Theory

G’day and greetings from ‘a land down under’!

Welcome to the third year that Robert has been encouraging and cajoling and relentlessly beating students into submission — welcome to the world of blogging, podcasting, vidcasting, social media, Web2.0 and a zillion other phrases that will, by the end of the first semester, slip off your tongue as easily as …as …well, as easily as something that easily slips off your tongue.

Shel Holtz (who is a blogger you should definitely put onto your ‘must read’ list) has recently been discussing with colleagues whether PR practitioners deserve to be called ‘professionals’, indeed whether PR itself is a ‘profession’.

Fellow Marcomm contributor Kami Huyse recounted the exasperation that she felt when undertaking an exercise to fund the further training of PR practitioners in ethics. Kami had to excise the word ‘professional’ to get any agreement with a lawyer creating the formal endowment documents. The argument principally revolves around the question “what is a profession?” Here’s some definitions…

The American Heritage Dictionary — “An occupation, such as law, medicine, or engineering, that requires considerable training and specialized study.”

The Macquarie Dictionary — “a vocation requiring knowledge of some department of learning or science, especially one of the three vocations of theology, law, and medicine (formerly known specifically as the professions or the learned [pronounced “learn-ED”] professions); the body of persons engaged in an occupation or calling”

Merriam-Webster’s Medical Dictionary — “a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and intensive academic preparation”

Each would seem to suggest that what you will be doing, and what the esteemed contributors to this blog are already doing, is the work of a professional within a ‘profession’.

Now that we are all pleased with ourselves, consider this:

I would argue that ‘PR’ as a discipline sits within a larger rubric of ‘Business Communication’. If that is the case, then one could argue that ‘Business Communication’ is itself a profession, making me (not a PR professional since I have never undergone extensive academic training in it) a ‘Business Communication professional’, a title of which I am proud and a reason why I belong to the IABC: the International Association of Business Communicators.

But every manager I have ever met, plus most of their subordinates, believes them self to be an accomplished, if not superb, business communicator. They hold this view of themselves despite a lack of any extensive and rigorous academic training, and just because they have been forced over the years to deliver a few PowerPoint presentations to small audiences or run some mid-year staff assessment programs. Usually I find that the more they ‘rate’ themselves as a ‘great’ business communicator, the more hopeless they actually are; there seems to be some correlation between their self rating and a love of hearing their own voice.

We could equally point to any number of PR ‘(un)professionals’ whose press releases are, by all applicable standards of suitability, relevance, timeliness, appearance and ‘good taste’, absolutely appalling. You don’t need to undergo university training to use a Press Release template in Word and crank it out to as many email and fax addresses as you can find. Thus, one could argue, ‘Business Communication’ and ‘PR’ are not professions, because ‘anyone can do it’.

So the question I ask you to consider, and to ask of Robert, is whether at the end of your years of turmoil, tension, agony, ecstasy, grief, epic and/or tragic romances, hangovers, dodgy late-night pizzas, blood, sweat and tears you will graduate with a piece of paper in your hand, or whether you will graduate with a piece of paper AND the knowledge that you are now part of a profession and must behave like a professional.

And if you are part of a profession, how will you explain that to your family, friends and work associates in a way that elevates your profession and your professional standing, and differentiates you from the scum that lies at the bottom of every barrel?

Share This: email to others, bookmark to del.icio.us, etc.

Almost 20 years ago, I joined McKinsey & Company, a global management consultancy, where I was a communication specialist. My job was guiding our teams on how to communicate hard recommendations to clients (”lay off 4000 workers”) and helping clients figure out how to do their own communication.

About a month into my job, I was invited by one of the firm’s senior partners to attend a team meeting. Agenda: how do we best communicate to the client that the client should buy the “Acme Company”, but not at a price over “X”.

I worked days and nights on this meeting. Covered the angles. Covered my ass. And, when asked my view, I was ready with long answer about how to do it, replete with “On the one hand, we could say this… on the other hand, we could say this…”

Finishing, I beamed. They glared. Suddenly, I was radioactive.

A kind soul (she now runs a global engineering firm) took me aside and gave me this advice: “You were all in favor of option A, but you presented option B because you thought you needed ‘balance’… and now no one believes you. And you offered no facts to back up either stance. In our culture, facts count. Both sides can’t stand you. The only reason you won’t get fired is because you are so new.”

Tough words.

I later learned to love McKinsey precisely because outspokeness backed by facts was appreciated. I learned to feel free to speak up to senior partners and client CEOs, men and women with enormous business experience, when I felt I was right and had the facts to back me. I learned to say, to people who could fire me with a flick of a finger, “That’s the wrong argument, and here’s why…”. As long as I had a competently constructed “why”, I was safe. When I moved on and became an agency manager, I worked hard to inculate the same ideal.

I bring this up because I read so many of the comments and posts by you students. Many are in the “on the one hand… on the other hand” vein: “John raises an important point… on the other hand, you have to consider Sue’s idea….”

That’s often an acceptable tactic in undergrad courses. “On the one hand, and on the other hand” is usually born of trying to understand both sides (or the many sides) of an issue. High school teachers and college professors want to see that you can do this (and rightly so!), which is why you all have written countless “Explain the issues of the Civil War” or “Compare and contrast X & Y” essays.

That gets you an A in college. It gets you an F in business.

While knowing and understanding the arguments of both sides (or all the sides) is important, decision making is about picking one. In working life, two or three fairly good solutions usually exist for any one problem — the bad solutions sift out early. Most people can tell you the merits of each. Good. But leadership is about picking one and being able to say why.

“On the one hand, and on the other hand” says, “I have two opinions, and I am really, really trying to figure out which one you like most.” What it makes me ask is “Does she have an opinion? Does he have an argument? Do I want her running my PR? Do I want her in my agency? And can I learn anything from him, since he looks like he will take any position I take?”

The answers? No, no, no, no and no.

Some companies will fire you for saying what you think. Some will fire you for not saying what you think. Which would you rather work for?

The Marcom Blog is a remarkable chance for some of us lucky “pros” to get a head start working with our future colleagues. But there is an implied contract: We say what we believe… you say what you believe. None of this “on the one hand, on the other hand” that will get you an F after graduation.

Deal?

Share This: email to others, bookmark to del.icio.us, etc.