A real look in the mirror.

Let's take the same type of careful look at who we are and what we do. It might suggest some much needed changes in our behavior.

We might discover that we are world-class students of our navel, asking ourselves the same few questions over and over, and repeating the very same answers. In many ways, we are myopic.

Every year the birds fly south, the salmon swim up river, and public relations lemmings undertake the umpteenth annual, holy grail search for a new definition of public relations. What hours we waste, what a spectacle we make ! We debate rather endlessly whether we should call ourselves communication or public relations people. If we choose the former, we relegate ourselves to a lower status in the eyes of management - which has not, for the most part, deigned to accord "communicators" a top executive status. Besides that, many of us do more than just communication. The best of us are accepted, sometimes revered, for our ability to analyze trends, predict their consequences and make policy recommendations that keep our clients or company at the leading edge of progress. Others deny the term "public relations" as the inclusive title and, in the process, have developed well over 100 other terms to describe what we do. Then, we have the gall to say that the public does not understand what we do. Small wonder: We've confused them too long, too thoroughly. If we would settle on one term, and spend our time doing our jobs well, people would know how we can be helpful ... and that is more important than them knowing what we do.

I suggest we accept "public relations" as the term, stop trying to redefine it, and let our actions provide the necessary definition of our work.

Where should PR be in the curricula?

Another of the annual time-wasting arguments is: Where should public relations be taught? There are advocates for many loci, but suffice it to say, the government defines where it fits. It voted for journalism and that's where most programs are. However, their location is the minor consideration and does not merit our fuss or argument.

The real issue is: Is it being taught well? And, even if it's being taught well, what can we professionals do to help make it better? What can we do to provide worthwhile guest lecturers, tours of our firms, days with a professional, and more affordable events?

What can we do to create worthwhile currency to the faculty so that they are teaching relevancies to their students? What about summer, or semester break, fellowships so PR faculty can learn what is going on in public relations? But, even this is a bit presumptuous.

Colleges and universities expect faculty to arrive with a Ph.d., know the field, and be about 26 years of age. Where, you ask, is the professional experience? The perception is correct. Many faculty do not have it. Others have experience that is thoroughly out of date. We can help a lot, if we will help them become leading-edge current. We must.

Let's give the cooperative approach to improving PR education our highest priority. If we hope to have a good future, we must take responsibility for the training of those who succeed us, and who will probably face tougher problems than we have yet known.

Management can practice PR - if it has to As we look at ourselves and our business, let us take note of the fact that almost every week a person not trained in PR is assigned to supervise the public relations function. The usual review of such a happening is phrased this way, "Oh my, another management doesn't know what PR is all about." Balderdash. For the most part management knows exactly what it is doing and, more often than not, does it well. If they don't put a PR person in charge of PR, it is usually for one of two reasons: Either no one has demonstrated how PR can help the firm achieve its objectives, or the available people don't know enough about the company, the industry and the societal climate of the day. Let's stop charging the error to management. Let's start figuring out why we were found wanting, and work to make sure that we are so good that we can't be overlooked or bypassed.

We can start with our own professional development. How many of us are really current, know all the facts and rechnologies that we should, know all the nuances of the changing society in which we live? How many of us give top priority to our own professional development? Do we just think about it or do we do it? Do we take the time that is necessary to learn what we ought to know? Do we expand our skills beyond that of the communication technician or technocrat? Do we stretch ourselves as much as we stretch and stress those who work for us? If you pass this mirror test, you are either a very rare person or are practicing self-delusion.

If we look in the mirror and see "the communication business," we shortchange ourselves, our firms and clients, and ourselves. We are in the business of anticipating problems and creating planned programs to deal with them. We are in the business of improving and expanding understanding and of changing behavior. We are charged with winning approval, and of strengthening and maintaining the host of relationships which are essential to our current and future success. We must enable our organization, or clients, and their publics to arrive at a consensus of understanding, and do it before anyone else does. Even, or perhaps most importantly, in problem solving we must demonstrate special skills: We are the people who have the strategic skills to address the now problem and, simultaneously, to set in motion the actions which will avoid a recurrence of the problem in the future. It is not enough to fix something; it must stay fixed.

Let's clean up our act

At some point, and I suggest now, we must start to clean up our own act. A look in the mirror will reveal that we tell wondrous stories about the virtues and values of accreditation. But, we don't promote or publicize it. We have not educated management or human services to realize that accreditation has meaning and value. We don't include it in our advertisements or search requirements. All of our organizations must accept the premise that accreditation is something that must be earned, and re-earned on a continuing basis. If we treated our firms or clients as we have treated accreditation, we would have been fired, or would have lost the account.

Similarly, we boast often of the great virtues of our codes of ethics, but we fail to enforce them in any manner which would develop public understanding or approval. If we are serious about codes, we must begin to enforce them. We must become the source for media on what is and what is not acceptable in public relations practice. We must address the hard questions, not just the easy ones. We must provide judgments on hypothetical cases so that practitioners and media will have and share effective guidelines.

No business has a monopoly on flacks, fakes and phonies, but we have had, still have, what seems like a disproportionate number of them. Consider the damage they've done, the counterbalancing that we now must do. The water is muddied; the environmentalists are mad. We must address and satisfy the public's expectations for improvement. And we must do this promptly, demonstrating what we can contribute to the world beyond our own self interest. We can't just do well; we must make up for a lot.

PR as a profession is arguable Look into the mirror again and recite the fruitless arguments about whether public relations is, or is not a profession. Fact: It isn't. A profession has four basic characteristics: (1) a generally accepted course of readily available graduate study, (2) a government-administered examination for access to the license, or certified, profession, (3) required continuing education requirements, (4) local and national organizations which monitor and, when necessary, censure. If it is possible to license physicians, certify brain and heart surgeons, surely it is also possible to do the same for public relations people. Let's stop hiding behind the facades of flag-draped, freedom of speech misconceptions and decide if we really want to be a profession. If IABC and PRSA decide we do, we can. And, if we are not serious about being a profession, let's stop wasting time talking about it and wishing that the inept, incompetent and unscrupulous will go away. Without a police power, they stay and complicate our existence, postpone much progress.

There are many things that we are, perhaps even more that we are not. But as we become more self-critical, let us always remember that we have been privileged to pursue that which is probably the most exciting, most intellectually challenging, and most satisfying craft that ever existed. It is good, perhaps great, but we can and should make it better.

Shakespeare's advice in Hamlet" would work well for us: "This above all: to thine own self be true."

Look hard in that mirror. Look honestly, And then let us change, work together, and progress. Frank Winston Wylie, APR, is chairman, department of journalism, California State University, Long Beach.

EMPLOYEE COMMUNICATION OFTEN EGO MASSAGE

Internal communication has been, perhaps always will be, hampered by egosOften management is too unwilling to make the hard decisions. At other times, they see internal communications as a slathering of good news and 'ataboys. They want to be loved, but often do little to deserve that love. In contrast, the tradition of internal communication is that often the less competent were chosen for internal...while the most competent were chosen to interact with the public and media.

Fortunately, management's judgment often was flawed. Some superb people found their way into internal communication and did miracles. Those early, but very important pioneers, are the angels and saints in our heaven.

Professor Frank

W. Wylie

California State

University, Long Beach