Lerbinger O. Corporate Public Affairs. Interacting with Interest Groups, Media, and Government

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

3. A facilitator should be present who keeps the dialogue flowing and

knows how to balance discussion with dialogue.

Many social and political problems are caused by misunderstand

ings among different groups. They hold stereotyped views of one an

other and operate on the basis of partial and inaccurate information.

As a community participant said to management representatives at a

consumer roundtable held by a utility company: “I used to believe that

capitalists are people who don’t have feelings … that they run

money-making machines. Now I know you have feelings.”

At these

same roundtables, the utility was asked about affirmative action crite

ria in hiring. The participants were uninformed of the facts because the

local media had not reported such information. Through the dialogue

of the consumer roundtables, the human resources manager was able

to explain the utility’s policy and the extent to which minority group

persons (e.g., of Hispanic and Chinese descent) had been hired. The util

ity was also able to point out that union contracts made it impossible

for it to move faster in meeting affirmative action goals.

Creating a Neutral Zone. Carlton Spitzer, a public relations coun-

selor who is a leading proponent of dialogue communications, ex-

plains that some kind of “neutral zone” must be discovered or

invented. It is needed “to give us time to consider, to relate, to sort out

the trade-offs, to articulate national and local priorities in a demo-

cratic but nonthreatening atmosphere.”

Although his frame of refer-

ence was the turbulent era of the 1960s and 1970s, which wrought

riots, demonstrations, and confrontations in the nation, his ideas ap-

ply to any time or situation when an organization faces new issues and

demands. The neutral zone, says Spitzer, is in the mind: “It is the will-

ingness of people having different interests to come together to draw a

montage on the wall; to identify gaps and misconceptions; to compro-

mise in order to gain consensus toward the achievement of larger pur

poses in which all people have a stake.”

Spitzer maintains that the

nation needs brokers and matchmakers who will bring adversaries to

gether on common ground.

In dialogue communications, however, the adversarial mind-set

must be put aside so that people with different interests can come to

gether and achieve a “candid exchange of ideas, the cooling of tempers,

and the resolution of basic misunderstanding.”

One of Spitzer’s ex

amples is the rumor disseminated by the media that during the Iranian

revolution, ARCO and other oil companies had tankers, loaded with oil,

sitting offshore to create an oil shortage and a corresponding jump in

prices. To correct this media inaccuracy, Anthony Hatch, then ARCO’s

manager of corporate media relations, took a group of oil executives

on the road to meet with reporters and editors in on-the-record infor

mal discussions.

62 I CHAPTER 2

As to the structure of dialogue meetings, Spitzer says that they “must

maximize freedom, assure nonattribution, and demand nothing in

terms of official statements or decisions or actions.”

In describing

meetings between business leaders and government officials, he notes

these characteristics:

• There was just plain talk in plain surroundings.

• No agenda was printed.

• Everyone was able to speak candidly with his or her counterparts

without fear of attribution.

• No secrets were leaked or confidential data disclosed.

• No one was allowed to make a speech about any special problem or

to plead for a favor.

Spitzer emphasizes that dialogue must begin long before issues de

velop into legislative or legal battles: “It is never enough to do the right

things; industry must also convince others whose support and under-

standing it needs that it is, in fact, doing the right thing.”

Constituency Relations. Another example of dialogue communica-

tions is the constituency relations program established at Texaco by

Mary Ann Pires, former manager of planning and constituency rela-

tions and now president of The Pires Group. She met regularly with a

variety of national consumer and public interest groups. Pires’s man-

date was to “systematically open lines of communication with influen-

tial third-party groups; in short, to develop the interaction necessary

for proactive public relations/public affairs.”

Her objectives were “to

become familiar with each organization, its goals and needs, and to en-

able the group to put a ‘face’ to Texaco—to actually meet and talk with

someone from a ‘Big Oil Company.’”

Texaco’s program illustrates that

public relations practitioners are “facilitators of communication in a

complex society, brokers between competing interests.”

