"PR is Dead." (PDF) - Odwyerpr.com

Corporate Public Affairs Vol 23: No 1, 2013VOLUME 23 NUMBER 1 2013Centre Director Wayne Burns bells the cat, and writes that the last rites arein order for the management function once known as public relations.PR is deadIndian philosopher and the winner of the Nobel Prizefor Literature, Rabindranath Tagore, last centurymused: ‘Death is not extinguishing the light; it is onlyputting out the lamp because the dawn has come’.Public Relations—‘PR’ for both who deride andembrace it—is dead as a strategic management functionin large organisations and corporations, its originalintent and utility surviving only on the tactical fringesof marketing communications areas within corporations.This should not come as a shock, as many a deathdoes, because PR has long been on life support. Itsutility and usefulness for most corporations as a coremanagement function has been terminal since the late1990s: in the 21 st Century, its outcomes more readilyalign with marketing communications objectives thanthose of the corporate public affairs functions managedin most companies.In 2012, only one per cent of corporations nominatedthat they managed a ‘public relations’ function (State ofPublic Affairs in Australia, Centre for Corporate PublicAffairs, 2012).In good and best practice corporate public affairsfunctions in Europe, Australia and in most globalcorporations in Asia and the US, elements of what wasonce seen as ‘good PR’—positive and frequent newsmedia coverage and reporting, well attended corporateevents and product launches, market-segmentedmarketing/communications campaigns—are not anend in themselves.In 2013, the ‘end’ is most frequently valued inthe form of socio-political ‘outcomes’, defined andgenerated by organisational strategy, and by publicaffairs strategy that contributes to and underpinsbroader organisational objectives.In this environment, corporate public affairsmanagement inputs and outputs (including the oldPR staples of the volume of media coverage andprominence, and campaign and event management andattendance) are not ends or value in themselves.In a world where the question ‘are newspapersdead?’ is being asked also amid rapidly splinteringnews media, the traditional PR model of pushing anddistributing information is floundering.PR is dead as an end in itself in organisationsembracing good management practice becauseengagement with stakeholders has evolved beyondpushing messages out to achieve ‘good PR’, which initself is fleeting and of momentary value.PR is dead to most corporations because the sociopoliticalenvironment in which large organisations(and corporations especially) operate is more complexthan putting the ‘best light’ on an organisation and itsactivities.And core activities once comprising core PR(‘press’ and media relations, ‘push’ and marketingcommunications, crisis communications, productlaunches) are siblings to a much larger family ofpublic affairs elements—issues management, internalcommunications, investor relations, stakeholderengagement, government and industry relations andcorporate responsibility.i n s i d ePublished by the Centre for CorporatePublic Affairs as a service to membersISSN 1039-7167SOCIAL MEDIA6 A corporate public affairs view ofsocial mediaPOLICY ADVOCACY9 Values, ideology and policy13 Evidence and public policyBOOK REVIEW17 The language of leaders18 Professional development19 Network

Corporate Public Affairs Vol 23: No 1, 2013A death in the family was notunexpectedPublic affairs practitioners working in their professionfor some years will be hardly surprised that PR hasbeen a critical patient for a decade, and has been onits last legs since extensive use of social media beganamputating the model of ‘pushing out’ and distributinginformation to generate ‘news’.Though it has not been entirely linear, organisationsnurturing corporate public affairs management functionshave been carefully defining and understandingstakeholders that most influence and impact on theenvironment that enables them to operate (their‘enabling’ environment).This has seen organisations focus their engagementefforts on defined and often small groups of stakeholders.Understanding the attributes, issues andattitudes of those stakeholders cannot be achievedthrough traditional public relations.And stakeholders such as customers or clients,though frequently representing a stakeholder categorycomprising a large number of individuals, cannot beassigned as a broad ‘public’ to be understood, reachedand influenced via PR tools and methods.The splintering media habits of consumers—including large numbers globally who are selfpublishersvia social media—has turned mass channelcommunication (a core element of traditional PR) onits head.Disruption of the traditional mass media modelby social media in itself represents a challenge to theexistence of PR and its modus operandi. When marriedwith stakeholders’ expectations of not only being‘communicated to’ by corporations and governmentsvia mass media channels around their interests, issuesand concerns, but being engaged, then the traditionalPR model is no longer viable.Most large, well-managed organisations are seekingto have conversations with their stakeholders. Suchdialogue cannot occur via ‘push’ communicationchannels that are part and parcel of the PR model.Model behaviourThe good practice model for corporate public affairs ischaracterised by management thinking and activity toinfluence socio political outcomes as a means of deliveringorganisational strategy.Practitioners working within this model do so withan eye to the organisation’s long-term social licenseto operate with stakeholders, sustainable shareholderreturns, and strong employer brand to attract and retaingood people.The modern public affairs management function—described by the Centre as ‘the window in, and thewindow out’ of an organisation, and the function whichseeks to help the organisation interpret and influence itssocio-political environment—is very different from howPR is defined.The Public Relations Society of America definespublic relations as:'a strategic communication process that builds mutuallybeneficial relationships between organizations andtheir publics.' (http://www.prsa.org/AboutPRSA/PublicRelationsDefined, April, 2013)The Public Relations Institute of Australia offers thisdefinition:‘... the management function which evaluates publicattitudes, identifies the policies and procedures of anindividual or an organisation with the public interest,and plans and executes a programme of action to earnpublic understanding and acceptance’. (PRIA, www.pria.com.au, March 14, 2013)And in 2013, Philip Lesly’s definition, cited on thePRIA’s website also:‘...helping an organisation and itspublics adapt mutually to each other’. (Handbook of PublicRelations and Communication, 1990)Those who have observed how the public affairsfunction has developed in large organisations internationallywould recognise that these definitions were aptto meet the needs of large organisations in the 1970sand 1980s.At the beginning of the second decade of the 21stcentury, good practice corporate public affairs seeks notonly to inform the public, but to involve distinct groupsof stakeholders in the organisation’s endeavours, andto influence the socio-political environment and createopportunities for strategy to be achieved.The 1980s and 1990s approach to PR—manifestedby activity to secure ‘positive’ media reports and ‘coverage’of a company (frequently ‘monetised’ by applyingprint advertising rates per centimetre of coverage,or broadcast advertising rates per 30 seconds of newsreporting), hold corporate events (the success of whichdefined by the number of attendees) and secure speakingplatforms for the CEO or senior executives—no longerrepresents the value it once did. The managementcaravan has moved on, as have societal expectations of

