Specific Comments

specific comments

on governance

Richard Linning

2010-03-31 kl 08:22 | edit

As a tool for communication beyond the pr community – and even for many within without a full grasp of the current academic jargon – the language is far too compl;iacted. I am also missing a link between the “custodians”, “value networks” and what reads like a practitioners job description.

Edward O’Meara

2010-04-08 kl 16:02 | edit

In this age of transparency, I’d like to see the final point include a modifier of trustworty behavior.

For example, can we call for “authentic and verifiable representation”? Simply stating that a PR professional will deliver analysis and recommendations avoids any actual behavioral obligations.

toni muzi falconi

2010-04-08 kl 17:37 | edit

excellent point Edward…personally I fully agree. I am sure some will say that we are not there to verify if the info we are asked to disseminate (for example) is truthful and some may say that we lack the competencies to do this. Having said this, in principle, I agree.

Julian Polachek

2010-05-05 kl 05:03 | edit

Agree completely with Richard.

on management

Richard Linning

2010-03-31 kl 08:29 | edit

I would prefer the second paragraph – “A communicative organisation … ” to come first.

Julian Polachek

2010-05-05 kl 04:59 | edit

I think it has been said on other pages but these statements seem to be overburdened with management jargon/weasel words. e.g. ‘Communicative value’, ‘operations and resource management’ etc..

It seems to dilute the overall point, which I gather is just that we interpret and respond to issues on behalf an organisation, and that we should do it ethically.

As a practitioner myself, I doubt that I would benefit from the statement in its current form.

Apologies if that seems too reductionist, or is too harsh a criticism, but it’s difficult to see what the actual utility of this is in its current form.

on sustainability

Richard Linning

2010-03-31 kl 08:43 | edit

Again jargon “network society” – there has always been networked societies, The difference is only the means and channels of communication. And its only a “transformative opportunity” if the organisation “communicates” ie uses pr.

Reflections on the media and the UK Election | 21st-century PR issues › Paul Seaman’s online review

2010-04-22 kl 10:37 am | edit

[...] so both need to be engaged. But it’s largely a myth that there’s a new engaged online networked society that changes the rules of PR and communication in [...]

on external communication

Richard Linning

2010-03-31 kl 08:46 | edit

Same comment – boundaries suggests limits. Rather “new approach” .. and isn’t this almost an admission of our failure in the past to recognize the extent of the “external”?

Julian Polachek

2010-05-05 kl 05:32 | edit

The ‘network society’ and ‘communicative organisation’ buzzwords are confusing/distracting.

Why not just go for something along the lines of – “Owing to technological and societal changes, modern organisations face a higher level of scrutiny etc..

on  internal communication

Richard Linning

2010-03-31 kl 08:44 | edit

“new boundaries” suggests to me limits .. approach is a better concept?

Sean Williams

2010-03-31 kl 12:15 | edit

Kudos on taking on a valiant struggle. Aside from “how knowledge is shared”
this seems a very one-way, HQ-centric perspective. What of collaboration across organizational boundaries, or of an organization learning from its employees? What of measurement in the internal space, apart from the current engagement focus (which assumes much regarding employees’ willingness to expend discretionary effort)?

on coordination

Richard Linning

2010-03-31 kl 08:49 | edit

A rephrasing of “think global – act local”? It is not a matter of “balance”, its a matter of consistency of the message across the whole spectrum, albeit adapting to language etc.

toni muzi falconi

2010-03-31 kl 09:14 | edit

Richard,
excellent comments throughout and very useful. My only query relates to this one (as for your numerous references to jargon and more specifically to the concept of value networks, please see my reply to Tim Marshall’s comment).
In the preparation phase of this first draft, we encountered some substantial differences of opinion related to the issue of ‘one company one voice’ versus the ‘one company many voices’ which, to be open, I much prefer.
The question to you is: what do you mean by consistency?
Are you referring to the same content (as the following ‘albeit adapting to language’ might imply)or are you instead implying that the public relations professional must endevour coherence (rather than consistency)?
This is, as you correctly state, topical and it could be important for me to understand what you really mean.
thank you
toni

Julian Polachek

2010-05-05 kl 05:38 | edit

Similar comment to Richard. This section is particularly academic and vague.

Is it trying to say that it is the practitioner’s job to coordinate and ensure consistentency in complex organisational environments which can span X, Y and Z?

Joao Duarte

2010-05-15 kl 18:48 | edit

Julian, I think the main idea here is that when we deal with communicative dilemmas (each dilemma involving different issues, stakeholders and relationship strategies) integration between internal and external is a ‘must’ and not a ‘nice to have’. The internal-external barriers in organizations have eroded; individuals are simultaneously part of different and conflicting stakeholder groups; organizational strategies are also often competitive (i.e. different organizational units pursuing sometimes conflicting objectives). This is where coherence comes in. PR professionals need to use solid guiding principles when tackling communication dilemmas (the organizational DNA given by mission, vision, values being of course the key framework and transparency being the only approach to sustainable relationships)

toni muzi falconi

2010-05-16 kl 07:30 | edit

Benita Steyn from South Africa did not succeed in posting this comment I have just received:

I also prefer ‘one company, many voices’, not least because it gives an organisation many ‘human touch points’ (as Paul Chaney puts it) and as such, increases transparency. Consistency remains important and will result if communication (from many voices) is based on ‘solid guiding principles — the organizational DNA given by mission, vision, values,’ as Joao puts it.

It is important that PR provides coherence, i.e. see that the communication from the ‘many voices’ are clearly connected and intelligible to internal and external stakeholders. As much as PR has a ‘listening role’ to make sure that management is well informed on stakeholder and societal expectations/ values/ norms, PR also has an ‘expressive role’ to communicate the organisation’s identity to all stakeholders. In the communicative organisation that speaks with many voices, PR is but one voice and does not do all the ‘expressing’ (i.e. all the talking) on behalf of the organisation but it still needs to make sure that internal and external stakeholders understand what the organisations stands for. It therefore needs to dot the i’s — and in such a way, effect coherence amongst the ‘many voices’.

powered by connexia

Switch to our mobile site