Pires followed these principles in dealing with Texaco’s constituent

groups:

• Develop long-term relations. Too many companies, she was told

by consumer and public interest groups, would meet with them

once and never return. Texaco became convinced, says Pires, it

could not expect people to have any interest in the company and its

issues if the only time it approached them was when it wanted

something.

• Don’t promise anything you can’t deliver. But when you say

you’ll do something, do it.

• Don’t develop a “checkbook relationship.” Texaco’s policy is not to

make contributions in situations where it cannot work with the

organization on a mutual objective.

INTEREST GROUP STRATEGIES I 63

Speechmaking: Supplementing Interpersonal Communication

Speechmaking is a useful tool in various life cycle stages of issues man

agement. In Stage 1, speeches provide an opportunity to reach opinion

leaders and activist groups; in Stage 2, speeches provide an opportunity

to send reprints to media; and in Stage 3, speeches allow a company to

present its views at public hearings.

The important advantages of speeches in Stage 1 communications are:

• They can be given to audiences of various sizes: to small, select

groups that are identified with specific issues, or to larger groups

with a common interest.

• They can be delivered by the most credible spokesperson: an execu

tive, scientist, or other specialist who is most knowledgeable about

an issue or has authority in relationship to it.

• They can provide immediate feedback, and thus, to a smaller ex-

tent, emulate face-to-face communication (a blank look on some-

one in the audience might indicate lack of interest, and raised

eyebrows might signify doubt or hostility).

• They demonstrate the organization’s openness—its respect for

others and willingness to deal with them.

• They help humanize an organization.

Make Strategic Use of Speeches. Corporate executives make the

mistake of addressing essentially the same audiences year after year on

just about the same subjects, observed Robert S. Mason in a 10-year re-

view of speeches.

Although some ritual speaking is obligatory and un-

avoidable, speeches should be designed with specific objectives in mind.

Mason said they should “be part of a speaking program expressing and

furthering the company’s public relations policies, which in turn sup-

port overall company strategy.”

He points out that an innovative

speaking program “creates the opportunity for dialogue between top

management and the groups representing the full range of interests and

aspirations stirring in the social environment.”

One way to assure the strategic use of speeches is to employ a man

agement-by-objectives (MBO) approach. As with other activities, MBO

allows management to focus on achievable goals and to make the most

efficient use of its resources. It is a systematic and organized approach

involving the following steps:

1. Set objectives.

2. Define the audience—Treat it like a market niche.

3. Allocate resources—personnel, money, executive time—to support

the program.

4. Determine the content of the speech.

5. Plan the further dissemination of the speech through reprints and

publicity.

64 I CHAPTER 2

Further dissemination of speeches can support government relations

objectives, states a booklet by the North American Precis Syndicate, a

media relations agency that distributes hundreds of editorials, cartoons,

and feature stories for use by small papers. It lists these advantages:

• “You reach suburban women and senior citizens who hate infla

tion and write to legislators.

• You reach the legislative aides who keep track of what the newspa

pers back home are printing about the issue.

• You reach hometown political leaders and contributors to whom

legislators turn for guidance and support.”

Make News as Well as Speeches. A speech can be viewed as a

newsworthy special event, rather than empty rhetoric that is unrelated

to the philosophy, policies, and actions of a company. Speeches are op

portunities to enunciate policy for the benefit of specific groups, includ-

ing the company’s own employees.

Speeches by CEOs have newsworthy potential because leaders of or-

ganizations have the power to institute policy changes. Sometimes it is

the speechwriter, however, who serves as a catalyst for policy changes.

Aram Bakahian, a speechwriter for former president Richard Nixon,

notes that when existing policy is vague, speechwriters play an impor-

tant role in clarifying stands as well as creating new policies.

Al-

though this example applies to Stage 2 communications, speeches to

select groups in Stage 1 communication can serve the purpose of an-

nouncing a change in organizational policy that accommodates the

needs of the group.