Corporate Public Affairs Vol 23: No 1, 2013Exhibit 1: Evolution of corporate public affairs — Australia and Asia, 1985 to 2010Marketing Comms Public Relations Corporate Comms Corporate Public Affairs• Opportunistic• Events-driven• Collateral-focused• Marketing ethos• Brand = image =reputation• Brand management =reputation• Heavy focus andemphasis on channels• Emphasis oninputs/activity• Events-drivenexternal and internal• ‘Good news’ mediarelations and brandplacement• Brand profile focus• Channels and notstrategy-driven• Reliance on corporatehospitality externally• Brand management, notreputation management• Emphasis on inputs andoutputs• Corporate comms strategyin place for internal andexternal communications• Community relationsstrategy in place• Financial communicationscapacity• Sophisticated channelsand strategy management• Little marketing/commsactivity• Ad hoc issues mgt• Emphasis on KPIs aroundinputs• Strategic input intocorporate strategy• Seat on senior managementteam with CEO• Public affairs strategy linkedto corporate strategy• Stakeholders mapped andcomms/engagementcalibrated to influencestakeholders and addresspotential and existing issues• Sophisticated issues mgt• Outcomes measured andused as KPIsBasic Tactical StrategicSource: Centre for Corporate Public Affairs, 2010how corporations should interact with the communitiesin which they operate.Corporate public affairs and PRIn most large companies and organisations in Australia,as well as many in Asia, the concept of public relationsis one that is best understood as crafting and ‘pushing’messages out via channels—and via news media especially—toseek to put a company or organisation in themost positive light possible.The role of the corporate public affairs function todayis far more complex and demanding than seeking to placean organisation in the best light with the public. Andalthough reputation stewardship is a core focus of thecorporate public affairs management function, it is moresophisticated and nuanced than generating inputs andoutputs to generate ‘good press’ for an organisation.Contemporary corporate public affairs is far removedand evolved from public relations in that, when practicedand managed well, organisations seek to forgeand nurture strategic relationships with stakeholders—manyof them their own employees—as a responseto socio-political change and mores, and as competitiveadvantage.Though it has not been linear, the contemporary corporatepublic affairs management function in Australiaand in most parts of Asia, evolved from a marketingcommunications capability to one that is intrinsicallyinvolved in developing organisational strategy, andsenior management decision-making.As Exhibit 1 illustrates, some elements of PR werethe evolutionary forbears of contemporary corporatepublic affairs. These elements were valuable tocorporations at a time when social and managementexpectations were different from what they are today.Corporate media relations, crisis communicationsand some aspects of community relations have theirroots in the tactical practice of PR as it existed in the1980s and 1990s, dominated by channel-driven communicationsto put a company in the ‘best light’ in newsmedia reports.However, corporate public affairs disciplines suchas government relations, corporate responsibility, stakeholderrelations and issues management share little oftheir heritage with traditional public relations.The management function that is corporate publicaffairs has evolved because of socio-political naturalselection and innovations in business management.Since the early 1990s, some PR attributes have beenabsorbed into corporate public affairs. As well, managementpractice has evolved to dictate that what used to bea number of public relations outcomes, are today inputsand outputs to corporate public affairs outcomes.One reason PR is dead in leading organisations isbecause inputs and outputs do not constitute value:‘positive’ media reports and well-attended corporateevents are inputs to corporate public affairs outcomes,which include good corporate reputation, engagedstakeholders, a healthy corporate brand, and engagedemployees.The Centre has tracked the evolution of the corporatepublic affairs management function in Australia,Asia, the US, Europe and New Zealand for 25 years; andmost closely via its State of Public Affairs in Australia andState of Asia Public Affairs research studies and reports.Rather than the transactional management functionchampioned by public relations representativeorganisations, the contemporary public affairs

Corporate Public Affairs Vol 23: No 1, 2013management function in large organisationsExhibit 2: Elements: Corporate Public Affairs and Public Relationsis as far away from PR asCONTEMPORARY CORPORATEHobart is from Vladivostok.PublIC AFFAIRSTRADITIONAL PUBLIC RELATIONSExhibit 2 illustrates the elements• Government relations• Media relationsof the integrated public affairs function• Public policy development• Product promotion/as managed in most corporationsin Australia (based on 2012 State of• Strategic media relations• Corporate responsibilitycommunications• Events management• Stakeholder engagement• Crisis communication counselPublic Affairs in Australia data) and the• Issues management• Leadership communicationselements of public relations (collated• Crisis management (including • Marketing communicationsfrom public relations associated websitesand management literature by theCentre for Corporate Public Affairs instakeholder engagement andcommunications)• Internal communications• Strategic communicationscounsel• Employee engagementFebruary 2013).• Regulatory affairsOur analysis of the core elements • Investor relationsof public relations leads us to concludethat their management utility is as• Corporate reputation stewardship• Corporate community investment• Community relationsinputs and outputs to generate some• Corporate brand stewardshipof the outcomes germane to good practice(stakeholder brand)corporate public affairs.A key insight into any assessmentof PR apropos corporate public affairsis that as well as an evolution ofnomenclature (corporate public affairs• Strategic business counselMeasurement of outcomes(value)Source: Centre for Corporate Public Affairs, 2013Counting inputs and outputs(activity)seeks to engage ‘stakeholders’ compared to public relationsseeking to communicate with ‘publics’), publicrelations is a transactional notion, relying heavily ontraditional news media channels and events to ‘promote’an organisation or issue.It is worth noting at this juncture that marketingcommunications, a traditional staple of public relations(and core to the modus operandi of many a publicrelations agency), is not commonly a focus of corporatepublic affairs management.That is not to say that managing marketing communicationsinputs and outputs to achieve marketingoutcomes are not important to companies. FMCG (fastmoving consumer goods) and retail companies investconsiderably to fund marketing communications activities.Most frequently today, marketing communicationsin large corporations are managed in marketing departments.scramble to work out how they can achieve the dialoguethat dominates social media platforms (that haschanged the manner in which billions of people consumenews and information to forge opinions), socialmedia globally has tried and condemned the old modelof PR push messaging.Most PR activity that was once executed by corporationsis now frequently managed within companymarketing departments, or outsourced to marketing orpublic relations agencies.And though the glow of PR still flickers in the DNAof many public relations agencies and consultanciesoffering services to large organisations, some PR shopshave shifted their value proposition up the socio-politicalevolutionary tree as well.Today, in markets such as Australia, many parts ofEurope, and in numerous multinational corporationsin Asia, these agencies are part of the supply chain forcorporate public affairs outcomes (value).The limitations of ‘push’communicationsSocial media has changed markedly the PR model ofpushing out messages to entice news media channelsto carry them, and through that, ‘manage’ corporatereputation.As traditional news media, manifested in mastheads,radio frequencies and television stations,Evolution of corporate publicaffairs as a leadership functionAs Exhibit 3 illustrates, the management objectiveof the corporate public affairs function is to createvalue externally by being both a business enabler, andinternally via contributing to corporate strategy andorganisational decision-making.

Corporate Public Affairs Vol 23: No 1, 2013In this contemporary model, the function’s rolereaches significantly beyond the definitions of publicrelations from the Public Relations Society of America('... Public relations is a strategic communication processthat builds mutually beneficial relationshipsbetween organisations and their publics') or the PublicRelations Institute of Australia ('... plans and executes aprogramme of action to earn public understanding andacceptance').The role and focus of the corporate public affairsfunction is not transactional, but strategic and longterm.The function does manage processes and executesprograms to engage stakeholders. However, this isnot an end itself. It is an input along the managementvalue chain (activity) to generate strategic outcomes,including sustainable returns to shareholders, clients/customers, employees and other stakeholders.The corporate public affairs function in most largeorganisations in Australia has direct influence on andinput to whole-of-organisation strategy and decisions,either via its head reporting directly to the CEO, or byparticipating in strategic planning for the business.In 2012, 66 per cent of heads of function in largeAustralian organisations were members of their CEO’ssenior leadership team; 82 per cent of corporate publicaffairs leaders participated in strategic planning for thewhole organisation (State of Public Affairs in Australia,Centre for Corporate Public Affairs, 2012).It is difficult to contest that continuing evolutionof corporate public affairs as a strategic function hasdisplaced public relations as an area of managementfocus in most large organisations.The integrated corporate public affairs functionoffers more value to organisations than PR once did,and the rasion d’etre of public relations, the power ofcrafting and pushing a message into the mass newsmedia, has waned.If it was the 1980s, we could find resonance in theevolution of corporate communications and corporatepublic affairs and the death of PR in the popular songof that decade 'Video Killed the Radio Star'.However, Rabindranath Tagore was more elegant,and not triumphant about the fading of one light toaccommodate another.Putting out the PR lamp has occurred because thedawn of stakeholder engagement and social media hascome. nExhibit 3: The value proposition of the contemporary corporate public affairs functionOrganisational value =capital/returns to stakeholders,including shareholders, employees,customers, other stakeholdersSeniormanagementand crossorganisationalinteractionOrganisationalstrategy and itsapplicationOrganisationaloperations andstakeholdertransactions,includingcustomersBoardGovernance,CEO and Seniormanagement,includingcorporatepublic affairsmanagementStakeholderinvolvementandreputationalcapitalSocio-political Enabling EnvironmentStrategic socio-political management, stakeholderengagement, issues management, corporate responsibility

