I’m not qualified to know whether Mr Thiam was more right than wrong in seeking to buy AIA. What I do know is that too many CEOs believe that they are laws unto themselves or that today all stakeholders are equals.

So the assertion by Pru shareholders of their power to stop the bid for AIA is a timely reminder of where the priorities and corporate lines of accountability lie. The deal’s collapse makes it clear to CEOs everywhere that they must listen to their shareholders more.

I’ve been predicting that in the future shareholders will, and need to, assert their power more and more. That’s because – contrary to popular mythology – one of the lessons from the last boom and today’s bust is that shareholder-value was not over-valued so much as marginalised in the pursuit of short-term interests. Real long-term shareholder value was denigrated by management teams which ran companies more or less for their own benefit whilst covering themselves in the rhetoric of wider stakeholder interests.

My bottom line (and the firms’)? Shareholders may be quite good custodians of long-term value after all. Perhaps even better ones than the “stakeholders” who bang on about sustainability.

I’m not saying that always applies or is even what’s applying in this case. I’m saying that it’s wrong to assume that modern shareholders always fit the short-termist stereotype that’s foisted on them.

What’s more, it may be that Mr Thiam has understood where the long term prospects of the Pru really lie (it may be that his spate with shareholders was mostly about the price of AIA rather than his strategy).

The challenge now is for the Pru to repair its broken relationship with its shareholders, particularly with Prudential Action Group, which planned to oppose the deal at a shareholder vote due to be held on 7 June.

Personally, I hope that the impressive Mr Thiam survives. I believe he should be given room to learn from this setback. But if the price is his head, so be it, because it will provide a much-needed reality check throughout the corporate and PR worlds.

Related posts:

1. Manifesto on shareholder value for PRs Here’s a PR manifesto offering a post-credit crunch reality check...
2. Wither stakeholder doctrine? In 1994 Tony Blair promised to turn the UK into...
3. Stockholm Accords interrogated – part 2 Here’s the second in my trilogy on the Stockholm Accords....

BP is on a knife-edge. They can’t seem attractive (and suitably penitent) whilst blaming others, and yet they are not alone in causing the accident in the Gulf. (Leave aside that they’ve got a gaffe-prone CEO who says that he wants things to go well because “I’d like my life back”. A severe shortage of pre-accident media training there, I fear.)

But in time – and that time isn’t yet, not by a long chalk – BP may well find itself able and required to discuss (first in private with sympathetic mature journalists and opinion-formers) where other parcels of blame lie.

It may well be that Transocean or Halliburton or others are culpable in some degree, perhaps even greatly. But how about those nice regulators who are the thin line between corporate greed and the fragile public and planet?

I am pretty sure that if there’s blame to be spread, the regulator is as much at fault (or as innocent) as BP or other firms. Indeed, I am inclined to think that the regulator is more to blame based on what I’ve learned from the circumstances behind all of the disasters I’ve ever studied. I’ll return to this another time, but from Titanic to Three Mile Island, I’m struck by how technological failure has flowed from regulatory failure rather than greed. I mean that very often – most often – the private sector fails when the public sector thinks it’s doing fine and has signed-off on its behaviour. (The modern financial failures are examples of this, by the way.)

So I reason that it was more the regulator’s job to drive, own, the “what-if” process than BP’s. It isn’t exactly BP’s job to be gungho and alpha-male. But, certainly, in the modern highly-regulated and accountable world the corporation is in a proper and allowed tension with its regulators. Indeed, I hold the view that regulators are rather feeble in hardly ever accepting a proper share of responsibility.

Unless BP has purposely pulled the wool over our eyes, something I doubt, or didn’t carry out its agreed obligations, which remains possible, I think BP ought to be cut a good deal more slack than it actually will be.

It looks likely that BP was operating in the Gulf of Mexico at the edge of technology’s capabilities in a high risk environment. (Krauthammer in the Washington Post argues that’s because of green prejudice, a nice argument I won’t pursue.) If it turns out that BP’s bad luck was to have an accident that no regulator or operator on earth had made allowances for then BP has the makings of a sound defence.  Though, paradoxically, even if that’s proven true, that’s an argument which can’t be pressed too loudly in polite society without risking a backlash.

There’s little doubt, then, that the blame will stick with the corporations (it may widen from BP as Shell fears here). That’s not least because regulators and the politicians will wriggle out of it and the media will prefer to hound BP and the other corporations to hounding the regulators and governments. That’s unless, and I’m dreaming here, the balance of third party opinion comes down on BP’s side.

I am almost sure – and far from happy about it because I believe BP should say what it knows or believes to be true – that there is very little BP can say today credibly in public. It cannot exonerate itself to any degree without appearing to avoid responsibility. It is up against quite deep human prejudices and tastes.

People love disaster and villainy. That’s why certain accidents have had mythic narrative power which no amount of good evidence can shift.  The Titanic, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Exxon Valdez, are powerful cases where the very names have stuck emblematically in our minds. Their very mention comes with the clutter of preconceived ideas about class, capitalism, corporations, technological over-reach. BP will, presumably, now join that list. Like the others, it will probably be a good example of an operation which went on to do good work whilst exploiting plenty more technology. But it will serve as an example of bad-intentions and hubris.

It is just possible that this event will sink BP. But that would make it truly unique (even the owners of the Titanic didn’t go under).

Away from the hype, the financial market will look at this issue in a wholly cash manner. What will the accident cost? Will BP face difficulty getting US or other licences? Yes, this might well be a transformative event for the entire petroleum industry. But the market may think that BP is becoming case-hardened in a big-time way.

Therefore the outcome of the whole affair provides BP with an opportunity to take pole-position in the battle to reshape the industry’s worldwide image. After all, the world remains as dependent as ever on petroleum, so there’s a lot of mutual self-interest out there. There’s also a lot of cognitive dissonance. Plenty of firms feel forced to align their reputations with tragedies, real and very often imagined, as if they were responsible for them, but still do good business regardless. Some of my colleagues – cynically, perhaps – call that hit on the company’s reputation the price of securing a licence to operate.

Related posts:

1. Risk free energy? Boycott BP? No way! At the Senate hearing into the Gulf of Mexico oil...
2. Let’s interrogate Shell’s CSR in Nigeria Yesterday Shell said it was going to clean up the Niger...

