An Intelligent Design of Our Time—The Authentic Enterprise
With apologies to intelligent design adherents and wishful thinkers of the public relations industry, I want to propose that the fancied idea of an Authentic Enterprise, as promulgated by fellow members of the Arthur W. Page Society, is an alluring but untenable thesis. We are better off positioning the corporate communication function as a competitive enterprise and serving as its principled advocates, not its brokers of values. To do otherwise is to apply a sentimental moral imperative on what is a bedrock but fast-evolving function of business.
I have five concerns about the much-discussed Authentic Enterprise white paper:
• SUBJECTIVE. The notion of an Authentic Enterprise is not measurable and thus not manageable. Like so many euphemistic placeholders of the influence industries -- Trust, Reputation, Relationships, as examples -- the characteristic of authenticity escapes any rational attempt to develop consistent, repeatable criteria and to assign measures to observed outcomes. Page members should expect more. Senior corporate communicators should support sound science, irrespective of the fact that their work is solidly housed in the grey and often ambiguous social sciences.
• SHARED ASSET. Authenticity is both a shared and indirectly earned attribute. As such, the corporate communications officer (CCO) can never take credit or be blamed for its growth or decline because so many figures and functions affect it. It is like stock price in a public company. It is even like love in a relationship. Myriad variables underpin such a thing as authenticity and astute researchers will remind us that those factors are usually masked and always on-the-move. To give it sanctuary in communications is professionally perilous. To call it the coin of our realm is mystifying.
• UNTESTED. The Authentic Enterprise is a proudly-held work of the Society, rightly so. It represents original thinking and a sincere attempt to advance the CCO function. But it lacks the testing and time to subsume the Page brand or to speak with authority for its membership. My own view, obviously, is that authenticity is more paradigm than providence; I may be wrong, but I surely know that its authors are not yet right. For that reason, it is surprising that the Page Society is now convening conferences and functions under the Authentic Enterprise banner.
• TOO LATE. To be authentic is arguably important to any Fortune 500 company, subjected as it is to unprecedented transparency requirements and the constant inspections of our very social media and regulated marketplaces. But we are quickly moving from a crisis of credibility to a crisis of economy and such vague expressions as authenticity are unlikely to preserve market share, much less grow it in this coming era of shortages... and did I mention tight budgets. What will spell the difference for corporations and their communications arms in a downturn are specific, persistent and tangible programs that position products and services and, yes, de-position competitors for superior advantage. This suggested public posturing by my peers, like a Scout's pledge, will hardly impress.
• INAUTHENTIC. Like the term public relations, Authentic Enterprise is also deceptive because it suggests an even-handed earnestness that cannot be shown to every player of a stakeholder community. The Authentic Enterprise is rooted in the development and communication of values, of course, but corporations by their nature and within their cultural and legal boundaries compete and confront as much as they posture and project. Accordingly, their strongest values are based on the necessity to make a profit, something which is not universally shared in the broader marketplace -- ask your favorite blogger, activist or NGO. What will be authentic to some will be inauthentic to others. It is an un-winnable proposition that ties a CCO's hands and unnecessarily moralizes to them an impossible and even counterproductive mission.
In Ron Culp's July 3, 2008 Page Turner Blog post, he shared with us what students already know about authenticity: Duh, was the reaction of one college student to this vaunted thesis. There's nothing wrong with authenticity, per se, but it should be a given, an ante in our special form of marketplace poker. What we have instead is a low-set bar for a high-potential profession, one that can be expected to move markets, not mediate them. It is an excuse to cry, We are no longer in control, when those who understand the new rules and tools are dominating.
If we set the expectation that a CCO's first purpose is to appease and not compete, then we will dumb-down the science of our certain game. We are better off progressing good research and honest discourse as fair-minded, ethically-guided competitive communicators. To do otherwise is like forcing the manufactured vision of creationist devotees into the laboratories and books of evolutionary biologists. It's about how things really are, not what we think they should be.
Alan Kelly
CEO of The Playmaker's Standard, LLC,
and Adjunct Professor at the USC Annenberg School for Communication.
Next entry: Opportunity for the Chief Communication Officer
Previous entry: The Flak over Flacks -- and Hacks
Member Comment:
In writing this quickly, I made some obvious spelling errors. I wanted to “compliment” the authors. They may be “complemented” with their own pride, but that was not my intent. You know, the more I think about it, the more I see our profression as being akin to evangelists. They are fully in touch with the “truth” and try to persuade others to adopt their perspective. Isn’t that what our profession is all about? If we believe that we possess higher moral standards than our employer, we probably should find another place to work. We have to believe in the values we espouse to be good advocates for our organizations. We know that there are competitive views. We should always respect those views, even if we totally disagree with them. There are some we will never win over; but our jobs are to win over as many as we can, or at least those who matter to our organizations.