Corporate Public Affairs Vol 23: No 1, 2013S O C I A L M E D I ASocio-political media:a corporate publicaffairs view of socialmediaCentre Manager George Onisiforoudiscusses how social media affects thesocio-political environment and itsimplications on the corporate publicaffairs practice.Social media has become a regular presence in ourlives, despite being a relatively new phenomenon.It is impossible to think of a world without it.But its novelty demands caution. How much canwe understand a phenomenon that is still developing?Social media’s fast-moving and shifting nature allowslittle time for reflection. The content that is producedand shared through social media demands continuousattention. New technologies and applications emergefaster than one can speculate ‘what next?’. It is easy toget caught in social media ‘hype’.But ‘hype’ is not substance. Public affairs practitionersneed to reflect on the implications of social mediabeyond its continuous alterations and constant feed ofinformation. To do so, they need to look at social mediaas a broad socio-political phenomenon, and understandhow it can affect their function’s responsibilities andstrategies.Social media is primarily understood as a communicationsand marketing channel. As such, its importancecan be easily measured by its reach and usage.For example, there are about twelve million Facebookusers in Australia. These users expend on average 25minutes during each Facebook session (Cowling 2013).These statistics can justify why social media should beintegrated in communications and marketing strategies.The corporate public affairs function’s responsibilities,however, reach beyond communications. Aneffective corporate public affairs function reduces itsorganisation’s socio-political risk and business costs,and stewards the organisation’s corporate reputation.It is crucial to the function’s success to monitor andunderstand the socio-political environment, and remainon top of the economic, political, and technologicaldevelopments that can affect this environment.These responsibilities call for an understanding ofsocial media’s effect on the socio-political environment.How does social media contribute to the regulatory andsocial risk and costs of operating an organisation?The assessment of such a question demands intelligencethat is difficult to attain at such an early stageof the phenomenon’s life cycle. However, the public’sand the government’s use of social media can be investigatedto provide initial insights.Social media and the publicThe perceptions, agendas, actions or inactions of socialgroups can have an impact on an organisation’s goalsand their implementation, particularly at a local level.These factors, which contribute to an organisation’s‘social license to operate’, can affect the social costs andrisks of operating an organisation.Social media can intensify the formation, reach anddiversity of these social factors, more so than traditionalmedia.Social media users are not solely consumers of content.They can create content, or can collaborate withothers to create content. They can develop messages orexpress views, including about organisations, and sharethese publicly. The reach and the ease with which thesecan occur are unprecedented.The co-sharing and co-development of content atsuch a mass scale implies that social media users caninfluence the views, attitudes, and actions of otherusers. Such potential influence can have direct marketconsequences. It suggests that an organisation doesnot have the exclusive control of the messages and thecontent that are publicly available about the way itconducts its business, and about its products and services.Social media elevates social commentary and socialinfluences to become key contributors to an organisation’spublic profile. In this manner, social media minimisesthe occurrence and influence of the organisation’spublic image—the desired internal picture projected toexternal audiences—and elevates the importance andinfluence of organisational reputation—the actual perceptionsof internal and external audiences.The elevation of the influence of an organisation’sreputation above the influence of its image can createextraordinary complexities and challenges. These

Corporate Public Affairs Vol 23: No 1, 2013complexities stem from the diversity inherent withinthe public, and in consequence, the excessive amountof information created by this diversity.The public is not a universal and coherent group.An organisation’s reputation is likewise diverse—it canbe positive or negative, it can vary depending on geographies,time, issues and individuals, and it can changeor can be influenced to change. When this diversityis channeled through social media it creates an astonishing‘noise’ of content and information. Althoughoverwhelming, this ‘noise’ becomes the basis of anorganisation’s public profile in the growing relevantaudiences.Social media, public policy andpoliticsThe stability of the political environment, and the regulationsand policies that guide a state’s economic activitycan significantly impact an organisation’s operations.The citizens’ use of social media can influence thispolitical environment, either by unsettling it or byassuring its accountability through participation andsupport. The level of this influence, however, remainsunknown.Citizens around the world have used social mediato manifest their political identity and power by creatingonline groups, and then by assembling in thephysical world to demonstrate their views. Althoughthese events have been covered extensively by traditionalmedia, it is unclear how much influence socialmedia can have on the national politics of a state. Socialmedia may have had a positive influence in assistingloosely coordinated publics demand change—forexample, in Moldova in 2009, Bangkok in 2010, and inEgypt in 2011—but its effect in actually changing thepolitical landscape of these states is disputable (Shirky2011).Social media users, however, tend to be more civicallyand politically active than non-users (Raine et al2012). This suggests social media can have a more significantand positive effect in enhancing opportunitiesfor political participation, and opening new spaces foractive citizenship in democratic states (Bohler-Muller &van der Merwe 2011).Democratic governments, and particularly governmentsin the U.K, Canada and Australia, are movingtowards a more stakeholder-centric managementand governance paradigm. In this emerging paradigm,stakeholder and public participation in policydevelopment and service delivery is increasing, and isviewed as desirable.Social media’s encouragement of broad communicationand collaboration between individuals is a naturalfit for this paradigm. Governments have used socialmedia to engage the public in efforts towards furthertransparency, and broader and deeper public influencein decisions and implementation relating to policymakingand service delivery. However such efforts aremarred by significant limitations, and further work inthis area is yet to be completed (Note: a related articleon stakeholder engagement and innovation in the publicsector was published in volume 21/number 2 of thisnewsletter).Implications for corporate publicaffairsThe implications of social media’s influence in the sociopoliticalenvironment are both tactical and strategic.The rising importance of an organisation’sreputation over its image suggests that corporatepublic affairs practitioners need to re-evaluate theirunderstanding of how much control an organisationcan assert over the messages and the content that definethe public’s perceptions of it. Such control will not stemexclusively from the organisation’s own generated content,but will extend to include content that is producedand disseminated online by the public through socialmedia.The establishment of social media ‘noise’ as the newstatus quo implies the strategic importance of monitoringand analysing this ‘noise’. As such, knowledgeabout how to monitor and analyse social media contentbecomes an important skill, and perhaps an asset, tosuccessful corporate public affairs functions.The development of a strong voice for each organisation,which will form part of this social media ‘noise’,is also paramount. The ability to create social mediacontent that is relevant and engaging to an already‘bombarded’ audience is a crucial and challenging taskfor practitioners, particularly now that video is themost preferred and effective display of social mediacontent.Public affairs practitioners should become familiarwith the emerging management and governance paradigmin which governments involve citizens in policymakingand service delivery, including through socialmedia. This emerging paradigm may influence thegovernment’s expectations of an organisation’s legal,