Utopian PRs have been dreaming about “one world, people and planet” in which all the barriers between various publics come tumbling down. They envisage a connected world in which the lines of demarcation between internal, boundary and external stakeholders dissolve as they connect transparently and interactively in a value chain that links interdependent companies to their consumers and markets.

But such views ignore some major issues.

One is that in an open digitally-connected world, there’s more need than ever to conspire – organise, ghettoise, corral – to keep things confidential and hidden behind closed walls.

Indeed, we will see the kind of problem which Freedom of Information rules can produce: a clever, covert, closed decision making in which everything which really matters is centripetally driven to a cabal. (Remember the government of Tony Blair?)

Arguably, the more open things become and the more control bosses relinquish to networks, the more restrictions they will have to impose on those who operate in them. This might, paradoxically, lead to even tighter control on commercially sensitive information than exists today. It might lead corporates to adopt a civil service mantra of only releasing information on a need to know basis.

Another issue that the utopian PR camp ignores is competition. Companies forging various so-called value networks (I’ll argue later that PRs should avoid using the term) are as likely as not to form lots of them. They are as likely as not to value some more than others and to find themselves involved in contradictory and conflicting chains.

This will lead to lots of tension and uncertainty within corporates and institutions, such as government service providers, as they are forced to choose between their various product ranges, service offerings and partnership relationships, according to either their broader interests or their ability to sustain them. The resolution of such problems, or issues, will remain driven from the centre, from the top, by corporate or institutional bosses concerned with strategy.

Moreover, because of competition, PRs at either end of a chain, not to mention the middle, might find themselves pulling in different directions and unable to always align their interests, messages and narratives. There is no reason to believe that just because we introduce new tools into the workplace that real-world tensions, politics and commercial interests, will evaporate. We should, I warn, avoid falling into the technological determinism trap.

My point is that we should not think that corporations are about to relinquish control to horizontal or flat digital networks. We should not kid ourselves that top-down management and communication are about to die out. Neither should we imagine, as the PR utopians do, that existing internal silos, lines of responsibility and accountability, will be or should be altered very much by commercial Web 2.0 applications.

Here’s what Norman Lewis, Managing Partner at Open Knowledge UK, had to say on this when he commented on my piece There’s no social media revolution:

… it’s definitely the case that social media like any other technology does not alter the realities of the business world. (I very much like your points about the chaos that would ensue in a company if everyone could relate to sales, customers etc). This is based upon the naive hippie prejudice that enterprises can become democracies run in the interests of employees empowered to act like free agents.

Another of the problems that’s being overlooked by utopian PRs is how social media usage in the personal sphere is maturing. They seem to have missed the point that the major stumbling block for social media of all kinds is privacy, trust and control over personal data. It would seem that social media users are emerging from the blindly heady immature days of the early adoption period and starting to ask tough questions. Anybody really interested in this would do well to read Facebook challenged by ambitious upstarts on BBC online.

So already in the personal usage of Web 2.0, privacy and transparency are emerging as issues which are tempering how it is used. But in the commercial sphere the risks and drawbacks are fairly clear from the very beginning. While knowledge-sharing, collaboration and instant feedback and decision-making all have great appeal, in fact IP, confidential information and in-house knowledge lie at the heart of commercial value. The open information flows between various players presents itself both as an opportunity and as a risk.

But there’s even more reason for PRs not to get over-excited about Web 2.0′s ability to transform the workplace as utopian PRs do when they talk about paradigm shifts. Some believe that Michael Porter’s value chain model has already been replaced – or almost so – “by fuzzy (and not linear) and immaterial (rather than material) networks that normally disintegrate the distinction between internal and external publics.” But the truth is that Web 2.0′s commercial applicability is in its infancy and has yet to make a great impact.

The point the utopians miss is how much experimentation will be required to ascertain where and how to make Web 2.0 and social media applications work best in the corporate and public sector domain given the virtual impossibility of measuring their benefits accurately. But don’t get me wrong. I favour innovation and risk. I decry our current risk-adverse culture. I look forward to seeing more Web 2.0 applications introduced by business and institutions to deliver products and services. I don’t doubt for a moment that they can boost productivity and add great value.

This leads me to flag an event which I think PRs should attend, and to use it to explain why I think PRs shouldn’t use the terms networked society and value networks: International Forum on Enterprise 2.0 – Milan June 9 – 10.

The term Enterprise 2.0 was coined by Andrew McAfee, professor at Harvard Business School (Technology and Operations Management Unit). He defined it thus:

“…the use of platforms of social software in an emerging way inside the organization or between the organization, their partner and their client.”

The three building blocks which constitute E2.0 are:

• Social software: instruments which enable people to be in contact and collaborate together creating an online community of practice;
• Platforms, or rather, digital environments:  co-created interactive collaboration spaces that are visible to all users at all times;
• Emergence: the capacity to make visible the application structure and basic patterns of interactions between people.

As the event’s website explains, in McAfee’s words:

“Enterprise 2.0 technologies make the intranet similar to what the web is already: an online platform, continuously evolving, defined by the spread of independent user actions.”

I find the definitions and explanations provided by the International Forum’s organisers very useful. I’ve been arguing for some while that for PRs the terms “network society” and “values network” lack specificity and are confusing because they are in-house IT-speak. What the utopian PRs forget is that PR is and always will be about communicating with publics via networks and that society is nothing but networks personified. Moreover, all human networks are united by common interests and, or, values.

For those PRs wanting to get up to speed on social computing and E2.0 (both terms are useful and convey specific meaning in a PR context), I strongly recommend the following experts who explore – from different perspectives – this emerging field:

• The Social Enterprise – Italian blog on Enterprise 2.0
• The Business Impact of Information Technology (IT) – Andrew McAfee
• Enterprise Web 2.0 – Dion Hinchcliffe
• Futures Diagnosis – Norman Lewis

Related posts:

1. Stockholm Accords interrogated – part 2 Here’s the second in my trilogy on the Stockholm Accords....
2. Time to reappraise Facebook I had thought that Facebook would go the way of...
3. Blowing the whistle on Wikileaks Warning: this post is counter-revolutionary. A recent BBC’s Culture Show...