CEO speeches are prepared in various ways. One survey of the nation’s

top 1,000 companies showed that just over one third of CEOs say they

write their own speeches, either a draft or a final version; about a quarter

tell their public relations directors what to write, and seldom change their

drafts; and about another quarter ask for drafts from a number of execu

tives.

Although busy executives can use help, there are good arguments

why they should write major speeches themselves: Their thoughts and

beliefs are clarified by the discipline of choosing the right words for clarity

of expression; delivery is apt to be more natural, direct, and convincing;

and valuable practice is obtained in talking extemporaneously. In an arti

cle titled “Corporate Speechmaking: It’s Not Like Selling Soap,” Norman

Wasserman, a former Ruder-Finn vice president, insisted that “Speeches

by corporate officers should bear their own imprimaturs and convey

their own personal, incisive corporate viewpoints.”

For purposes of opinion leader communication, news dissemination

of speeches should be contained within membership groups or within a

community. Weekly newspapers in communities are particularly recep

tive to speeches about local issues. For Stage 2 communication, how

ever, speeches could be used as a basis for a national news release to

support company goals.

INTEREST GROUP STRATEGIES I 65

Apply Techniques of Persuasion in Speeches. Because public af

fairs speeches are intended to persuade an audience to adopt a certain

point of view, they must contain a variety of types of evidence. Mary

Jane Genova, a communications consultant for Fortune 500 executives,

lists these: statistics (from research studies and opinion surveys); scien

tific evidence and statements by experts; history, case histories, and or

ganizational histories; personal experience, anecdotes, and visuals.

She suggests that at the conclusion to the speech, the speaker should ask

the audience to do something: think a certain way about a problem,

write a letter to a representative, and take personal action.

Communication theorists suggest applying some of the following

principles of persuasion in a speech before a group of people who are

likely to disagree with a corporate position:

1. Build a bridge of common values. Try to overcome the difference in

outlook by referring to common values and goals.

2. Use a two-sided approach. Start by demonstrating your under-

standing of their position and indicate where you are in agree-

ment. Then talk about other points of view, including your own. In

this way you are again establishing a bridge between you and

them.

3. Allow for a Q & A session, but make sure you are prepared in at

least two ways: (a) Know what your corporate policies are (these

should be thought out very carefully), and (b) anticipate questions

that will be asked, and have prepared answers.

Newsletters, Small Publications, and the Internet

Like speeches, newsletters and small publications can reach small

groups of people who initiate change. They bear similarities to small-

group communications when people know one another. However, if cir-

culation is large and members do not know one another, newsletters are

more like a newspaper reaching a mass audience. Most intellectual and

political movements communicate with their members through news

letters. Their editors may be open to letters and reports from outsiders if

the material is of interest to their members. The academic journals of

professional groups are another vehicle through which ideas and stud

ies can be disseminated.

The Internet provides another means of interacting with a variety of

groups, as discussed in the introduction to part II. Activist groups and

nonprofit organizations may benefit the most from the Web by using its

two-way communication potential to engage in dialogue and build rela

tionships with its publics. These interest groups have embraced the tech

nical aspects of website design that enable them to be effectively used

during the early stages of relationship building, but they fall down in cre

ating a dialogue. “Dialogic loops” and feedback or “generating return vis

66 I CHAPTER 2

its” are necessary to build relationships. Visitors have to be offered

reasons to return to sites. A study of how activist organizations use the

Internet to build relationships lists important features of a site that en

courage dialogue: ease of interface (e.g., a site map), usefulness of infor

mation to media publics and volunteer publics, conservation of visitor

(e.g., making important information available on the first page), return

visits (e.g., calendar of events and links to other Websites), and dialogic

loop (e.g., opportunity for user response and voting on issues).

