In PR, we are advocates and we’re beholden to those who sign the paychecks. To believe otherwise — well that’s utopian. But we also must act in the boundary-spanning role to help our clients and employers understand and better align with the needs of our key publics. We must be their advocates, too. I’m convinced, based on experience, that no one else at the table is gonna do this — most particularly the marketers.

I don’t have any problem reconciling advocacy and boundary spanning, and always tried to play that dual role in my career. I recall many a day at the “table” when I was the lone voice shouting “no.” I was seen as “not team player.”

“Why are you so negative all the time?” one boss used to ask me. I managed to resist the obvious: “Because I’m surrounded by morons with tunnel vision and no morals.” (Hey, I worked in advertising agencies too long. What can I say?) To be honest, the lack of moral fiber in business is the primary reason I had to leave the business. I no longer had the courage to fight that battle, and I saw what was coming — a shift from responsible business practices to practices based solely on maximizing shareholder value, aka, greed, greed, greed.

But I agree that the 2-way symmetrical model is utopian in may ways. And that’s precisely why I admire it. It gives us a beacon, and it helps to remind us that the goals of the organization must align with the public interest or we’re all in deep, deep shit. The events unfolding this week in Washington are a grim reminder that the business world, and those who regulate it, have lost their moral way. A little symmetry would do us a lot of good.

As for the Excellence studies, I’m not gonna say too much there. While I don’t embrace all of the conclusions, I do admire the values that come out of the work. It’s been a long time since I read them, so I don’t want to misstep.

I’m sorry I didn’t jump in on the PR Conversations thread about all this, but I’m keeping a low profile during the sabbatical and spending a lot less time online. Besides, I don’t look nearly as smart when I’m with the PRC gang. A very intelligent bunch over there.

Be well, friend. And thanks for dropping in.

The heart of the contention — can you imagine that, me contentious? — from my perspective is that symmetrical seems so utopian. Dr. Grunig also advocates that communicators act as advocates for the “publics,” what I liken as a kind of internal ombudsman.

I just argued that communicators (see how I’m purposely not using “PR” here?), can survey the landscape, tell management about potential outcomes, act completely ethically, etc., but at the end of the day, they are advocates for the organization’s viewpoint. To ask anything more of communicators, in my opinion, is to simply ask too much, particularly since there is no set of rules or guidelines for how communicators should act, outside of ethics and the law. And, even then, we’ve seen how the former falls to the wayside.

I think there is also a question of whether or not symmetrical communications can ever really be, by definition, symmetrical. There are hegemonic/power issues at play, in my opinion, that make this difficult. Though, obviously, I do believe that communicators should listen/talk to the public and build relationships. I just don’t see PR or any other form of communicators occupying some role above that as a part of the organization’s team.

My secondary concern is that the continued reliance on Excellence, which I think if one has studied it and spent some time in the profession, is shown to be a paradigm built on a sand foundation, is great for making careers and getting tenure, but not doing the profession much good. I mean look at the academic journals in which we still must define PR in the first 300 words, or any PR text that sets out to do the same within the first couple chapters.

Of course, I write all this because I feel like I’m wondering around in a dark forest here. What is the purpose of PR research if it isn’t to provide professionals with some wider understanding? Instead, it feels like we’re paying homage to Excellence and talking to one another.

I respect and admire your analysis, which is why I ask for guidance. I know that you’re going to lay it out straight.

You call out one aspect of Pat Jackson’s approach that conflicts with another. While Pat embraced the concept of giving voice to key publics (especially those on the fringes), he also was the creator of the “behavioral model.” Pat consistently told his readers and his seminar audiences that CEOs measure PR effectiveness by is its ability to change behavior, since behavior (not awareness or brand preference) ultimately drives the bottom line. His planning process posed the question: What do we want them to do, not do, or let us do?

On the surface, behavioral public relations is the same model embraced by Bernays: the two-way asymmetrical approach in which the result we seek is behavior triggered by carefully constructed persuasion. That said, Jackson and Bernays also emphasize the importance of aligning the organization with the public interest to earn their acceptance and trust. So both men, Jackson in particular, had at least one foot in the symmetrical world.

I will agree that the “bailout” failed partly because its promoters did a bad job on the propaganda. It was a one-way sell job, and many folks weren’t buying it. Part of it I would attribute to the ram-it-through, high-pressure sales approach. (Jackson: People want to be served, not sold.) But also at work here is the problem of “source credibility.” Congress and President W want us to spend $700 billion to save the world economy. It’s a message coming from 436 people that very few of would trust with our lunch money. When the sender of the message commands no respect from the receiver, we in PR might as well pack it in and go fishing.

1–It is a tactical process model, not a strategic model. What is the goal of a public relations campaign? Pat Jackson seemed to believe it was participation, not persuasion. But the ultimate goal is to get someone– or a group of someones– to think, believe, or act in a certain manner, because they are convinced that doing so will be beneficial. In the Grunig model, strategy formation is just part of a four-step process–not a means of setting, modifying or (most importantly) achieving objectives.

2–It isn’t really a model at all, but a prescription. A true communications model describes how communications work—all of the time. No exceptions. But there are numerous exceptions to the 2-way symmetrical model. Bernays’ “Engineering of Consent” was basically a 2-way asymmetrical model. The current government bailout plan started as a 1-way asymmetrical model, and is evolving by fits and starts into a 2-way asymmetrical model. Why? Because people absolutely detest the underlying premise of the plan, which is to throw good money after bad in an attempt to re-capitalize the financial system. Therefore, any attempt to modify this flawed plan based on feedback will result in failure. All the business geniuses and government economists in the world saying that this is a great dog food won’t get the dogs to eat it.

Still, too many of our top managers continue to operate in command-and-control mode, relying on presentation and positioning to guide their communication. As we all know that doesn’t work so well anymore.