As the three companies faced their interrogators, behind sat protesters wearing T-shirts embossed “Energy shouldn’t cost lives”. When the proceedings closed the protesters screamed at the BP spokesman, “Hey, Hey, Lamar MacKay, how many fish did you kill today?” They chanted “Boycott BP”. They seemed to have friends in the Senate. Bob Menendez, the Democratic senator from New Jersey said:

“We were told that the Titanic was so technologically advanced that it couldn’t sink, and we were told that this well was so technologically advanced that it couldn’t spill. Unfortunately both of these technological marvels ended in tragedy.”

Actually, nobody ever said that either accident couldn’t happen. Though the makers of the Titanic and BP both at some point understated the potential risk involved in their respective challenges. That’s all the more reason, I believe, for BP to use this latest incident to set the record straight with the public about the realities of its business.

But right now the White House has vowed to “keep a boot to the throat” of BP. That’s an understandable response while the oil flows unchecked from the seabed. That does not mean that either PRs or BP should see it that way.

However, PR dogma suggests that BP should bite its tongue. The PR rulebook, designed to maintain a licence to operate, opines that if people think BP’s the villain it should act like one. Larry Smith of the Institute for Crisis Management and Timothy Coombs of Eastern Illinois University advocated this viewpoint to Slate:

[It's] literally true: BP owns the oil but not the rig. But it’s a shoddy communications strategy, says Smith. Wherever the fault lies, BP shouldn’t be splitting hairs. Companies should take the fall and work out recriminations behind closed doors, says Coombs. For example, when the chain Taco Johns had an E. coli outbreak, it didn’t publicly blame the lettuce supplier. It took responsibility. And, of course, sued the lettuce supplier later.

Effectively, Coombs is arguing that BP should adopt a cynical strategy in which it says one thing in private and another in public. His logic – and that of most PRs – is that the truth is too nuanced and complex for the public to comprehend. The argument goes that perception is everything. As the WSJ explained, they’ve got a point:

When you consider that analysts’ worst case scenarios put the eventual cost to BP at around $8 billion, yet $30 billion has been wiped off the company’s market capitalization since the crisis began, it becomes clear that this reputational damage has a value.

The problem is that by accepting full responsibility for the accident, BP would promote itself (dishonestly) as incompetent. How would that help maintain its credibility and reputation? Hence, I much prefer BP chief executive Tony Hayward’s strategy of accepting full responsibility for cleaning up the mess caused by its oil, while quietly but firmly disputing that it caused or was responsible for the accident. But Malcolm Gooderham, MD, TLG Communications, dubbed Hayward’s approach a “Miss” in PR Week. He also contrasted Hayward’s stance to that of his predecessor, Lord Browne:

“The virtue of Browne’s tenure was that despite the disasters, he is revered because of his strategic achievements. The challenge for BP today is to define a new thought leadership agenda.”

Browne’s thought leadership led him to re-brand British Petroleum as Beyond Petroleum. It was deceptive positioning and slightly bonkers to boot. To his credit, when Hayward took control of BP, he quietly downgraded the tag-line’s prominence. It now merely serves as “shorthand for what we do”, which is petroleum, and it hardly features at all in BP’s PR. What’s more, the irony of BP’s current plight is that it follows Mr Hayward’s determination to re-oritentate itself on technological competence rather than geo-political flair.

So what’s my advice to BP today?

• BP should concentrate on proving itself committed and competent as it cleans up the mess and reconsiders safety strategies
• BP has to speak with one voice in public and in private, now and in the future
• BP should use this crisis to educate the media, public and political elite about the realities of complex accountability
• BP should seek to lay the blame wherever the facts take them, even if some more of it falls on them
• BP should remind the world that energy is bottled force; BP is as good as any in handling the hazards involved in fueling our world
• BP should state the Browne years of Texas and Alaska lapses are behind them and what happened in the Gulf of Mexico was not caused by the same internal flaws
• BP needs to stress that the oil that’s now being drilled is located in inhospitable conditions and has inescapable risks
• BP should repeat and repeat that whatever lessons can be learned will be learned and that no stone will be left unturned in discovering them.

Related posts:

1. Let’s not turn media dramas into real crises Contrary to popular crisis management mythology, most dramas and disasters...
2. Where was Mr Toyoda yesterday? Made public yesterday, the last words from a family of...
3. Public trust in risk remains strong Financial Times (FT) research suggests that the public trusts itself to...

Before we go on, it is worth building on part 1′s theme: what exactly do the Stockholm Accords expect to achieve? Here’s what the event’s website says about their objective:

“The aim of the Stockholm Accords is to articulate and establish the role of public relations in the “communicativeorganization”[sic] within a fast-evolving digital and value-network society.”

In essence, the Accords suppose that we live in a new “networked society in which communicative organizations are vital to organisational success” (forgive the clumsy words, they’re theirs, not mine).

In essence my beef is that this exercise over-complicates everything. Most PR is an effort to help clients both be and appear more attractive. You can usefully enrich that proposition by noting that there are internal and external audiences; that everything about an organisation can be part of its good or bad messages; that building up a good reputation may be useful for when things go wrong (as they will). One may want to stress how non-stop and intrusive and persistent modern observers are. Perversely, the globalised, modern world is more like a village than ever: everybody thinks everything is their business.

As I argued in part 1, the Accords ignore the obvious: society is, and always has been, networks personified. Moreover, all human interaction depends upon communication and relationships, or nothing whatever would have been or will ever be achieved. Of course, the digital bit is sort of new. I say sort of because the internet is now second or third generation. It strikes me that the Accords’ authors are really saying that their thinking boils down to considering technology’s influence on human behaviour. This narrow obsession has sent them and their new definition of PR’s role off in the wrong direction.

There’s no wisdom in a mob, but there’s often treasure buried in crowds. So, of course, I accept there is something in Reed’s Law. (See: “The Law of the Pack”). I accept its proposition that digital networks can scale exponentially by transforming technological platforms into social networks that add value. But in the business world, Reed’s Law is just a statement of potential. It remains a theoretical construct that might prove to be hopeless if taken too far. The commercial world is in recession. It is not currently up for the risky experimentation and investment that would be required to test the weaknesses and strengths of Reed’s Law. This is something I discussed in part 1 No. 2 & No. 14 (without mentioning Reed). In part 1, I also cited SM’s irrelevance in the British General Election and its only fleeting influence on American politics.