Corporate Public Affairs Vol 23: No 1, 2013P O L I C Y A D V O C A C YValues, ideology andpolicyIn accompanying articles, Centre ChairmanGeoff Allen examines some of theprocesses and dynamics of advocacy anddialogue between political influencersand decision makers. In this article, hediscusses some of the psychological andideological impediments to policy resolution.If there appears to be any broad consensus in Australia,it is that we are poorly served by petty squabblesbetween politicians, and by poor, ad hoc, poll and factiondriven decisions.The basic drivers are not new. I remember BillyMcMahon staring at Gough Whitlam’s navel and tellinghim in the Reps chamber ‘politics is staying in office’.And despite some periods of relative calm, leadershipinstability has been the norm rather than the exceptionsince Bob Menzies.Fortunately for Australia, and above politics at leastsince the 1980s, there has been a reasonable level ofconsensus, albeit high level, amongst the policy elitesacross the major political divides about approaches toeconomic management. Notwithstanding some influence,the more extreme ideologies of left and right, forexample anti-capitalism, rabid nationalism, and environmentalfundamentalism, are still at the margins ofpower.The problem is that within this broadly consensualunderstanding, which largely supports a marketeconomy and constraints on the role of government inthe economy, our adversarial political system impairsthe most rational resolution of specific policy issues.While of course dressed in public interest, the debatesare characterised by refusal to see value and seriouslyengage on each side’s proposals, rather distorting themand opportunistically creating ‘straw-men’ to appeal tothe popular prejudices they feed.This is somewhat ironic at a time when the currentemphasis in elite discourse is about the significance ofevidence as the basis for policy-making (see accompanyingarticle ‘Evidence and public policy’).That politics trumps policy can be seen in F DRoosevelt’s reply to a bunch of lobbyists on a controversialissue, ‘OK you’ve convinced me; now go outand bring pressure on me’. A local version was JohnHoward’s comment to business leaders when they werepushing him towards introducing a GST, even requiringa broken election promise to pursue it, (to paraphrase) ‘Iwill run with it if you can create an environment whereI can do so without losing the election.’Or Jeff Kennett’s refusal to overturn a local councildecision on the location of a prescribed waste facility(again to paraphrase), ‘we want this but don’t expectme to waste political capital on this when you havedone such a lousy job with the community.’This is a major challenge for those seeking rationaloutcomes on important issues. The primacy of politicsis not to disregard the power of policy research andrational argument, but in an environment of populistpolitics, effective advocacy is more likely the degreeto which common ground can be found between theplayers.While it is difficult to penetrate the shouting, thiscan most easily be achieved by first seeking values heldin common and finding what can be agreed, ratherthan focussing, at the outset of an argument, on whatdivides.Values, ideologies and policyprioritiesDespite abhorrence of current political shenanigans,there is more commonality in basic values than thetone of public discourse and political debate wouldsuggest.It is common to assert that individuals or groupshave different ‘sets of values’ (Labor values, Liberal valuesetc.). When probed this may not be so much a differencein absolute values, but in their relative weightingwithin a particular ideological framework.It has been noted that normally groups or individualstend to ‘deal with issues only within the frameworkof their own ideological assumptions withoutsubjecting them to criticism’ (GC Lodge and EE Vogel1987).Accordingly individuals or groups can be operatingon the basis of shared values but differ ideologically—andconsequently divide strongly on—policyprescriptions because they have different perceptions ofhow the world works.The ‘Hierarchy of accord’ (see Figure 1) representscommon ‘values’ that are generally shared across the

Corporate Public Affairs Vol 23: No 1, 2013political and public policy divide. These values aretranslated through the filter of ideology that tendsto predetermine how we react to policy options. Theillustrative ‘hierarchy’ of course heavily simplifies ourworld between ‘individualist’ and ‘communitarian’world views, though we know in practice that divisionsare much more complex.To assist practical politics and the resolution ofissues, a commonality of values can be found betweenthose who are the ideologically opposed by starting atthe top of the hierarchy, for example over long sessionswith red wine and cheese, or on moonlight walks on thebeach. Much of what we have in common is not surprising,and that is the best place to start.As noted, our value aspirations are translatedthrough the prism of ideology. We can acquire theseideological frames of reference (for example individualistor communitarian outlooks) through a variety ofmeans. It could be the influences of family philosophy,an influential teacher or book, or imbued class assumptions,all re-enforced by our perceptions of behavioursaround us. Once imbibed, ideologies are hard to shiftand are self reaffirming as we filter our life’s experiencethrough them.The prism of ideology leads people with shared valuesdown different political and policy paths.Those with an individualist ideological orientationwant to limit protection against market forces,rely on individual incentives, and reduce regulation.Those with a communitarian orientation prefer equityof outcomes to equity of opportunity, more control ofmarkets, and more active government intervention todeal with issues. Of course these are simplificationsand generalisations; the response of individuals can bemore complex.Those coming at policy through a strong ideologicallens tend to see their policy solutions as self evident,and can be quick to see stupidity, or base motiveand malevolence, in those who oppose what they advocate.Figure 1 Hierarchy of accordValues• social equity• social cohesion• national prosperity• ecological sustainability• increased competitionrequired to increaseeconomic growth• faster structuraladjustment required• income differentialsrequired as incentive• maintenance of a minimalsocial safety net• eliminate industryprotection• reduce public expenditure• internationalise economy• environment protectionthrough market incentives• values best achievedthrough individualeffort• competition andmarkets createprosperity• government intrudesand distortsIdeologies• values best achievedthrough communityeffort* competition cancreate inequities andmarkets exploitative• government includesand protectsPolicy Priorities• managed, gradual • employmentcompetition required• staged structuraladjustment required• equal opportunity• environment protectionthrough regulation• labour market interventionrequired• current social safety netrequires extension“guarantees” required• pace of technologicalchange should be slowed• broad job creationprograms required• social equity requires activegovernment intervention• environment preservationrequires active governmentintervention/veto• industry sectors requireprotection• increase corporate taxationand regulation to supportextended safety net andcontrol market10

Corporate Public Affairs Vol 23: No 1, 2013Factors that further divideThe development of world view and policy prescriptionsthat emerge from our basic values through ourideologies are complicated and often skewed by anumber of additional factors that are so entangled thateven the most analytical and objective of us find it hardto separate them. They exacerbate the already conflictingapproaches to policy debates that are intrinsic to ourpolitical system.Vested interests—these can complicate the transitionfrom values to policy by the natural tendency torationalise these interests. Through this process, oftensubconsciously, the high moral ground, or concept ofrights and entitlements are corralled in pursuit of theinterests postulating them. Some of this is cynical, somecomes from losing objectivity. Examples are obvious todisinterested observers, when sectional interests seekrule exemptions, subsidies or regulations supportive oftheir interests or those of their constituents.Occupational myopia—this is the tendency to overvaluethe significance of issues one is most fullyinvolved in or professionally committed to. We expectartists to especially value the aesthetic; business leadersto support economic efficiency, environmentalists—thestate of nature; scientists—research etc. In addition, weshould expect interest groups that are formed to articulatetheir interests will have their world-view impactedover time by their mission, and see their occupationalconcerns disproportionately embedded in their visionfor Australia.Dynamics of advocacy—techniques to compete onpolicy prescriptions include media management, sponsorshipof research conducive to the preferred outcome,celebrity endorsement and advertising. We are easilylocked into fixed positions to ‘save face’. Advocates areprone to negative stereotyping of their opponents, attributingfalse motive, reducing issues to black and white,dishonest creation of ‘straw men’, and pejorativelylabelling of policy opponents, for example, ‘economicBOX 1: Positive sum solutionsIndustrial Relations: A number oftimes a senior business associationexecutive and ACTU leader satdown for a long lunch with pastaand red wine to discuss workplacepractices and industry policy. Itwasn’t to do industrial deals, butdid mitigate entrenchment ofconflicting positions. Media hostsexpressed disappointment at thelevel of agreement and mutualrespect after a program that was‘disappointing television’.Consumer Legislation: A financeindustry association executivemet with the head of the majorrelevant consumer lobby toreview new draft legislation,away from their constituenciesin the first instance. The normalpractice had been to fight overthe whole bill and end up withresults unsatisfactory to both. Theywere amazed at how much theycould agree on and both live with,leaving only one or two elementsto be fought over.Indigenous Relations: At the heightof conflict over land rights, amining industry CEO took a bunchof his peers to a remote area to sitdown with indigenous leaders overa couple of days to talk throughmutual concerns. They deliberatelykept this away from politiciansand the media, and didn’t invitetheir association executives orindigenous ‘advisors’. Both sidesissued excited statements aboutthe level of agreement and mutualunderstanding generated. Positiverelationships were also establishedthat helped resolve subsequentissues.GST: After a number ofattempts to introduce a broadbasedconsumption tax, andacknowledging the politicaldifficulties involved, some businessleaders sought out the Democratsand Australian Council of SocialServices, both organisations thathad been vehemently opposed toit. By exploring together how sucha tax could further the values theyshared, and after compromisesthat accommodated some majorconcerns, they were able topresent a supportive united front.This provided enough politicalprotection for the government tointroduce the measure.Drunk Driving, an American Classic:Following the alcohol-related roaddeaths of their children a numberof women started a remarkablysuccessful grassroots organisationthat spread across the USA calledMothers Against Drunk Driving(MADD). It attacked the alcoholindustry generally, but whenrepresentatives of the industrysat down with them they agreedthe real target (shared with theindustry) was irresponsible ‘drivingunder the influence’. The industryoffered to help them by fundinga media campaign and othersupport against drunk drivingwhile MADD narrowed theirfocus to that issue.11

