Photo by KROKSA, courtesy of morguefile.com
Many of this week’s readings were roughly divided into one of two categories – either they had to do specifically with global aspects of public relations, which the majority did, or they were focused solely on different kinds of corporate communications functions, but were not international in nature (Page & Parnell, 2019). This meant that quite a bit from Page and Parnell (2019) was covered twice. We saw this when Alaimo (2017) delved into activism but viewed them through a global lens. Golan (2019) overlapped in the area of multinational corporations and Schwartz and Fritsch (2014) where non-government organizations were concerned. For me, the chapters assigned from Page and Parnell (2019) did not belong with the balance of the material. Not only because what they covered was not from an international perspective, but also because much was covered in other readings. Multiple readings cited Van Leuvin, Grunig and Vercic, for example.
Having said that, I found one common theme run through it all – that is, that public relations practitioners do not and should not operate in a vacuum and that a give and take of information is required in order to be successful. This was expressed this week in very practical ways, e.g., understanding cultural differences when it comes to time and feedback or taking idiomatic phrases and translation issues into considerations. These are more obvious. But I very much appreciated how Alaimo (2017) deftly walks the reader through the nuts and bolts of how to apply this knowledge to managing teams and campaigns.
Freitag and Stokes (2009) and Alaimo (2019) discuss Excellence theory and they discuss Vercic who tested it and came up with his own generic/specific theory. The points that all the authors made here were, for me, key. When someone comes up with a theory that offers nine principles or five dimensions or any other methodology, it is critical to look at how they are coming up with these in the first place. Given the bulk of public relations history and research has been carried out the in the United States with some other Western countries’ input as well, then it is safe to assume that both bias exists and there may be aspects missing from consideration. The world cannot be measured by a United States measuring stick. For this reason I appreciate how Alaimo (2019) added his own. Given his personal experience working for the United Nations, there is a reassuring factor that his add ons were borne of practical experience. Here, another expert offers specific advice:
How should American firms approach operating in international markets?
Freitag and Stokes (2009), too, methodically walked the reader through how to apply Lustig and Koester’s defined characteristics, Hofstede’s metrics as well as other senses-related metrics to different cultures. Some were presented as binary options, like “relationship versus task orientation” or “individualism versus collectivism.” The problem with this is that either/or choices do not leave room for other places along a spectrum. And if the idea is to compare one culture to another, which is how the chapter is framed and what most people are likely to do (their culture versus another), then there is a risk of infusing judgment into the process.
This is not to belittle these concepts; all are important and any defined checklist is better than the absence of one, but we must be wary not to restrict ourselves to only seeing what is laid out before us. In some ways, this mirrors the discussions that surround inclusion and diversity efforts by businesses and organizations. As I wrote in a 2018 blog on the topic, “when we name specific groups to be included in diversity initiatives and pay specific attention to them, we not only exclude other groups, but we inevitably preempt ourselves from taking in the larger picture of actual inclusiveness.” Here, too, if we are only looking at certain measurable aspects, we risk leaving others out. Within the realm of global public relations, it is essential, as Alaimo (2019) points out in the section on managing your global team, to use language all can understand, offer multiple ways for people to share ideas, and spell much out about how the team works. This approach starts from the point of providing the broadest and most inclusive way to work globally; it does not use a binary measuring stick.
Ragan Communications offers "10 guidelines for launching a global PR strategy," which helps in the planning phase
This concept of not operating in a vacuum also applied to other areas of this week’s readings. As multiple texts and readings pointed out, corporate social responsibility (CSR), crisis communications and issues management all benefit from the involvement of public relations professionals during planning stages. Among other reasons, this has to do with ensuring that messaging supports the company’s or organization’s credibility. And that also ties into what was not spelled out in these readings – risk management. If the public relations professional is the one who knows best how to represent the entity to its various publics, he or she is also the one likely best positioned to understand the stakeholder groups and let management know what kind of reaction to expect. In companies that offer products or services or for organizations, priorities are different depending on the role one is in. For this reason, as Page and Parnell (2019) point out, the idea is to manage issues before they become crises. But for that to happen, the public relations practitioner has to be privy to the inner workings of everything. Given that is not likely, Page and Parnell (2019) advise creating plans for different kinds of situations. This too, is something that public administrators do in their jobs; many companies have chief risk officers. In the insurance industry, there are departments of analytics experts that run “What if” scenario testing. The more input public relations professionals can get from senior management on what could happen, the more he or she can prepare. With multinational corporations (like the one I work for) where much is decentralized on the one end of the spectrum and international NGOS where the CEO is wearing the head communicator’s hat more than half the time (Schwartz and Frisch, 2014) and therefore is able to make informed plans and decisions)on the other end, international public relations practitioners certainly can find themselves in a variety of situations.
As with other fields, international public relations practitioners are best positioned when there is a give and take of information and when they operate with a broad understanding of the spectrum of characteristics their global counterparts possess.
Alaimo, K. (2017). Pitch, Tweet, or Engage on the Street: How to Practice Global Public Relations and Strategic Communication. New York: Routledge.
Curtin, P. A. & Gaither, T. K. (2013). International Public Relations: Negotiating Culture, Identity, and Power. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Frietag, A. R. & Stokes, A. S. (2009). Global Public Relations: Spanning Borders, Spanning Cultures. New York: Routledge
Page, J. T. & Parnell, L. J. (2019). Introduction to Strategic Public Relations: Digital, Global, and Socially Responsible Communication (first edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Golan, G.J. (2019). New Perspectives on International Public Relations: Engaging Foreign Stakeholders. American Behavioral Science, 63(12) 1599-1602
Schwartz, A. & Fritsch, A. (2014). Communicating on Behalf of Global Civil Society: Management and Coordination of Public Relations in International Nongovernmental Organizations. Journal of Public Relations Research. 26 161–183