My charge is that the authors of the Stockholm Accords lack historical or sociological insight. Most of today’s social developments from the breakdown of traditional politics, to the shift in community alignments, or the fall of religious influence, to the decline in trust in, and authority of, traditional institutions, pre-dates the internet.

In other words, the internet and social media usage were shaped in the wake of already existing currents, including the already declining mass media. That was particularly the case with SM, which is more often used as a retreat from public life rather than as its lifeblood. That’s one thing China’s SM usage has in common with the West’s. There’s mass disengagement and passivity in society, which is the polar opposite of empowerment, which so many PRs like to crow about. That’s not to say SM is irrelevant, or that it does not have influence or empower people, sometimes, in this or that circumstance or usage.

It is the failure of the Stockholm Accords to look at these real world tensions during the boom and now during the recession, and the Accords’ myopic worship of all things digital, which I criticise. But let me make it plain. This blog celebrates technology and advocates innovation. It is obsessed with understanding them and with exploiting their potential. But it does not endorse technological determinism, which I believe the Accords’ authors do.

So, that’s the preamble. Let’s now look at the Stockholm Accords one by one.

Stockholm Accords on governance:

“The increasingly adopted stakeholder governance model empowers board members and organisational leaders as ultimate custodians of stakeholder relationship strategies and policies, as well as of monitoring their implementation.

“In today’s value networks, a communicative organization requires timely knowledge of economic, social, political, legal and environmental developments, as well as opportunities and risks affecting the organisation, its direction, its actions and its communication.

“Public relations professionals:
• co-create organizational values, principles, strategies, policies and processes;
• constantly report on the dynamics of stakeholder involvement;
• inform, shape the organisation’s overall communication abilities;
•  measure, evaluate and account for results;
• deliver timely analysis and recommendations to ensure an effective governance of stakeholder relationships, enhancing transparency, trust and sustaining the organisation’s ‘licence to operate.’”

My reply

I dealt with the above extensively in part 1. But let me now add a few more brief remarks;

• The stakeholder governance model or doctrine is seriously flawed. An organisation can’t look to outsiders as the first source of its probity and efficiency.
• Firms, governments and institutions primarily pursue self-interest. This will include a measure of enlightened and widened self-interest.
• PR is indeed uniquely useful in our complicated, media-orientated times. But we should beware over-stating the newness of our skills and roles.

Stockholm Accords on management:

“Effective and timely decision-making related to operations and resource management are essential for organizations seeking to enhance their license to operate. These management choices must be sensitive to the concerns of internal and external stakeholders, seeking equilibrium between societal and organizational goals.
A communicative organization listens to its stakeholders, uses this input to improve the quality of its decisions, and communicates through its behavior.

“Public relations professionals:
° help understand and interpret broader societal, political and economic interests and aspirations;
° participate to the solution of organizational issues and lead those that are particularly focused on stakeholder relationships;
° help to legitimize the organization; by increasing the communicative value of products, processes, services; and building financial, legal, relational and operational capital.”

My reply

Yes, PRs are the professional diplomats of the modern organisation’s internal and external relationships. But we won’t do the job better by having theories and ambitions which are too fancy for the valuable but recognisable work they have to do. Way too much of the Stockholm Accords’ approach brings in more posy sociology, management-speak, media studies, post modern guff. This is the way to lose the interest of clients and audiences alike.

Stockholm Accords on sustainability:

“An organization’s sustainability is based on balancing today’s demands with the ability to meet future needs, based on economic, environmental and social dimensions.

“In this network society, sustainability leadership offers a transformational opportunity for the communicative organization to enhance it’s license to operate and demonstrate success across the triple bottom  line.- economic, social and environmental.

“Public relations professionals identify, involve and engage key stakeholders contributing to appropriate sustainability policies and programs by:
• interpreting society’s expectations for sound economical, social and environmental investments that show a return to the organization (the advocate);
• creating a listening culture – an open system that allows the organization to anticipate, adapt and respond (the listener);
• ensuring stakeholder participation to identify what information should be transparently and authentically reported (the reporter);
• going beyond today’s priorities to anticipate the needs of tomorrow, by engaging stakeholders and management in long-term thinking (the leader).”

My reply

Sustainability has to do with robustness and flexibility, which can be darn hard things to reconcile. We need to be modest: sustainability is about the future, a thing we know very little about. We should not pretend to know the recipe for survival (or to assume, for instance, that environmentalists are any cleverer at it than supposedly un-green capitalists).

Stockholm Accords on the new boundaries of internal communication:

“Internal communication enhances recruitment, retention, development of employee loyalty and commitment to organizational goals by ever more diverse and segmented publics.

“In the network society a communicative organization goes far beyond today’s traditional definition of full-time employees, understanding that internal stakeholders now include full-timers with tenure generally shortening, part-timers, seasonal employees, contractors, consultants, suppliers, agents, distributors, volunteers and more.

“Public relations professionals constantly address:
° how organizational leaders communicate;
° how knowledge is shared;
° how decisions are made;
° how processes and structures are created;
° and expand communication to include many boundary publics that are also often considered as highly trusted sources of information about the organization and essential players contributing to the organization’s success.”

My reply

Yes, many of an organisation’s relationships are now both important and fleeting or arm’s length. Actually, that will often require an unattractive wariness. The need for secrecy, privacy and caution is greater than ever and has to be communicated as well as possible.

Stockholm Accords on the new boundaries of external communication:

“The network society mandates that a communicative organization expand its scope and skills to focus on customers*, investors*, communities*, governments*, active citizenship groups*,  industry groups*, mainstream, digital and social media*, and other situational stakeholders*.

“Public relations professionals:
° promote, support and contribute to modify products, services or processes;
° bring the voice of the organization into regulatory and community decisions;
° adopt social networking and research skills and tools to listen to stakeholder demands and report to management so that they may be appropriately interpreted and, where relevant and effective, integrated into the decision making process;
° strengthen brand loyalty* and equity*, thus reinforcing the organization’s license to operate;
° work with all organizational functions, through every step of production and delivery, to craft and implement effective communication programs*.
° actively participate in dialogue*, evaluate and measure results*, and accordingly adjust their practices.”