Corporate Public Affairs Vol 23: No 1, 2013rationalist’, ‘greenie’, ‘leftie’ or in the ‘latte set’.Ambit claiming—this accepted practice in industrialrelations has its counterpart in general policy advocacy.By this process individual sectors or interests areeffectively staking a claim for decisions or resources,irrespective of the legitimacy of other claims, tomaximise their position in the inevitabletrade-offs or compromises requiredin policy making. The media ofcourse exacerbates these conflicts bypresenting the more stark and dramaticdifferences, and by easy resortto the ‘usual suspects’ who are outspokenand ‘good copy’.Constant assertion of a positionand defence against alternative perspectivestends to lock us into thepropositions we are making, furtherlimiting our capacity to see otherperspectives.So what for public affairs?As suggested, thedynamics of advocacycome together at a highpoint in the operation ofadversarial party politicswhere it is considered aweakness to see merit inan opponent’s case, andfollow to question theveracity of one’s ownWhenever an issue arises that affects the interests of citizensor groups, the overwhelming propensity of advocatesis to go straight to the lowest level in the hierarchyof accord. This generates immediate conflict betweenthe ideologically divergent. Each preferred policy positionis asserted as absolute in the public interest and thedynamics of advocacy kick in to create a zero-sum gamewith bad motive or ignorance attributed to opponents.Positions become locked in a contest before the media(and constituencies in the case of industry associations,unions, or other NGOs), where to compromise is to loseface or deepen resentment, further polarising debate.In this testosterone-enhanced conflict, optimum policyoutcomes are lost. Triumph for politics over policy.Experience from this seasoned campaigner demonstratesa more productive route to take. That is to startfrom an acceptance of shared fundamental values, andunderstanding of the ideological drivers that we, andissues adversaries, have that have led to our differentpolicy positions on the same set of data.Research and experience has also demonstratedthat interpersonal relationships, where common touchpointscan be found, reduce our propensity to attributebad motive and the negative stereotyping that mitigatesthe prospect of issues resolution.The main lesson for us is that by jumping the fencefrom our entrenched positions to the other side, extendinggood will through acknowledgment of shared basicvalues, and attempting to understand what is drivingalternative perspectives of what works and doesn’twork (ideologies and their roots), we will get to betteroutcomes, and at less cost. To do this helps us to starta dialogue with goodwill. It helps us understand thebona fides and real issues of opponentsto maximise what is acceptableto both sides.Fundamentally different (andbetter) outcomes have come fromissue negotiations that start by tryingto focus on what objectives areheld in common, what might beacceptable, leaving those aspectsthat are irreconcilable to be the morenarrow focus for dispute and resolution.Examples in Box 1 illustrate howthis can work.One should not be naive aboutpolicy conflict. Ideological conflicts are real and dodrive policy. Vested interests trump public interests inmost cases. Party politics remain toxic, and the conflictinginterests of business and NGOs are still used asproxies in the wars between contending political parties,and by the media to dramatise news stories.However, I have observed that over the past twentyyears there has been a remarkable shift in the way businessand non-business NGOs deal with issues. Many(but by no means all) NGOs are more ready to seethe value and needs of business, and business is moresensitive to the social and environmental impacts oftheir activities. Both sides are more willing to acknowledgeshared values and work towards mutuality ofinterest.Success of this more open and empathetic approachto policy dialogue has been pervasive, producing manybenefits and positive sum game solutions. Starting adiscussion by optimising what is held in common whileleaving the real conflict points to be the focus of the contestis, from this writer’s experience, a no-brainer. nReferencesLodge, GC and Vogel, EE Eds. 1987, Ideology and NationalCompetitiveness; An Analysis of Nine Countries, HarvardBusiness School Press12

Corporate Public Affairs Vol 23: No 1, 2013P O L I C Y A D V O C A C YEvidence and publicpolicyIn our current environment of politicaland poll driven government, thisarticle by Centre Chairman Geoff Allenlooks at the development and role ofresearch-based advocacy and the needfor its business use.In a time where political discourse is conducted inglib fifteen second tele-grabs and we are observingthe most political and poll-driven policy approaches inrecent history, it is a little ironic that the strongest everstatements are being made in support of evidence as thekey to public policy (for example, from eminent publicservants, as Ken Henry, Terry Moran, Gary Banks andMartin Parkinson).The accompanying article, ‘Values, ideology andpolicy’ focuses on the subjective element of policythinking. This, together with poll-driven opportunism,trumps research-based evidence. However the roleof the latter is important, and apart from informingpolicy, can help create political space for good policyand reform.Governments these days are under scrutiny fromsophisticated commentators and policy protagonists,and need for credibility’s sake to find a public policyrationale to back up politically motivated decisions.It used to be much less so.As is still the case in many countries, Australianpolitics until the late 1970s tended to operate in a closedsystem of networks, including vested interests andold boy networks, that enabled decisions to be madewithout serious analysis and public contestability.As is typical of these insider systems, the processwas heavily biased to those with the closest contacts,without seriously testing objective evidence. A debatewithin the McMahon cabinet in 1971 on the relativeutility of accelerated depreciation and lowering acrossthe-boardcompany income tax provides an illustration.McMahon came to Canberra after a weekend ofcontact with friends from the Sydney financial sector,declaring he had consulted ‘business’, and ‘business’preferred the company income tax measure. This wasclearly good for finance companies, but not, as evidencewould have shown, the preferred position of the capital-intensivemanufacturing and mining sectors thatwere absent from his discussions, or necessarily for theeconomy. The relative impact on investment, employmentand productivity was very much a second orderconsideration.When issues went public they were not arguedby detailed research but by a loud assertion of positions.One example was a press release by AssociatedChamber of Manufactures of Australia President, BobAnderson, asserting little more than its heading, ‘Don’tMonkey with Tariffs’.A number of major factors have moved Australianpolicy debate since then—at least in the policy elite—toa more sophisticated and contestable level.The bureaucracyUntil the 1970s a tight group of knighted ‘PermanentHeads’ ran Canberra from the billiard table of theCommonwealth Club. Some were technically excellent,but like Sir Humphrey Appleby, they owed their hugeinfluence over policy and administrative outcomes totheir skills in bureaucratic politics on which they spentmuch time.In the late 1970s, but particularly 1980s, we saw ashift in public service leadership to a group of young,highly trained, economists (eg, B Frazer, V FitzGerald,M Keating, C Higgins, D Morgan). They reflected theliberal economist’s bias to markets, and argued withhard data against cosy government deals with interestgroups.Nowhere was this new economic sophisticationmore obvious than in the Tariff Board, which hashad several iterations and is now the ProductivityCommission.Established as an independent authority to reviewrequests for industry protection, the old Tariff Boardhad limited scope, loaded references in the protectionistcause, and no license to consider the economy-wideimpacts of its recommendations to government. TheTariff Board fought long and hard to win the right tohave open enquiries where evidence was required, andto make public their recommendations to government.This was resisted by the old school that was losing thepower of the ‘insider’ paradigm.McEwen’s successor, Doug Anthony, said of thisnew transparency, ‘government will find it will havegreat difficulty in rejecting the Commission’s recommendations,because if it does, it will lay itself open to a13

