Public Affairs Council maintains offices in Washington D.C. and Brussels; it is comprised of 70 organizations representing over 10,000 professionals. Find out more at https://pac.org/international
With its emphasis on public affairs and governments I found this week’s readings particularly interesting, as they brought together to some degree both tracks of my dual degree program (Public Administration and Integrated Global Communication). For me, two aspects seemed to permeate the readings: (1) how public affairs is its own niche, and (2) how academia, research and education offer it an aspect of legitimacy it needs.
To the first point, Alaimo speaks about what governments need for their public diplomacy to have a soft power advantage, i.e., cultural norms in tune with global norms, access to multiple media streams and credibility. Two schools of thought approach public diplomacy: the tough-minded employ one-way communications via fast media for short-term policy goals, whereas the tender-minded promote two-way dialog using slow media in order to create a better climate. Recent changes include social media allowing citizens to play a role. Another point she made I thought worth noting, that is, that nation-branding is an act of uncovering, not of creating, value.
Robson (2017) turns to discussing how some practitioners are better than others. He recounts Ang and Earley’s theory on Cultural Intelligence (CQ), noting that if it is low, then the tendency is to see others’ behaviors through one’s own cultural lens. CQ turns out to be the biggest predictor of performance, more than IQ or EQ. I read it as the more open one’s mind to understanding that we don’t know what we don’t know and we can’t measure everything according to our own measuring sticks, the more we can adapt and the better we can understand other cultures.
Cultural Intelligence (Earley and Ang, 2003)Â
So from these both, we understand that understanding the political landscape is vital when you are representing another country’s (or company’s) interests.
But is that enough? Back in 2002, Fleisher argued that the knowledge, skills and abilities that public affairs professionals need are too important to be left up to an ad hoc approach but need to be systematically taught. After all, policy impacts both individual nations as well as regional or multinational organizations. For this reason, corporate multinationals also have to be knowledgeable about how their strategies can impact host countries as much as how the host countries’ policies can impact their strategies. His framework of competencies that ought to be taught are meant for general education purposes but remind me of the checklist that Alaimo shared in one of her early chapters for any practitioner entering an international market. For Fleisher, they key question in 2002 is how many schools teach these competencies and how many of these areas are being researched. In 2011, Fleisher again focuses on the relationship of international public affairs to academia, but because he seems to favor Boddewyn’s more recent definition (which looks at the nexus between business and non-market organizations which exist to help business), this time he pivots to say that it ought to be a bigger part of MBA programs. He says that though strategic in nature, the activities and behaviors of international public affairs are brushed aside when it comes to the C-Suite, executive education or research.
Three trends in Public Affairs, from the abovementioned Public Affairs Council, offered insights in 2017 which are still useful today
While Fleischer took a country-agnostic approach, both Rubaii (2016) and Millar and Koppl (2014) dug into aspects only found in particular regions. But the insights they gained can be used to make a larger point, namely that regional concerns may differ, but they are not mutually exclusive. If we were to compile a master list of concerns, in addition to competencies, CQ and soft-power approaches, we ought to include social equity, diversity and inclusion as well as the dynamic of transparency and trust, as addressed by the more specific regional readings.
Rubaii (2016) looked at the impact of and academic need for internationally accredited programs on public affairs, albeit only within Latin America. She contends that while international accrediting agencies promote diversity and social equity for these programs, the standards for the national agencies fall short. The idea is that accrediting agencies can help schools to promote social equity, diversity and inclusion (and that national accrediting agencies ought to catch up with international ones). For me, though, what I thought was interesting was the emphasis on measuring social good, since, as we recently learned, public relations practitioners in Latin America bake in issues of social improvement into what they do since it is expected that companies contribute to the larger universe they belong to.
Millar and Koppl (2014) took a look at how the field of public affairs plays out in a region transitioning from a world which understood it as propaganda and lobbying to a more democratic society. Before they get to their recommendations on how the field ought to be treated in academia, they study the mark that 50 years of communism has made and how transparency is viewed. But first, the authors delve into how individual countries rate on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and then compare former Soviet bloc countries to Western Europe. The authors also pay attention to Germany, which isn’t Eastern Europe, and Austria which serves as a bridge between East and West. There are now industry associations in Eastern European countries, but still, the field is still looked on with a degree of mistrust. Just because a country shifts gears doesn’t mean that its citizens can erase memories, e.g., of corruption – or ignore the deficits in the new system they are now adjusting to, e.g., paying for services which used to be free. The authors recommend that education be used as a tool to help people understand that public affairs is less about public relations and more about political affairs.
Bottom line, is that there are many considerations which need to be on the radar of anyone whose field is public affairs. And that it is important to notice the nuances that play out in government work, as opposed to other areas of public relations.
* * *
* Alaimo, K. (2017). Pitch, Tweet, or Engage on the Street: How to Practice Global Public Relations and Strategic Communication. New York: Routledge.
* Barry, C. & Rosenthal, J.H. (2009). Ethics & International Affairs: A Reader (Third Edition). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press
* Fleisher, C.S. (2002). The development of competencies in international public affairs. Journal of Public Affairs. 3(1). 76-84.
* Fleisher, C.S. (2011). Five decades on the periphery: Examining international public affairs through strategic lenses. Int. Studies of Mgt. & Org. 40(4). 82-93.
* Millar, C.C.J.M. & Koppl, P. (2014). Perspectives, practices and prospects of public affairs in Central and Eastern Europe: A lobbying future anchored in an institutional context. Journal of Public Affairs. 14(1) 4-17.
* Robson, D. (2017) The ‘hidden talent’ that determines success. BBC Worklife. Retrieved October 11, 2020 from https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-hidden-talent-that-determines-success.
* Rubaii, N. (2016). Promoting social equity, diversity, and inclusion through accreditation: Comparing national and international standards for public affairs programs in Latin America. Quality Assurance in Education. 24(4). 541-561.