My reply

This looks like PR’s pitch to stick its nose in everywhere. Nice try, and to some extent justified.

Stockholm Accords on co-ordination of internal and external communication:

“In value networks, each communicative issue* is multi faceted*, multi stakeholder* and inter relational within and between different networks* and positioned in diverse legal frameworks.

“The communicative organization must balance global transparency, finite resources and time sensitive demands dealing with dynamic changes in inside/outside territorial borders and new conflicts of interests emerging from multiple stakeholder participation*.
Dialogue with internal, boundary and external stakeholders must be coordinated with the organization’s mission*, vision*, values*, implementation*, promises*, as well as actions* and behaviors*.

“Public Relations professionals:
° research, develop, monitor and adjust organizational behavior and communication behaviors providing leadership for issues based on stakeholder and societal relationships;
° develop a knowledge base that includes social and psychological sciences, best practices and formative research to create, evaluate, measure and implement programs for continuous improvement.”

My reply

This looks like a pitch for PRs to be rulers of the universe: all-seeing, all-knowing, etc. I don’t mind this accord but it is not so much edifying and energising as yawn-making. How about: “Almost every aspect of your work will convey a message about your organisation, so expect a good PR to take an interest in everything you do.”

Related posts:

1. Stockholm Accords interrogated – part 1 This is for everyone interested in the Stockholm Accords and the debate...
2. BM’s COO Roman Geiser interviewed When local boy Roman Geiser, Burson-Marsteller’s Swiss CEO, was catapulted...
3. Wither stakeholder doctrine? In 1994 Tony Blair promised to turn the UK into...

This manifesto might seem a lost cause. Speaking at the RSA/Sky Sustainable Business Lecture Series in London, Richard Lambert, director-general of the CBI, the British employers’ group, said “what you might call Jack Welch [1980s] capitalism” was drawing to a close – a reference to the former General Electric chief executive’s championing of shareholder value. Last year Welch dubbed his old mantra “the dumbest idea in the world”. He added: “Shareholder value is a result, not a strategy . . . Your main constituencies are your employees, your customers and your products.”

Richard Lambert advocates that doing good is good business and that:

“The risk now is that the public and political response to what’s happened will itself have troubling consequences. If you don’t trust an institution to behave well, you impose regulations – perhaps to a point that undermines the dynamic workings of a market economy, and in turn holds back the forces of job creation and sustainable economic development”

He’s not alone in thinking that shareholders are now just one of many competing interest groups CEOs work for. In a recent FT interview, Paul Polman, Unilever chief executive, said:

“I do not work for the shareholder, to be honest; I work for the consumer, the customer. I discovered a long time ago that if I focus on . . .  the long term to improve the lives of consumers and customers all over the world, the business results will come.”

I think these intelligent people are setting up a false dichotomy. Shareholder value is not necessarily at odds with social value. Customers and employees are not necessarily at odds with shareholders. Sure, running a socially respectable, customer-facing business may well be the ticket for shareholder value.

So I prefer the more robust approach of Lord Haskins, the former chairman of Northern Foods, who has questioned Mr Polman’s assertion that he does not work for Unilever shareholders, saying:

“Isn’t it the shareholder who appoints him, provides him with the funds to run his business, and awards him with his substantial pay package?”

Moreover, many firms, such as Swiss Re and DuPont, to name but two, still put creating shareholder value at the top of their stated objectives: see here and here.

To echo Michael Skapinker writing in the FT, before we consign the shareholder value movement to the dustbin, it is worth remembering why it arose: to prevent chief executives from running businesses in their own interests rather than those of the companies’ owners.

So here are my manifesto’s key points:

The problems:

• The emergence of a generation of CEOs who ran companies for their own benefit;
• A generalised passion for short-term stock value.

The solution:

• CEOs (agents) should be more accountable to the owners (principals) of their businesses;
• They should agree and assert the kind of firm they are running (long or short term value, for instance);
• They should communicate and sell these propositions.

Some principles:

• As a fan of Theodore Levitt, I’ve no doubt that Welch and Polman are right that great products, services and customer focus are the key ingredients of a successful company;
• No firm can function without a licence to operate;
• Key stakeholders need to be kept onside – employees, customers, suppliers and the like;
• If the longer term is what counts most, CEOs need to do more than they currently do to invest in innovation and in R&D (here’s a useful manifesto addressing this issue).
• Longterm profits matter a great deal to some firms, but that requires great flexibility and constant change.

PR challenge

PRs would do a much better job for their employers and clients if they spoke plainly and honestly about the realities of business. The current recession is caused by a crisis of profitability and negative growth. It is experienced as a crisis of confidence and trust. But it is not helpful to the cause of restoring growth and boosting reputations in society when PRs communicate that profit and growing shareholder value no longer matter most.

Today, the reality is that millions of people are losing their jobs, accepting pay freezes, going part-time, and feeling insecure about their futures, precisely because there’s not enough profit or a strong enough expectation of long-term shareholder value growth in the system. We’d all do better with our PR if we faced the truth rather than evaded it.

Related posts:

1. Wither stakeholder doctrine? In 1994 Tony Blair promised to turn the UK into...
2. PR should help leaders lead, not listen Here’s a manifesto in favour of decent top-down adult leadership rather...

Here’s a muse on how the stakeholder doctrine failed both politics and business and how it may not survive the challenge from the BRIC countries where there’s a bit more realism about life.

Let’s start in the present with UK politics. Then we’ll turn to how stakeholder doctrine originated in the trendy 1960s in the business sphere. Finally, I’ll make the case for saving the term “stakeholder”.

What a difference thirteen years makes. Tony Blair’s mission, he said, was to use the stakeholder concept to redefine rights and obligations and to extend accountability in society. Under Mr Blair there was a flurry of government-NGO-private business partnership arrangements. The “Third Sector” swam into view. This was the stuff which Geoff Mulgan and the think tank Demos were promulgating. I suppose the point was that Thatcher gave us popular capitalism and Blair’s mission was to widen the remit to a new participatory, networking society. Trying to move things on, and find a new Tory mission, Mr Cameron castigated Mr Blair’s “bureaucratic accountability” (all that tick-boxing, all those targets which Blair actually inherited from John Major), which he claims he’s going to smash. Mr Cameron has his own “power to the people” agenda, and we’ll see if it happens.