Corporate Public Affairs Vol 23: No 1, 2013great deal of public criticism.’The Commission, known by then as the IndustriesAssistance Commission, went on to develop, in partnershipwith other agencies and a group of academics,a large scale multi-sectoral model of the Australianeconomy. The ORANI model (later evolved to becomethe Monash model) was used to support Commissioninquiries, and took into account cross-sectoral impacts ofpolicy. The introduction of modeling to policy debates,and particularly the pervasive use of this model, hashad a major impact on the conduct of advocacy andinternal review of policy.Business research and industryadvocacyThe late 1970s and early 1980s also saw a significantshift in the nature of business involvement in policydebates.No doubt influenced in part by these changes ingovernment, business lobbies were required to shifttheir focus to researching positions, and to take accountof the impact of what they were advocating on thebroader public interest.Their associations had been led by former publicservants exploiting their mateship networks in the corridorsof power. The Australian Industries DevelopmentAssociation (AIDA)—an organisation of the largestmanufacturers—was the first to set up a ‘ResearchCentre’, employing rigorous economists to counter thedominance of the new young policy elite in governmentand to ‘treasury-proof’ their arguments. This is not tosay old-boy networks ceased and deals were no longerstitched up behind closed doors, but evidence basedargument, both inside and outside government, was acounterfoil to naked politics and mate-based policy.By the early 1980s AIDA had morphed into theBusiness Council with its heavy emphasis on researchbasedand intellectually argued positions—the predecessorof the Minerals Council moved from a dependenceon corridor relationships to a staff of young qualityprofessionals; the National Farmers Federation wasformed in part to consolidate the fledgling intellectualhorsepower of farm sector organisations; and its policynemesis, the then Metal Trades Industry Association(now Australian Industry Group) established a researchand advocacy capability to publicly debate issues on thebasis of research.Companies and evidence-basedadvocacyCompanies have tended to rely on their industry associationsto undertake or commission relevant research.However it is not uncommon for individual companiesto arrange for, and fund, externally commissionedresearch through, and be badged by, an association.This happens when the company’s interests are incommon with the industry’s interest generally, but alsowhen they have a disproportionate interest, or seekanonymity in the association crowd.Unless the most blatant political fix is underway,companies know they must be able to demonstrate theircase by evidence ‘in the public interest’. But even wherethe politics is clearly driving the issue, protagonists onboth sides will still normally have to justify their positionpublicly with argument, referencing evidence fortheir position.This need for evidence in business advocacy, togetherwith a shift in government to contestability ofadvice and outsourcing policy work, led in the late1980s and 1990s to the growth of a new brand of economicand policy consulting. Early movers that subsequentlybuilt successful businesses were ACIL, AccessEconomics, the Allen Consulting Group and the Centrefor International Economics. Without exception, formersenior economists and policy advisors from governmentmade up the leadership of these companies.Apart from technical expertise, one value of theseconsultants was their understanding of the workingsof government and the way evidence is used and challengedinside the government decision-making process.The fact that they work for both governments and externalclients requires them to jealously guard their reputationsfor rigor and objectivity in their work. Clients willonly commission projects when they are comfortablethe results will support their case, but can avoid releaseif evidence is found not to prove the case.More consultants have entered the policy analysisand economic/social impact field since these earlymovers, as have the consulting divisions of majoraccounting firms.Much of the policy related research and attentionto evidence from industry is defensive—used todemonstrate negative outcomes from government oropposition initiatives. A stark recent example has beenreports on the impact of poker machine reform onemployment.14

Corporate Public Affairs Vol 23: No 1, 2013Business has however also used research to createits own agendas.While the great man theory of history attributes themajor economic reforms of the 1980s to political leaders,the key issues were identified for micro-economicreform, arguments made and supported by research,and the environment created by business. The muchtoutedreforms were heavily influenced by this proactivebusiness policy work (though also facilitated byresponsive trade union leaders, and an oppositionwhich did not obstruct them).One company quite consciously followed thisresearch-based agenda setting approach to achieve abreak-through in its own, what seemed to be intractable,issue. This was CRA (now RIO). Despite a strong market,its margins were tenuous because of the entrenchedrestrictive work practices that were crippling the NSWcoal industry. Their approach to the use of research andevidence, while occurring some years ago, is a modelfor others seeking to achieve fundamental change (seeBox 1).The use of evidence by the Industry Commission,albeit in this case through a sympathetic Treasurer, is anexample of effective use of evidence by trusted organisationsto provide credibility. Other examples have beenthe commissioning of research by government researchagencies, made possible by the requirement introducedfor them to partially self-fund. The highly regardedCSIRO has been commissioned to undertake manystudies on business relevant issuesIn some cases this public sector research, seen to beauthoritative and objective, has been used to counterconflicting internal public sector advice, for examplethat of the Commonwealth Treasury.Non-business sectorsNon-government bodies in fields such as the environment,health and consumer have been active inresearch; frequently supporting their advocacy withtechnical and economic evidence and also contestingthe research undertaken by, or done for, others.Speaking about global NGO involvement in tradepolicy, Canadian consultant Paul Mably could wellhave been referring to a range of interest groups inAustralia. He said, in answer to challenges to NGOevidence and legitimacy, that rhetoric-laden declamatorystatements delivered from outside the walls of thepolicy dialogue gave way to the need to substantiatepositions with solid research in order to be taken seriouslywithin those walls. Less ideology, more evidence(Mably 2006).A number of non-business sectors have high qualityresearch capabilities within NGO organisations or indedicated research institutes. Some of these are housedwithin universities.Academics, however frequently use their researchin support of their policy agendas, or make themselvesavailable as consultants across the field. Consultingopportunities from all sides have the benefits ofenhancing resources for research, and keepingBOX 1: Restrictive work practices in the coal industryWhile the market was strong,CRA’s margins were thin, becausepotential returns were being eatenup in wasteful work practices.This required an over-spending oncapital to compensate.The company’s response was to‘out’ the issues and seek publicand policy maker support forradical change. Consultants werecommissioned to compare theproductivity of comparable minesin other developed countriesand found large gaps in labourperformance and use of capital.In pursuit of other third partyendorsement of their advocacy, thecompany arranged for a supportiveCommonwealth Treasurer tosend a reference to the IACon productivity in coalmines.This validated the companysponsoredresearch, including poorperformance against internationalbenchmarks, and demonstrated thepublic benefits of reform.The CRA-sponsored research wassupported by a comprehensivecommunications program.Monographs and research paperswere published regularly and wereaccompanied by media releases andletters to the editor that quotedthe research results graphically.A companion thrust was tocommunicate with a strategicallyselected group of ‘influencers’ whowere likely, in due course, to havean impact on community attitudesand the public policy environment.The coal industry’s issues weresuccessfully framed by this researchand communication was one ofpublic interest rather than anotherindustrial stoush between capitaland labour. The union had lostcredibility in subsequent industrialconflicts as the company and othersin the industry won back authoritywith government, ‘influencer’ andmedia support. Major reforms tothe industrial relations frameworkfor the industry were achieved.15