Interest groups are not, however, getting high scores in incorporating

enough of these two-way communication features in their sites. Al

though 94% of organizations in one survey provided places for users to

“respond,” only 44% allowed visitors to show how they felt about issues

and only 16% on whether they agreed with the activist organization’s

position. Also, only 54% of the organizations update their “calendars of

events” within 30 days of a visit.

To realize the potential of websites,

organizations must engage in better relationship-building practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Corporations must learn to deal with interest groups because they rep-

resent a major force in a corporation’s sociopolitical environment and

initiate many issues. Strategies to contain the efforts of these groups

have predominated, but a newer approach is to seek engagement in an

effort to resolve issues for mutual benefit. Although some unilateral ac-

tion may be taken in response to demands, corporations are also apply-

ing public participation strategies, often on a community level.

Various forms of opinion leader communication are used to either to

contain an issue or resolve it. Containment strategies seem appropriate

for an emerging issue that is not widely recognized and is unlikely to

gain support. If the interest groups supporting an issue appear success

ful in gaining recognition and support for the championed issue, corpo

rations must immediately prepare for the next life cycle stage of public

involvement. Before an issue becomes full blown, they can attempt to

gain understanding for their perspective on the issue through one-on-

one meetings and group discussion and give dialogue a chance to clear

mutual misunderstandings. At this point winning is not the goal. The

quest for dominance is restrained in favor of removing a contentious is

sue and reaching a mutual accommodation. An appraisal of these ef

forts will determine whether a resolution is possible (as discussed in

chap. 3) or whether proactive public affairs programs must be under

taken to win public support.

ENDNOTES

1. For a chart on the “Build-up of Social Energy in Response to an Emerging Pub

lic Issue” see Hazel Henderson, Creating Alternative Futures: The End of Eco

nomics (New York: Berkley Publishing, 1978), p. 231.

INTEREST GROUP STRATEGIES I 67

2. On this point, see Barry M. Nitnick, editor, “The Strategic Uses of Regula

tion—and Deregulation,” Corporate Political Agency: The Construction of Com

petition in Public Affairs (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1993), p. 73.

3. Ibid., p. 74. Also see pp. 75–76 for other examples.

4. Saul D. Alinsky, Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals

(New York: Vintage Books, 1971).

5. Jarol B. Manheim, The Death of a Thousand Cuts (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, 2001), p. vii.

6. Ibid., pp. 91–92.

7. The “Farah Manufacturing Company” case is included in Frederick D.

Sturdivant and Larry M. Robinson, The Corporate Social Challenge: Cases and

Commentaries (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, 1977), pp. 71–81.

8. Ibid., p. 79.

9. James E. Stacey and Frederick S. Sturdivant, “J. P. Stevens & Co., Inc.,” The Cor

porate Social Challenge: Cases and Commentaries (Boston, Mass.: Irwin, 1994),

p. 294.

10. Manheim, op. cit., p. 55.

11. Ibid., p. 54.

12. Ibid. See Appendix B, pp. 341–346.

13. Otto Lerbinger, The Crisis Manager: Facing Risk and Responsibility (Mahwah,

N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997), pp. 112–143.

14. Ibid., pp. 147, 170.

15. See Sandi Sonnenfeld, “Media Policy—What Media Policy,” Harvard Business

Review, Vol. 72, July/August 1994, pp. 18–32.

16. Penelope Canan and George W. Pring, “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public

Participation,” Social Problems, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 506–519.

17. Catherine Dodd, “SLAPP Back,” Buzzworm: The Environmental Journal, Vol.

4, No. 4, p. 36.

18. See an excellent review of SLAPPS in Sharon Beder, “Lawsuits Against Public

Participation,” in Global Spin: The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism

(White River Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green Publishing, 1997), pp. 63–74.

19. Ibid., p. 63.

20. H. A. Cavanaugh, “The Management Report: Where Do the Antis Get Their

Money? Parts 1 and 2,” Electrical World, April 15, 1980, pp. 51–54; May 1,

1980, pp. 25–29.