As the New Labour project makes way for David Cameron’s Tories (or something less new than New Labour), we should remind ourselves that the slogan was a fiction. The new active politics was top-down, not bottom-up. This really did mark a significant shift from past practice: Tony Blair’s infamous decision-making “sofa government” was the most unaccountable clique to rule the UK in modern times. It was perhaps even more closed than aristocratic rule once had been. The involvement of stakeholders turned into the manipulation of stakeholders and the sidelining of a democratically elected parliament.

Of course the idea that politics is everybody’s business – that we are all stakeholders in it – is the very core of modern democracy. The term may have gone out fashion in politics, but the political class is obsessing on how to engage people, which is much the same as trying to make more people feel like stakeholders. Indeed, the tragedy is that so many people don’t feel and act like social stakeholders. They’ve volunteered themselves to be on the sidelines, not least by not voting. It’s tempting, too, to think of anti-social people as being the reverse of stakeholders. It’s enough to make one nostalgic for the idea that people are stakeholders in the degree to which they pay taxes and don’t sponge, but that’s another story.

But whilst the idea of everyone being a social or political stakeholder – at least in principle and as an ideal – is valid, and whilst the phrase was borrowed by politicians from business, I don’t think it make sense in a business context.

So now let’s go back a bit and look at how stakeholder doctrine worked its way into business.

The 1960s origins of stakeholder doctrine

The word stakeholder has been around most likely since the 1930s, perhaps before. But its modern persona began to take shape in the 1960s. According R Edward Freeman’s history of the term:

“The actual word “stakeholder” first appeared in management literature in an internal memorandum at Stanford Research Institute (now SRI International, Inc) in 1963. The term was meant to generalize the notion of stockholders as the only group to whom management need be responsive. Thus, the stakeholder concept was originally defined as  “those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist.”

The groups defined as stakeholders back then consisted of little more than shareowners. So it was tightly defined and designed to help organisations understand and achieve their corporate objectives. But over time, as Freeman describes it, the meaning of stakeholder theory changed dramatically. It began to include people whose personal interests were closely related to those of a firm (employees and so on).  As the doctrine evolved it eventually came to be defined, as Freeman put it, “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives.” It later evolved to mean the whole of society. This radical development in stakeholder theory dates from around 1975 with the introduction of the “stakeholder audit”. The aim of this was to measure the social costs and benefits of business to all its stakeholders and to give them equal importance to financial results. So what was a deliberately narrowing term transmogrified into its reverse: something as wide as possible.

Freeman identified “stake” as an “interest” or a “share” (in an undertaking) and he considered three groups of stakes: Equity stakes (held by shareholders); economic or market stakes (employees or customers); influencer stakes (interest or activist groups).

Of course, stakeholders like publics are often found in more than one role. Employees can be shareholders, customers can be activists, suppliers might be creditors etc. Their interests might be contradictory in the different roles they occupy. Moreover, the stakeholder’s perception of his or her own interest might not be measurable clearly either by consultation and or research (that’s an issue I’ve looked at on my PR blog in relation to Edelman’s trust survey results here here here).

Reasons to cutback on stakeholder hype

Here are my concerns about the stakeholder doctrine in business:

• Firms were no longer run for the benefit of their owners who risked their capital in them.
• The objective of business with stakeholder theory became the balancing of stakeholder interests (this precluded favouring one group over another) rather than maximising shareholder value by achieving specific corporate objectives as defined by the owners.
• The foundation stones of capitalism are the concepts of private property, the rights of its owners to exploit it, and the first duty of its agents being owed to principals. Those foundations have not been overthrown in a social revolution. Rather they remain legally binding but weakened by populist nonsense in the public domain. The suspicion has to be that stakeholder theorists are crude propagandists trying to effect change by the back door, or that they are self-deluded.
• Stakeholder theory created ambiguities for corporate governance – exactly to whom and for what is management accountable?
• If management is effectively accountable to everybody, then it is not accountable to anybody.
• If “active publics” define stakeholders, as Jim Grunig seems to suggest, then perhaps that gives them power over the silent majority that they don’t deserve? For sure, laws and democracy were long-ago designed to limit activist power in the interest of the greater good.
• The specificity of the terms stakeholder, public and “activist public” as useful categories is rendered meaningless if one accepts Freeman’s definition of what constitutes a stakeholder, which includes the unborn, the environment and much more.
• At its most absurd stakeholder theory identifies irreconcilable forces as each other’s stakeholders. Hence Greenpeace becomes a stakeholder in the nuclear industry.
• Stakeholder theory does little to tackle the real problem business faces today; which is that managers have become unaccountable to their owners for their poor results. Today’s recession is partly caused by irresponsible bankers destroying shareholder value because they pursued short-term interests. The recession is about falling profits, failing businesses and their social consequences, not a shortage of CSR (BTW: corporate governance is not primarily about the relationship of corporations to society).
• Right now, business has to make brutal decisions. Consensus will matter but so will speed and agility. Stakeholder management techniques, if taken seriously, are slow. They lack the robustness to be tough and to set priorities which produce clear winners and losers.
• The insight that stakeholder theorists claim as theirs that relationships, networks and consent are crucial to business success has been known since trading in goods and services began.

How some of this works in politics

• Politicians who big-up stakeholder politics on the basis that it’s particpatory can be taken with a pinch of salt. New Labour went in for the Big Conversation and masses of consultation, but it often turned out to be a sham.
• In the modern perverse definition, stakeholders are self-defining. Victims – or anyone who says they feel strongly – have to be listened to as though they were experts.
• Representative democracy empowers people who go to the trouble of getting elected: stakeholder politics risks undermining that process.

Whose side are PRs on?

One of the startling logical implications of stakeholder theory for PRs is that we no longer remain representatives of our employers. Rather we become brokers of different interest groups, listeners, facilitators and managers of the many stakeholder relationships an organisation has. In this brave new world PRs are more likely to want appear on the side of activists or competitors than on their employer’s side. This fiction needs a reality check in the interest of transparency.

What then was the great attraction of stakeholder theory? In my view it was the opportunity to have power without accountability or risk. This compelling doctrine is a hippy hangover from the post-World-War-II boom. It promised all the benefits of business and political life without the responsibility and disciplines of them; no wonder it became popular among freeloaders.