I have just finished preparing for a course I will teach in marketing strategy and have been reading a lot on the subject. Several authors, including leading “deans” of the profession like Aaker, Kotler and Keller, and have been attempting to inspire the marketing profession to seek a higher calling. Guess what they are calling for? They want a greater emphasis on organizational culture, more focus on business ethics, values and brand/reputation. Sounds an awful lot like they too are moving toward an appreciation of the “authentic” enterprise. They know that business has been struggling to right itself from the days of Milton Friedman’s contention that the only purpose of business is to serve the shareholder’s interest. We need a balanced approach to business, and that means that we need to introduce to business some of the “soft issues” that Alan seems to eshew. These marketing leaders, like our own profession’s leaders, are not touting marketing as being “authentic”, but rather doing the job that leaders should do--to use their “bully pulpit” to inspire and motivate. That is what the authors of the Authentic Enterprise have done for us.
By Elliot S. Schreiber, Ph.D. on July, 26 2008
Member Comment:
Evangelism is spot on, as Elliot proposes. It’s a proper casting for the communicator who has the privilege of persuading stakeholders and the obligation to be credible in that effort.
But this is precisely where we’ve erred with the Authentic Enterprise. It is aspirational, yes. It is a tune we can all hum, great. But just like the “theory” of intelligent design (a compelling platform of, well, another kind of evangelist) it leads our membership and, in fact, our industry toward highly simplistic and immeasurable premises.
We can do better.
It’s my understanding that many members are now wondering, “What’s next?” My hope is that we’ll go back to the drawing board. We don’t yet have a design that works, best efforts not withstanding.
Alan Kelly
By Alan D. Kelly on July, 27 2008
Member Comment:
I totally agree that we need to move toward a more science-based profession. We need to prove our ROI so that we can move from being a cost center to being seen as a worthwhile investment. That is a great failing of public relations, but there are many, namely the Institute for Public Relations, trying to change that.
What I have found tough in that when I have lectured in communications courses (I have been primarily teaching in business schools for the past 6 years), I find a complete lack of knowledge of business amongst the communications students. Business students are adapting much more quickly to communications than communications students are adapting to business. It is not just a failing of education, it is a failing of our profession. Over the many years I spent in corporate communications, I found way too many professionals without the basic knowledge of business to be able to provide good counsel.
We do have a problem in our profession. When we talk about reputation we tend to talk about crisis management and CSR, as if they are what comprise reputation management. Those are tactics, not business processes. Communications agencies run their change management programs often separate from their reputation management programs, yet they must be integrated.
I agree that we need to evolve toward more comfort with business concepts that can be measured. We still focus too heavily on tactics and not enough on business outputs and results. We talk about reputation and trust as if they were end points. The end-point is disproportionate competitive advantage in attracting talent, gaining investment, etc. The way to move communications to the center of the table, not just having a place at the table, is to show how it can lead the way toward greater business results.
I continue to believe that it is worthwhile to have a document we can all “hum”. It is like our mantra. Once we can focus, we can move to the next stage of development.
Hopefully, it is to a higher level than where we are now.
By Elliot S. Schreiber, Ph.D. on July, 27 2008
Member Comment:
Here’s my take, for what it’s worth. Public Relations to me is about influence. When we talk about “authenticity”, I think that we are talking about the growing demands from stakeholders toward organizations. I don’t think that we have suggested that the field of PR is to be “authentic”. We are advocates both inside and outside of our organizations. I really like Bruce Harrison’s definition of PR as “winning stakeholders”. It recognizes that we are there to represent our organization or client to influence perceptions and win the minds, hearts and, most importantly, the behaviors of stakeholders.
I have always had a real problem with the idea that we tell the truth. We shouldn’t lie, but that’s not the same as telling the truth. Each of us has our own perspective of the truth--it is not universal or normative. If it were, we wouldn’t have so many religions trying to define the way to heaven.
We attempt to have stakeholders understand and appreciate our version of the truth and win them over with our communications and organizational behavior.
That being said, I am a real advocate of The Authentic Enterprise because it is aspirational. It addresses not where PR is, but rather where it should be--helping to define values, winning stakeholders, and building reputation. Yes, Alan, I believe strongly in the value of values and reputation--I have seen them work and not work in organizations I have either worked in or consultant to. The foundation of values is what made J&J work out of its crisis in 1982 appropriately and let Mittel flounder. Values are more than words, they also encompass norms or behaviors and symbols within an organization. They create parameters of acceptable behavior of what we will or will not do, what businesses we will or not enter, and how we will handle issues as they arise.
I agree with Alan that we should focus on competitiveness. We, like other excecutives, are there to help win customers, attract and keep the best talent, build market value, etc. However, organizations can do it the right way, but focusing of employee and customer value and their direct link to revenue growth, or we can become so competitive in our attempt to be just another corporate executive, that we loose our special place at the table. If we don’t have a special role, then we shouldn’t be there at all. We should be business people, first and foremost, but we should be advocates for all stakeholders. Others, albeit the CEO, focus narrowly. If we do the same, we loose our effectiveness and role.
The Authentic Enterprise is a great document and those who created it should be highly complemented. It is meant to be a discussion document and one that leads us to higher ground. I think it can and should.
By Elliot S. Schreiber, Ph.D. on July, 26 2008