Corporate Public Affairs Vol 23: No 1, 2013academics in the ‘real world’, but cash for research hasof course generated some criticism as a risk to academicobjectivity.Damn lies and dataThe accompanying article on values and ideologyexplains how ideologies are a filter through which weperceive the world. There is no doubt that howeverhard we try, subjective elements will intrude on themost vigorous attempts at objectivity. For this reasonresearchers of good can, with similar data, draw differentconclusions. For example, it is said Newton’s lawapplies in environmental science, ‘for every PhD thereis an equal and opposite PhD.’Unconscious as well as deliberate distortion, meanswe need to be very critical consumers of research-basedadvocacy. Some of it is pretty shonkey.Even where the econometric models used are sound,differences in their construction, assumptions and datainputs mean that different conclusions can be drawnabout any matter. Frequent differences arise for examplearound the economic contribution of an industry,or impact of a proposed policy change on employmentor GDP.Quality modeling, and conclusions drawn by morereputable firms, can however provide a good andaccurate assessment of potential impacts and makea serious contribution to the consideration of policy.Governments do have their own models against whichothers used in advocacy can be assessed, although governmentmodeling can also be prone to error and reflectinstitutional bias.Studies of stakeholder opinion and experience bysurvey are invaluable in understanding issues andevaluating policy options. However blatant pseudo evidenceis frequently found in surveys offered in supportof policy positions. The most obvious abuse (or subjectiveerror) is in the way questions are framed, bothdirect wording and context. Published results are readyfodder for the media, and can influence the way thepublic, and consequently politicians, tend to see things.So what for public affairs?As discussed in issues management literature, there aresignificant advantages in early issues identification andpro-active responses to the most important emergingissues.There are considerable advantages for those whocan set agendas, putting issue adversaries on the defensiveand having to respond on the ground they havechosen.Almost invariably business has been responding tothe agendas of others. Early agenda setting optimisesthe framing of issues. While anecdote is helpful in tellingthe narrative, establishing a position with hardevidence is central to this process.There are many opportunities to use this researchthrough thought leadership platforms (such as CEDA)and associated media relations. CEO speech opportunitiesin such forums can be significant if backed by evidentiary,or research based substance. At the same timesuch opportunities are lost by a lack of strategic intentand when last minute efforts cobble something respectableto say. Experience suggests business leaders like tohave something impactful to say about issues externalto their company, but are not well prepared with reasonedargument to do so.Company level, or company-sponsored research canheavily influence the nuances, style and effectiveness ofindustry association advocacy.Collaborative research with, or sponsored by, issuesopponents can help to resolve questions at the marginof interests and is a vehicle that can be used to buildtrust.Importantly relationships are cemented, unintendedconsequences avoided, and good policy enhancedwhere practitioners help bureaucrats and regulatorswith respectable, evidence-backed information aboutbusiness and the market environment. This is mosteffective before an issue becomes controversial, as policyideas frequently bubble up in government undetectedand with inadequate or false understanding. Oncecommitted and political, it is more difficult to achievetheir most rational and evidence based resolution.Finally, the technical sophistication of the policyelite these days means that bogus research and baddata is more easily rejected. These elites can distinguishbetween business’ policy-based research and researchbasedpolicy. Sloppy modeling and biased reporting ofit is ‘called’ within government. While this and biasedsurveys can be used with some effect to re-enforcepopulist positions, business cannot afford to lose itscredibility with these tactics. nReferencesMably, 2006, ‘Evidence Based Advocacy: NGO ResearchCapabilities and Policy Influence in the Field ofInternational Trade’, IDRC GGP Working Paper Series(ii), Paper 4, November, p2.16

Corporate Public Affairs Vol 23: No 1, 2013B O O K R E V I E WThe language ofleaders: How top CEOscommunicate to inspire,influence and achieveresultsKevin Murray (2012) Kogan PageLimitedReviewed by Taleen Shamlian, ExecutiveAdviser, Government & Industry Affairs,Commonwealth Bank of Australiawas initially hesitant reading another book on leadershipgiven how much has already been researchedIand written about this topic. The book had to pass thelitmus test: will this book offer me new insights intogreat leadership or how great leaders communicate?No doubt we have all been exposed to greatleaders, good leaders and god-awful leaders too! Beforeembarking on the book review, I reflected on the traitsof great leaders that I admire. They are driven by apassion to improve the world around them, have deepintegrity in their personal convictions, have a genuineinterest in their colleagues and customers, have thecourage to bring the outside world in, can communicatetransparently about their decisions and are decisive inthe actions and responsibilities bestowed upon them.I enjoyed reading Kevin Murray’s book TheLanguage of Leaders. Many of the traits (or ‘principles’ asMurray describes them) made sense tomy general observations of leaders andwere discussed in great detail. Thereare, however, some drawbacks that Iwill share with you further below.Kevin Murray, Chairman of the BellPottinger Group, argues that a greatleader is an inspiring communicator.This can be the difference between poorperformance and great performance.Having a great strategy without theability to persuasively communicate tostaff the importance of plans can amountto failed execution of the strategy.He suggests the role of the leader Taleen Shamlianis more difficult today when organisations and theirleaders are living ‘life in a fishbowl’ with 24/7 newscycles and the need to continually manage theirpersonal brand, reputation and position in real-time. Inother words, good communication is a key weapon in amodern leader’s armoury.Murray draws on interviews and the collectiveexperience of around 60 chairpersons and CEOs ofbusinesses, charities, non-government organisations,as well as military generals, and sporting coachesfrom a wide range of organisations including Airbus,Emirates Airline, GlaxoSmithKline, Lloyd’s, Oxfam andthe British Red Cross.Between them, these leaders are responsible for largeworkforces across different cultures and geographies,spanning various industry sectors.Murray sets out twelve fundamental principles of‘leadership communication’ and while he claims thebook is not about leadership per se, it certainly coversthese elements. For this reason, I would categorise theprinciples as follows:1. Some of the principles refer to being a betterleader—for example, learning to be yourself withauthenticity, having a compelling mission for staff tofeel inspired by and using stories to build momentumin the business.2. Other principles refer to being a good communicator—forexample, being aware of non-verbal communication(body language), preparing for publicplatforms and continuously improving your communicationskills.3. The remaining principles are at the nexus betweenbeing an effective leader and inspirational communicator—forexample, being fanatical about understandingaudiences, listening in newand powerful ways and keeping peoplefocussed on the key relationships thatassist the organisation to achieve success.Among the twelve principles, themost important principle (raised bynearly half of the leaders interviewed)was the need for leaders to ‘look within’and understand what they are passionateabout. This counted more incommunicating to an audience thanperfectly crafted words.The second most important principlewas for leaders to effectively17