How to rescue the term stakeholder

Stakeholder theory therefore requires a radical overhaul because the challenges ahead call for risky and accountable leadership. So it will either reform, get real, or be blown away by necessity as the democratic West reorganizes to compete with the BRIC countries.

We should begin with this proposition. It’s a nice compromise, I think. Stakeholders are people with a stake in a firm’s – or any entity’s – well-being. So yes, it can be much wider than shareholders or voters alone. What’s more, legitimate stakeholders may differ very strongly about what a firm’s or country’s aims should be, just as shareholders and voters can. Plenty of people who are not strictly speaking stakeholders may have very interesting and useful views to contribute. Having skin in the game is not the measure of a person’s value to a firm or to the rest of us. But the more skin you have in the game, the more of a stakeholder you can legitimately claim to be. If we are to rehabilitate the stakeholder category usefully, we must first cut the crap.

Note: I owe a debt to Elaine Sternberg’s “Stakeholding: Betraying The Corporation’s Objectives“, SAU, 1998, for insight on this challenging topic.

Related posts:

1. Three cheers for the Mighty Pru’s shareholders Prudential CEO Tidjane Thiam has just learnt the hard way...
2. Stockholm Accords interrogated – part 2 Here’s the second in my trilogy on the Stockholm Accords....
3. Manifesto on shareholder value for PRs Here’s a PR manifesto offering a post-credit crunch reality check...

When Obama was elected some PR theorists said it was the dawn of a new age of democratic and decentralized public engagement. In the words of Richard Edelman, delivering the Grunig lecture at University of Maryland, the main evidence for this was:

…Obama campaign’s mobilization of five million volunteers, who are able to make decisions on how best to contact voters, attract funds and communicate on social media.

But one year on, the evidence does not stand up. The trend today is toward disengaged elitism, not mass engagement.

As Obama’s popularity plummets, Jacob Weisberg’s writing for Slate blames the childish, ignorant American public – not politicians – for his country’s political and economic crisis. He whines about how the GOP has put the nation in an angry, populist, tea-partying mood.

The Tea Party Movement is a kick in the goolies (English slang) to the Obama Presidency. According to Reason Magazine, the campaign is materially affecting things as big as Scott Brown’s election and as little as a Virginia state vote to outlaw health insurance mandates. It adds that its core messages appeal beyond the movement’s ranks.

Meanwhile, Kurt Andersen rants in New York Magazine about how the walls that the founding fathers erected to contain the mob may no longer hold. He says irregular passions and artful misrepresentations are being whipped up to an unprecedented pitch and volume by the fundamentally new means of 24/7 cable and the hyperdemocratic web (the author of Reset is dead set against nonsense and the worst aspects of modernism).

In contrast, Andersen describes the essence of America’s democracy as being, by the people and for the people, definitely; of the people, not so much. Lamenting the emergence of the tea-party citizens, he says they are:

…under the misapprehension that democratic governing is supposed to be the same as democratic discourse, that elected officials are virtuous to the extent that they too default to unbudging, sky-is-falling recalcitrance and refusal. And the elected officials, as never before, are indulging that populist fantasy.

It seems, then, that critical thinkers are “deserting” dialogue and increasingly seeing Grunig’s two-way symmetrical model as a threat.

The reason is that Middle America is feared. It’s a case of What’s The Matter with Kansas, Thomas Frank’s bestseller, which attempted to solve the conundrum of how so-called ruling class conservatism became the creed of millions of ordinary Americans. His answer was that the masses were so stupid they’d been duped. Our old friends, cognitive dissonance, false consciousness and denial are in play.

Obama nearly let his elitist contempt for the masses – the white and black working class – out of the bag during his campaign with his ‘cling to guns and religion’, remark.

Anybody who still harbours a hope today that Obama’s regime is listening to criticism from friend or foe, let alone engaged in dialogue, hasn’t taken note of the recent rant from the White House’s chief of sfaff Rahm Emanuel. He’s been dismissing liberals as “retards”.

Regular readers of this blog know that I admire elite thought and achievement. They will also know that I believe that it is the job of leaders to lead.

I’m a critic of the two-way symmetrical “orthodoxy” that Grunig espouses. It is my belief that if one seeks answers or to find one’s direction in the crowd, one comes up with confusion (or worse, a horrible gungho certainty), which leads to paralysis (or a parity of unpleasantness).

Nevertheless, I maintain that dialogue, consultation and two-way communication has its place. But so does decision-making, which must not be shirked.

In reality, I don’t think there is any correct model for conducting PR. That’s because PR is an art, not a science. It is more results-driven than method-driven. It is a flexible tool designed for a specific purpose, which comes from above. Put simply, PR serves whoever pays for it, or whomever else it is accountable to, including the law and other stakeholders.

Moreover, how could anybody have ever really thought that somebody with Obama’s preacher-style approach to politics could ever become the leader of a new engaged movement based on real-time dialogue?

Related posts:

1. Obama doesn’t Tweet. Does it matter? Barack Obama has 2.6 million followers on Twitter and follows...
2. Briefing for PRs on E2.0′s brave new world There’s been lots of talk in PR circles about value...
3. Reflections on the media and the UK Election The British General Election barely registers on the street. It’s...

The first time I considered transparency as an issue was as an eighteen year-old reading Lord Chesterfield’s letters to his son. One of them contains this 18th century nugget that I’ve never forgotten:

“Without some dissimulation no business can be carried out at all. It is simulation that is false. Dissimulation is only to hide your cards.”

When I read Paul’s piece it was that quote that came to mind. There are often good reasons not to be too transparent even in public service, I thought.

Consider gays in the US military. The Don’t ask, don’t tell (DADT) is a semi-official licence designed to encourage opaqueness in the military. Personally, I favour the right of gays to serve openly, but if one is going to fudge the issue this seems to be almost an acceptable way to do so. It may be inadequate to purists, but it was a halfway decent staging-post to somewhere more honest (and may be not all that superior).

Or consider collective responsibility in government, as did The Times’s Danny Finkelstein in last Sunday’s edition of Westminster Hour on BBC Radio 4. He said that politicians who always speak their minds honestly cannot be good colleagues, because party government consists in the necessarily artificial device of assuming that there is a collegiate view.

