We PRs are forever trying to convince C-Suite that we’re relevant and important to business. Many times, the C-Suite disagrees, and our budgets and staff suffer mightily, especially in internal communication.

The C-Suite seeks control over the uncontrollable — we cast ourselves as instruments of that control so as to increase our perception of value, no doubt. Grunig would blanch at this description — one can hardly engage in symmetrical communication if the objective of it is domination. It results in a logical contradiction.

As to the specifics of this lively discussion between Toni and Paul == perhaps the problem is with the word “ideological.” Being an honest broker of ideas from both within and without the organization would be on definition of being ideological, but the baggage of that word, as Paul wrote, is significant. I think I agree with Paul that the terms here are difficult — “govern value networks” is awkward. Contributing to networks in a fashion that helps the organization build value is far less authoritarian.

“Context” I don’t have a problem with.

We could conclude, however, that we’re cast as facilitators and trainers. Maybe that’s accurate…

On the face, it all seems very general — but as I understand it, that’s intentional. The next couple of years will change how this material is used.

Sean

The problem is that “ideology” is a loaded word, rather as is “govern”, “context” and the rest of the jargon the Stockholm Accords has gone in for. It doesn’t matter that dictionaries neutralise the word ideology to include anything to do with the business of ideas. We all know that in reality to have an ideology is taken to be dominated by an idea to the exclusion of warmth or other ideas. Mrs Thatcher was an ideologue and promoted an ideology and governed ideologically. It means she was cold-hearted and not a pragmatist, or a listener. She didn’t go about wondering about people’s context. By goodness, she aimed to “govern”, though. I loved all these things about her. But that’s not the point. I’m amazed that the Stockholm Accords have gone in for that line at the same time as rumbling on about networks, contexts, listening and all that.

I am all for PRs aiming to help clients develop their messages and then get them across. I am all for PRs making sure that clients understand the sheer variety of audiences who will hear and respond to their messages. I am all for PRs helping clients understand how communicative they mostly have to be, and that includes within their own organisations. I am all for PRs helping clients understand the outside world, and even their own organisations. I am all for PRs understanding that 90 percent of the time they will fail (as the Stockholm Accords acknowledge).

What I don’t get is the weird, clumsy, pseudo-academic, proto-diplomatic, PC, clunky speak in which the Stockholm Accords dresses up the simple and vital insights they address. I say, the Stockholm Accords are in danger of making the entire PR industry a laughing stock.

An ideology is a set of ideas that discusses one’s goals, expectations, and actions. An ideology can be thought of as a comprehensive vision, as a way of looking at things (compare worldview), as in common sense (see Ideology in everyday society below) and several philosophical tendencies (see Political ideologies), or a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (a “received consciousness” or product of socialization)…

where is the issue, I ask?

Yes, your text says that PRs provide leaders (CEOs etc) with the ideology that enables them to govern networks; it also says that PRs govern behaviour and that they play an ideological role within organisations. But let’s be clear – CEOs are no more in the business of promoting ideologies or playing an ideological role than are PRs (unless they are employed by the likes of ideologically-driven rulers or political parties, which should be transparently declared). And CEOs don’t govern networks anymore than PRs do.

Let’s be even clearer, 99.99% of CEOs are not in the ideological business or concerned with ideology or directly with politics and or governing diverse interdependent multiple networks. Working in partnership is not the same thing as governing networks: contrariwise. Certainly, in my book, providing information should never be confused with promoting an ideology and or propaganda.

For readers who wish to explore the issue of networks in more detail, I have interrogated the Accords’ inherent utopianism here:

http://paulseaman.eu/2010/05/briefing-for-prs-on-e2-0s-brave-new-world/

I can only reprint your own definition, which you now seem to disown:

“A communicative organization recognizes that even the most empowered public relations director cannot realistically hope to govern more than 10% of its communicative behaviours.

“Therefore the communication leader of the organization plays two fundamentally strategic roles:

°an ‘ideological’ role by supporting and providing the organization’s leadership with the necessary, timely and relevant information which allows it to effectively govern the value networks as well as an intelligent, constant and conscious effort to understand the relevant dynamics of society at large:

°a ‘contextual’ role which implies the constant delivery of communicative skills, competencies and tools to the components of its value networks so that they improve their relationships amongst each other and with the other value networks.”

Surely, this says that that PRs are “ideological governors of value networks”?

Not fair, honest nor helpful…. but thank you for your involvement in the discussion.
Should anyone ever wish to make the effort to read through the various drafts of the Accords in their formation, s/he will notice that many of your suggestions were considered and integrated.

cheers,
toni