21. Ibid., April 15, 1980, p. 53. Stopping such blatant support of what was per

ceived as anticorporate groups was one of the goals of Dr. H. Peter Metzger,

manager of public affairs planning at Public Service Co. of Colorado, in a

speech given at the 47th Annual Conference of the Southeastern Electric Ex

change.

22. Emma Wilkins, “McDonald’s Turned Private Investigators on Fastfood Critics,”

Times, June 29, 1994, Home News section. Also see Jackie Kemp, “McDonald’s

Suffers From Court Grilling,” Scotland on Sunday, June 25, 1995, p. 4.

23. James Erlichman, “‘McLibel 2’ Bite Into Court Fight With Burger Chain,” The

Guardian, March 15, 1994, Home Page, p. 7.

24. Beder, op. cit., p. 68.

25. Beth Karlin, “McDonald’s Has Big Beef With Vegetarian Critics; Burger Giant

Suing Unemployed Pair for Libel in London,” Rocky Mountain News, August

14, 1995, p. 43A.

26. Ibid.

27. George A. Steiner and John F. Steiner, Casebook for Business, Government, and

Society (New York: Random House, 1980), pp. 27–37.

68 I CHAPTER 2

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid., p. 29.

30. Ibid., p. 31.

31. See case study: “Nike’s Dispute With the University of Oregon,” in James E.

Post, Anne T. Lawrence, and James Weber, Business and Society: Corporate

Strategy, Public Policy, Ethics, 10th edition (New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin,

2002), pp. 570–580.

32. Orrin Baird, “Labor’s Right to Speak Under Attack,” Legal Times, May 18,

1998, p. S34.

33. Aaron Bernstein and Steven V. Brull, “Labor and the GOP: A Shootout in Cal

ifornia,” BusinessWeek, February 16, 1998, p. 44.

34. Aaron Bernstein, “Commentary: All’s Not Fair in Labor Wars,”

BusinessWeek, July 19, 1999, p. 43.

35. “Tough Love for Labor,” BusinessWeek, October 16, 2000, p. 120.

36. Ann Zimmerman, “Wal-Mart Plans Changes to Wages, Labor Practices,”

Wall Street Journal, June 7, 2004, p. B3.

37. Wendy Zellner, “How Wal-Mart Keeps Unions at Bay,” BusinessWeek, Octo

ber 28, 2002, p. 94.

38. Ibid., p. 96.

39. Foundation for Public Affairs, Public Interest Profiles 1998–1989 (Washing-

ton, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1988), p. 58.

40. This example and explanation appears as an ethical dilemma in Dennis L.

Wilcox, Phillip H. Ault, and Warren K. Agee, Public Relations Strategies and

Tactics, 3rd edition (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1992), p. 120. Ref-

erence is also made to the Public Relations Society of America’s Code of Pro-

fessional Standards for the Practice of Public Relations, Paragraph 8, which

states: “A member shall not use any individual or organization professing to

serve or represent an announced cause, or professing to be independent or

unbiased but actually serving another of undisclosed interest” (p. 122).

41. Adapted from Andrew B. Gollner, Social Change and Corporate Strategy (Issue

Action Publications, 1984), p. 153; also Corporate Public Issues, Vol. 16, Sep-

tember 1, 1991, p. 103.

42. Michael A. Santoro, “Engagement with Integrity: What We Should Expect

Multinational Firms to Do About Human Rights in China,” Business & the

Contemporary World, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1998, pp. 25–54.

43. Ibid., p. 30.

44. Ibid., summarized in Appendix A.

45. Post et al., op. cit., p. 575.

46. Ibid., pp. 575–576.

47. James Grunig is credited for developing four models of public relations: (a)

press agentry/publicity, (b) public information, (c) two-way asymmetric,

and (d) two-way symmetric. See James E. Grunig and Todd Hunt, Managing

Public Relations (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1984), pp. 21–43.

Also see James E. Grunig and Larissa A. Grunig, “Models of Public Relations

and Communication,” in James Grunig, editor, Excellence in Public Relations

and Communication Management (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ

ates, 1992), pp. 285–325.