Or consider the necessity of ordinary social deceit. The “Does my bum look big in this?” dilemma faces many people.

Or consider whether a schoolboy owes respect to a headmaster who has not yet (in the boy’s view or that of his father) “earned” it. Well, there is a necessary hypocrisy which suggests that respect is owed ex officio. (See Rod Liddle, Sunday Times, 26 October 2009.)

Or consider the politician who in public espouses infant vaccination but can’t get his spouse to allow it on his own baby? Must he be forced to come clean about the status of his own child?

These cases make me feel that transparency may or may not be valuable in this or that circumstance, but also that it is a new species of infantilism to think that transparency is always and everywhere a Good Thing as a matter of principle.

Perhaps, though, transparency is a decent principle for governance? Again, I think not. Transparency could actually be very bad for corporate and political governance. It may produce the unintended consequence of driving all serious deliberations and decisions deep underground  (off-the-record management that’s not accountable to anybody, ever etc.).

When it comes to managing public finances I agree wholeheartedly that transparency is increasingly hard to argue against. But surely, there’s something wrong when transparency in the UK results in the controversial backdated caps on MPs’ expenses recommended by auditor Sir Thomas Legg? Of course in that case – and there are many – the problem isn’t the transparency but the childishness which greeted the facts it revealed.(Too many of the public were unable to cope with the idea that they were contributing to their legislators’ lifestyles.)

I doubt that forcing people to reveal the “truth” will lead to either party (the informant or the informee) becoming wiser or nicer, at least not quickly.

There’s a very real danger that people will simply lie, or be forced to dissemble with greater and greater sophistication. Or they will become mealy-mouthed, say-nothing niceness cyphers.

Indeed, more transparency can only work well if we all become more and more indifferent to the information we increasingly glean. If we do get to the position where everyone knows everything about our finances (or our sexual orientation), we will also need to be in the position of saying, “So what?” to those who make a big deal of these things (or seek to bully or blackmail us). But there is something very authoritarian about arriving there. Surely, some things are personal, or secret for good political and commercial reasons, and revealing them should not be a public requirement?

As Paul Holmes rightly says on his blog, “transparency is less and less tenable as a strategy, because information has a way of fighting free of constraints….” What does this mean for PRs? I think it means that we need to push back on the demand for transparency as a principle. We should be very specific when we use the term and seek to identify when and where it is best to advocate or reject its use.

Otherwise, I fear, transparency is doomed to become the new opaque, and that wouldn’t be honest, would it?

No related pages.

The exodus of Davos Man has quieted the skies above my home office on Zurich lake. I now have the luxury of rummaging in peace through FT.com’s analysis of the World Economic Forum held up the road and over a few hills. Perhaps most importantly, there’s a challenging The hot air of CSR, by Stefan Stern, the FT’s management writer.

Before exploring what Stern says, I note that the FT boiled down the conclusion of this year’s Davos meeting to a few words. It says that the “economic crisis has destroyed many rules the world has been using – the only certainty now is pain”.

Stern begins his report by explaining how the “rediscovered responsibility” at Davos was really an acceptance that firms need to make a profit to stay in business. He then recounts a recent House of Lords closed door meeting at which he found serious PR CSR advocates in a reflective mood:

One executive declared: “I can’t stand writing CSR reports. I hate it. It’s so boring.” Another – in fact our co-host, Michael Littlechild, the head of the advisory business Good Corporation – conceded that, for many business people, CSR was just a case of BDF: “babies, dolphins and forests”.

He highlights that:

There is a mismatch, to put it mildly, between the politically correct rhetoric of a chastened global elite and the reality of what managers have to do every day of the week. It is easy to get confused by these mixed messages. Is it time to embrace the new morality, or to drive the business even harder in search of every last bit of revenue? What should this new era of responsibility look like?

Stern’s right to suggest that mixed messages cause confusion. He’s also right not to back Richard Edelman’s Davos call to put on a par with maximising profits other ideals such as “public engagement”, “corporate mutual social responsibility” or “private-sector diplomacy”. The last by the way is corporate activism on global concerns such as climate change. Elsewhere, Jeff Jarvis usefully describes this activity by its right name, PR.

The PR agencies’ clumsy new vocabulary smacks of old wine in new bottles. One gets the feeling the profession is merely reinforcing boom-time communication practices. One wonders why leading agencies are not properly considering offering their clients a refreshed strategy.

Contrariwise, Stern gets straight to the heart of the issue. He questions whether there really always is a straight-line connection between CSR, reputation and the bottom line. He says:

Customers may decry company X in a focus group or opinion poll. But where do they do their shopping?

He cites as a case study the UK discount fashion store Primark. He describes how its name has been dragged through the dirt in the past year, after worrying aspects of its supply chain were uncovered. Stern points out that its sales figures have risen by 18 per cent (aided by new store openings) in the 16 weeks to January 3, when almost every other UK clothes retailer was struggling.

Of course this does not prove that reputations do not matter. Neither does it mean that Edelman is wrong to advise firms to engage, discuss and find points of mutual self interest with stakeholders.

Stern’s view does, however, add substance to the argument put by Sir Terry Leahy the chief executive of the UK’s leading retailer, Tesco, that do-gooders often do more harm than good.

Stern explains how if Tesco wants to continue competing on price, it will keep up the pressure on its suppliers. He then asks whether this constitutes “corporate social irresponsibility”? He concludes: hardly. Instead, he says, the truly responsible thing to do is to run a good business competently. He concludes:

As the wise CSR practitioners know, it is how you do business that counts. All the rest is just hot air.

In my view, the buzzword that will replace CSR will be sustainability, and business sustainability will be at the front of all the jostling sustainabilities which campaigners and others will suggest. Profit and business models will be at its core. Shareholders will ensure that their interests are put first. They will demand more transparency and accountability from management. They will be more active and less trusting. Traditional values and professional ethics will become highly valued virtues and the true measure of corporate responsibility.

Wider issues such as environmental risk will still be on the agenda to an extent depending on the specific nature of individual risk. Barclays has already acknowledged that point. Others will follow. Watch this space for reports on the new language and development of CSR and corporate responsibility.

No related pages.