieutenants.
Penn State is a first-class example of how higher education has managed to resist reform and dodge accountability over the years. And so when something as dire as the Sandusky case erupts, of course they aren’t prepared.
As for UC Davis, the chancellor needs to resign. Period. University officials–especially public university officials–need to understand that they get paid the big bucks for taking responsibility, and when you get over your skis and things go as wrong as that did, it’s time to leave.
Larry Smith
3 months ago
Bob,
I could not disagree with you more. Our company tracks negative news coverage of all kinds of businesses and organizations, and have since 1990. Two-thirds of all crises are what we call “smoldering crises.” They start out relatively small and someone should spot it or learn about it and fix it. The second problem at Penn State — someone or several someones apparently knew about the initial “issue” and didn’t act.
I believe you can anticipate and plan for most crises. After all, there are no new crises. So adminsitrators do not have to re-invent the wheel when faced with a challenge. Someone’s already been there done that.
And then to simplify the whole matter, had the Administrator/CEO or Athletic Director “done the right thing” when either was made aware, there would have been some short-term negative reaction, but nothing like the University is facing now.
Bob
3 months ago
Larry,
Thank you for your comment. Contrary to many crisis counselors, I work in a large organization that is frequently the subject of controversy. One thing I have learned is that it’s sometimes more important for the organization to risk taking a PR hit when something else is given greater credence (legal and personnel issues would fall here).
I got my start working for a university that was also the subject of a multi-year controversy that went global. I was naive in assuming, prior to the initial negative news reports, that the press had an interest in reporting fairly; I was dead wrong. I was also dead wrong about the ability of the organization to respond appropriately; this despite good advice, reasonable and appropriate administrative actions and otherwise a strong desire to do the right thing.
In short, there are many reasons we failed during those years; good intentions were not one of them. Nor was “PR.” You could have yelled from the rooftops how to best respond — many of us did — and it would not have done one ounce of good given the circumstances. (Admittedly, leadership was a chief concern at the time, an ingredient that I believe impacted PR success, or lack thereof. In fairness, leaders who can manage during a crisis are not always the best at other important components of leadership, so getting a complete package, somebody skilled and trusted at PR and various other assets, is a luxury.)
Another lesson learned: the nature of a university is such that reliable and up-to-date information is a rarity; again, this is despite good intentions.
That said, I learned then that the media and its reporting should always be viewed skeptically. It’s a trait many of my colleagues seem to comprehend when their clients are negatively impacted by lousy or innuendo-driven reporting, but memories are short when crises hit others; then, many of them comment with abandon as if news reports should be believed. The best crisis counselors in the world, some of whom I respect and have learned a great deal from, do this.
The simple facts are this:
1. We don’t know what happened at Penn State (the links in the post above, and my previous post from last week, explain why).
2. News reports are frequently wrong in fact and context for many reasons that are beyond the scope of this response (my next book, however, explains in detail, and I am happy to send a copy your way).
3. Rushing to judgment about controversial situations is therefore nearly always presumptuous because of the lack of reliable information.
I thank you for your comment. In general, PR serves a valid role in these situations, but quite often, PR is insufficient to handle these situations holistically. There are simply too many other variables to consider.
Thanks again,
Bob