48. Citizen Participation (Washington, D.C.: The Community Services Adminis

tration, 1978).

49. Argonne National Laboratory, Final Report: Public Participation Bench

marking Conference, October 23, 1997.

50. Ibid., p. 11.

INTEREST GROUP STRATEGIES I 69

51. Ibid., p. 12.

52. Ibid., p. 13.

53. Ibid., p. 12.

54. “A New Tune for Protecting the Environment, in Harmony,” Chemecology,

March/April 1996, pp. 2–3.

55. Robert L. Heath, Julie Bradshaw, and Jaesub Lee, “Community Relationship

Building: Local Leadership in the Risk Communication Infrastructure,”

Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 14, No. 4, 2002, p. 318.

56. “Lessons From the World Bank,” pr reporter, February 4, 2002, pp. 2–3.

57. The full definition of an interest group is given by David B. Truman in The

Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion (New York:

Knopf, 1951), p. 33: “As used here ‘interest group’ refers to any group that,

on the basis of one or more shared attitudes, makes certain claims upon

other groups in the society for the establishment, maintenance, or enhance

ment of forms of behavior that are implied by the shared attitudes.”

58. For a brief overview of interest group theory, see Jay M. Shafritz, The Dorsey

Dictionary of American Government and Politics (Chicago: Dorsey Press,

1988), pp. 286–288.

59. Cynthia Crossen, “Blah, Blah, Blah: The Crucial Question for These Noisy

Times May Just Be: ‘Hugh?’” Wall Street Journal, p. A1

60. Ibid.

61. Ibid.

62. Llyle Sussman, Peggy Golden, and Renee Beauclair, “Training for E-Mail,”

Training and Development Journal, Vol. 45, March 1991, pp. 70–73.

63. This explanation is based on Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and

Practice of the Learning Organization (New York: Currency Doubleday,

1990), pp. 238–249.

64. Ibid., p. 240.

65. Ibid., pp. 243–247.

66. From a roundtable meeting with a utility company at which the author was

the moderator.

67. Carlton E. Spitzer, Raising the Bottom Line: Business Leadership in a Changing

Society (New York: Longman, 1982), p. 7.

68. Ibid., p. 8.

69. Ibid., p. 138.

70. Ibid., p. 8.

71. Ibid., p.200.

72. Many Ann Pires, “Working With Public Interest Groups,” Public Relations

Journal, Vol. 39, April 1983, p. 16.

73. Ibid., p. 17.

74. Ibid., p. 19.

75. Robert S. Mason, “SMR Forum: Is Anybody Listening? A Fresh Look at the

Art of Management Speechmaking,” Sloan Management Review, Vol. 18,

Spring 1977, p. 79.

76. Ibid., p. 89.

77. Ibid., p. 88.

78. North American Precis Syndicate, “Do Your Officers Make Speeches That Are

Worth Quoting,” n.d.

79. Gage W. Chapel, “Speechwriting in the Nixon Administration,” Journal of

Communication, Vol. 26, Spring 1976, pp. 58–72.

80. Otto Lerbinger and Nathaniel H. Sperber, Key to the Executive Head (Reading,

Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975), pp. 45, 141.

70 I CHAPTER 2

81. Norman Wasserman, “Corporate Speechmaking: It’s Not Like Selling Soap,”

Management Review, Vol. 68, November 1979, pp. 25–28.

82. Mary Jane Genova, “Speechwriting” in Dartnell’s Public Relations Handbook,

ed. Robert L. Dilenschneider (Chicago: Dartnell, 1996), pp. 256–259.

83. Maureen Taylor, Michael L. Kent, and William J. White, “How Activist Orga

nizations Are using the Internet to Build Relationships,” Public Relations Re

view, Vol. 27, Fall 2001, p. 273.

84. Ibid., p. 279.

INTEREST GROUP STRATEGIES I 71