Corporate Public Affairs Vol 23: No 1, 2013communicate their vision and values, which shouldsupersede ‘writing a 17,000 page manual on compliance’or using financial metrics to motivate staff.The third and possibly the hardest to perfect, wasfor leaders to listen to their audience as a way of creatinggoodwill, demonstrating understanding (even ifthey did not agree) and bringing greater judgement intodecisions.According to one highly successful leader I heard ata recent forum, the listening skill—above all others—distinguished ordinary managers from great leaders.Their remark left an imprint on my mind: ‘We each havetwo ears and one mouth. Leaders need to remember touse these in the same proportion by listening more andtalking less when leading an organisation.’It goes without saying that many of these leadershiptraits are simple to consider, yet challenging to execute.So what distinguishes The Language of Leaders from allthe other material we have been exposed to? And doesit provide insights into how leadership communicationcan be effectively executed?As I noted at the outset, Murray’s book is anchoredin practical concepts about great leadership communication.Each chapter focuses on one principle with themerits of each principle discussed in great detail.The principles are interwoven with one another sothat the overarching message of effective leadershipcommunication is reinforced with the reader. In thisway, the book is far from expressing generalisations ofgood leadership communication—in fact, at times, it isoverly detailed in its approach.Unfortunately, the coverage of practical experiencesand case studies was lacking, with Murray not capitalisingenough on the experiences of the interviewees, particularlyaround how they executed the key principles.Examples drawn from the interviews often glossedover the detail and left me wondering: what did theprinciples look like in practice; how were they developed;and were there any personal or organisationalobstacles in their execution?The case studies that were drawn from the interviews,at times, reflected successful communicationexamples and not enough attention was placed onlearnings from failed executions. It is disappointing thatMurray did not reveal how great communication can beexecuted in a crisis situation, for example.Moreover, it was not clear to me whether someprinciples are more critical under different circumstances—forexample, when employee engagement may below, or within low skilled occupations or where theorganisation spans multiple cultures and geographies.These are all challenges for modern organisations. Inthis respect, Murray’s book could have provided valuableinsights into the existing body of research on thetopic.Instead, Murray occasionally refers to his personalexperiences in coaching senior leaders over a 40-yearperiod. While this is an interesting layer to the book,given the collective experience, wisdom and organisationaloversight of the interviewees, it is a missedopportunity.Murray’s book is very useful for someone aspiringto be a great leader or for those who want to brush upon their ‘leadership communication 101’ knowledge; itis less suitable for leaders who are adept in these principles.nprofessional developmentU p c o m i n g C e n t r e e v e n t sCorporate Public Affairs Institute24 June — 28 June, MelbourneCorporate Public Affairs Oration27 June, MelbourneHeads of Function and Senior Practitioners Dinner and Roundtable28 & 29 November, SydneyTo find out more about the Centre’s professional development programs, visit www.accpa.com.au18

Corporate Public Affairs Vol 23: No 1, 2013networkAfter 31 years at Shell,most recently asGM, Communications andGovernment Relations,Vanessa Harras, SeniorManager, Projects, Marianumerous political officesthroughout the state.Earlier in his career, MarkFiona Courthas recently movedemployment from NSWGovernment Relations,McCarthy VP Corporateworked as a journalist forGovernment — RMS,Karyn Freeman will leaveCommunications, Lizthe Seven and Ten net­GM InfrastructureShell for a break beforeMcNamara Acting VPworks.Communication — toresuming her career.Media Relations (fromAndrew Coombe (SouthLeighton Contractors.Karyn has been close tobeing VP Energy Coal)Australia): Andrew isFiona’s new role isthe Centre as one of thewhile Sam Evans is ona former news directorGroup Manager, Bidfirst participants in ourmaternity leave and Kymat Channel SevenSupport & Community23-year-old Institute,Winter-Dewhirst, ProjectAdelaide and ChannelRelations, which is partand member of a bestDirector.Ten in Canberra, andof the Corporate Affairspractice study tour. SheTelstra has recentlywas recently chief-of-and Communicationhas worked for Shell inmade a series ofstaff and media directorarea. In this role, she willthe Hague and Singaporeappointments to itsfor the former SA statelead a national team ofand provided support forExternal Communicationsopposition leader Isobelcommunity relations andteams in the Middle East,Team, headed byRedmond. He was also aproject communicationsRussia and South EastDirector of Externalsenior media adviser forspecialists.Asia. Following Karyn’sCommunications, Nicolefederal member AndrewDaniel Ellis hasdeparture the role will beMcKechnie. ReportingRobb during his time asmoved from the role ofshifted to Perth to betterto Jonathan Rose, GMMinister for VocationalHead of Business Comm­support the UpstreamMedia Relations – Retail,and Further Education.unication for AustraliaBusiness and Countrythe new appointments are:Andrew holds an MBAPost’s CommunicationChair.Ingrid Just (NSW / ACT):from the Mount ElizaManagement ServicesAs appropriate to itsIngrid joins Telstra fromBusiness School.business unit to the newlysize and complexity, BHPkey consumer group,They join othercreated role of Head ofBilliton has a significantCHOICE, where she wasmembers of the nationalCommunications at Targetpublic affairs team atmost recently media man­media relations teamAustralia.Group and around theager and lead spokesper­including:Andrew Gasparworld in geographiesson. Prior to her time atJames Howe (Victoria/moved to Atlas (anand business units. AtCHOICE she spent closeTasmania): JamesASX100 listed iron orethe corporate level, Christo a decade working as aassumed state mediamining company) asCampbell (formerly apresenter and producer atresponsibilities in midCommunications Managersenior line manager inABC Radio.2012. James joined Telstrain August last year.Iron Ore) heads up theMark Thompsonfrom Ambulance Victoria;Andrew was Corporatecorporate government,(Western Australia):and Jane de GaultAffairs Manager atcommunications andMark was most(Queensland),Synergy for over six years.media teams, reportingrecently Director ofJane assumed theAndrew Hall hasto Karen Wood (ChiefMedia and CorporateQueensland mediabeen appointed to thePeople and Public AffairsCommunications forresponsibilities in midnewly created positionOfficer) who in turn sitsthe Fire and Emergency2012 after relocating toof Executive Generalon the 8-person groupServices Authority in WA.Brisbane from SydneyManager, CorporateManagement Committee.He has also worked forwhere she was CorporateAffairs at CommonwealthChris’ team includesRio Tinto, the AustralianAffairs Manager forBank. He joins theChristian Bennett, VPDefence Force andNSW/ACT.Group from Woolworths,19

Corporate Public Affairs Vol 23: No 1, 2013networkwhere he was Directorin the Pilbara. The $8and relationshipsstrategy, through businessCorporate and Publicbillion project will be thewith a wide variety ofdevelopment, advertising,Affairs. Andrew will belargest magnetite minestakeholders. Karynmedia relations andresponsible for leadingin Australia. Libby’s rolewas formerly Executiveinternal engagement.the Group’s combinedoversees governmentGeneral ManagerPeter Winner hasCommunications,relations, communicationsCorporate Affairs atretired from his roleGovernment & Industryand partnerships.Stockland.as Manager CorporateAffairs and CommunityKarynLiz Whiteway hasRelations at Verve Energyand SustainabilityMunsie recentlyjoined Maurice Blackburn(generation companyteams. He will commencejoined Bank ofLawyers as Generalpost disaggregation ofthe role in May.Queensland as GroupManager of MarketingWestern Power). ThisLibby Lyons hasExecutive, Corporateand Communications. Infollows Peter’s classicjoined CITIC PacificAffairs, Investor Relationsthis role Liz is responsiblepublic affairs career asMining (CPM) as Headand Governmentfor leading the Marketingelectronic and print mediaof External Relations.Relations. Karyn isand Communicationsjournalist, MinisterialCPM is developing theresponsible for thefunction nationally —office, before joiningmassive Sino Iron projectGroup’s communicationsfrom brand and marketingWestern Power.nRestructured your PA team or hired new public affairs staff?Let us know about your public affairs team. Email info@accpa.com.auAbout the Centre websiteOur website — www.accpa.com.au— is your online portal to the latest trends,developments and news on corporate publicaffairs issues in Australia and internationallyThe website features a calendar ofprofessional development events, and aknowledge centre where you can view newsdigests, practitioner thought leadership, andour newsletter.The website provides a unique interactiveplatform that enables you to:• visit ‘Expert View’ — to watch exclusiveinterviews, presentations and podcastsfrom leading industry experts;• follow the Centre Blog — for analysis,reflection and comment on emergingtopical issues; and• follow the Centre on Twitter and LinkedIn— where you can connect with yourpublic affairs peers globally and reflectupon professional insights posted by theCentre’s team on latest trends in publicaffairs internationally.20