Articles

When I was young engineering undergraduate I spent a very happy year in the German-speaking part of Switzerland as a student prakticant - or an industrial-year student, as we say in English - with a large contractor building an autobahn.

Of course, before I went to Switzerland I had to learn some German. I took a short course at that admirable institution, a Goethe Institut in Northern Germany. Flushed with my success in passing my course, I arrived in Switzerland full of confidence in my ability to surprise my new colleagues with my prowess in their language.

Imagine my dismay upon discovering that although everyone politely spoke to me in Hoch Deutsch - High German - among themselves they spoke an incomprehensible dialect called Schwize Dutsch - Swiss-German, which even Germans couldn’t understand. But I was determined to get on with my new colleagues and tried to learn Swiss German too, even though it took me about three months before I understood my first word!

With apologies to Dr Koenig, and my tongue firmly in my cheek, it also dawned on me why the Swiss wisely preferred to stay out of the European Union: nobody would understand what they were saying!

The point of this anecdote is not to dispel the myth that the English can’t learn foreign languages, rather to remind us all that we must adapt to changing circumstances and take nothing for granted. There is always something around the corner waiting to surprise you! I'm certain many of you in this room have had to make difficult choices over the last 10 years or so to adapt to the pressures of a changing world.

And this applies to government organisations too, and to the PR professionals who work for them, who will have to change the way they operate if the reputations of their employers are to be maintained, let alone improved.

If I may, I will draw on recent UK experience and let you decide how much applies to the situations in your own countries. I shall finish by posing a question about whether we, as PR people, need to change even more radically if we are to survive as a distinct discipline, or indeed, profession.

In my country trust in the government and politicians is at is at an all time low. Lower I believe than in the rest of Europe and the USA. And this of course tarnishes the reputations of major government organisations. The reputation of parliament and democracy has also been badly affected.

I’d like to mention in passing however, that it seems government agencies, which have maintained their ‘brand’ at arms length from government, such as Her Majesty’s Customs & Excise and the NHS, the National Health Service, are untainted by poor perceptions of politicians and are judged on their own merits.

I have to mention this because one of my colleagues, Peter Rose, was for many years the Communications Director of the Customs & Excise! He would be the first to admit, though, that this also has its dangers; if a law enforcement agency does not maintain the highest possible standards of behaviour its reputation can suffer severely.

In 1974, nearly 40% of the UK believed that the government would put national good above party politics. Today that figure is sadly just 16%. Opinion polls repeatedly show that politicians and journalists are among the least trusted people in the UK. And I suppose we have to add to that list, spin-doctors - PR people who work in the political arena.

The turnout at our general elections is now lower than in both the rest of Europe and the USA. Not all of this low turnout can be blamed on the unfavourable public opinion of politicians. There is also a sense that “politics is dead”, as someone once said - the feeling that if capitalism has won the philosophical argument, causing party differences to be deliberately exaggerated, why bother to vote? There is one exception to the falling turnout and that is the rise in numbers voting by post. Unfortunately this medium has been gravely tarnished by allegations of gross manipulation worthy of a “banana republic”, according to one of our court judges.

After the election of our Labour government for a second term in 2001, the relationship between our government and the national media plummeted to a new low; lower in fact than when we had the pugnacious Margaret Thatcher as prime minister. Indeed the relationship could now be described as dysfunctional. It was fascinating to observe in our recent general election how much time the Labour party spent in wooing the regional media, and even excluded the nationals from some regional press conferences.

The relationship in the UK between the administrative and political arms of government has, perhaps, always been a contentious issue, particularly in an election year and after a government has been in power for several terms. Accusations of excessive politicisation of a ‘cowed’ civil service, tend to go in line with political cycles: new governments are suspicious of the civil service they inherit, and longstanding governments are considered to have been so successful in moulding the civil service in their own image, that they have compromised its apolitical and professional reputation. In an election climate, these suspicions tend to get a higher political and media profile.

Also, it is often the case that among the minister’s political advisers, the one who finds the civil service most difficult, and vice versa, is the special media adviser. This is not surprising given the usual media adviser’s focus on the next hour or two, certainly not months and years ahead, and his or her focus on the political impact rather than the broader political strategy. Problems arise when the special adviser tries to direct what the civil servant press officers do and inevitably draws them into the political arena.

In 2003 matters seemed to come to a head in a crisis of credibility that had been building for months, predating the Iraq war, never mind the tragic Kelly affair, when an unfortunate civil servant committed suicide after he was thought to be the source of leaks about the alleged ‘sexing-up’ of the government’s case for invading Iraq.

It was against this background, together with some over-zealous media intrusion into the domestic affairs of our prime minister, that the government decided to commission an independent review of government communications. This became known as the Phillis report, after the name of its chairman, Bob Phillis, also chairman of Guardian Media group.

According to the Phillis report, the breakdown in the three-way relationship between government, media and public has its roots in the way the Labour government has tried to communicate through the media since it first came to power in 1997. Paradoxically, while in opposition, the Labour party was very successful with its media relations.

Labour’s centralised, tight control by a few number of media professionals, to whom the term spin-doctors was a compliment, meant no time-wasting bureaucracy, enabling the Labour party to get its message or rebuttal across swiftly and, if necessary, aggressively to those parts of the media which it judged most receptive.

In short, the Labour opposition was able to behave like a successful, fleet-footed pressure group, such as Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth. And once Labour had won the 1997 general election, it saw no reason why it could not continue to apply this successful formula to government, disbanding what it regarded to be old-fashioned news management by permanent civil servants.

Indeed many senior government information officers were forced to resign either because they were judged not up to the standards expected by the new government’s spin-doctors, or because of a suspicion that they were “tainted” by having worked for many years for a Conservative government.

Political, unelected media specialists were now in control of much of the communications management of government information, especially the more important announcements. The result was Tony Blair and his spin doctor-in-chief, Alastair Campbell, further degraded the civil service’s reputation for impartiality, which had already been damaged by Margaret Thatcher and Bernard Ingham.

Labour’s approach, carried on from its years in opposition, was characterised by briefings of chosen journalists, in which government information was released for political gain, and the aggressive shunning of others who were less malleable. Although successful initially, it gradually degenerated into to a more adversarial relationship than ever before, especially after the general election in 2001.

The move to spin and loss of experienced civil service communication directors has had another unforeseen and unwelcome consequence on delivering government programmes: fewer people have benefited from these programmes, because effective communication plans needed to support delivery have not been developed.

For instance the Government introduced a new benefit to support people who were prepared to work rather than remain financially dependent on the state. When this was introduced the number of people getting the benefit fell far below expectations and many costly advertising campaigns had to be launched to 'sell' the benefit to people. Even today there remain many people who are eligible but fail to receive the benefit.

This is just one area where the Government has failed to get its policies and products taken up. There are other striking examples, particularly with climate change where success will depend on voluntary effort, but somehow ministers and senior civil servants think by simply announcing an initiative it will be warmly embraced by the British people. More about this ‘announcement culture’ later.

You will have noted that our Labour government, like its Conservative predecessor, has, or had, a narrow view of communications concentrating on media relations rather than a more holistic approach, by that I mean talking and listening to many different audiences using several media, which we all know is the essence of professional public relations.

The breakdown between the national media and the government has been fought out across the pages of our newspapers and TV screens with both sides pointing the finger of blame at each other, while ordinary citizens, not knowing whom to believe, either trust neither, or give up on democracy.

As a constructive first step to redressing this regrettable situation, the director of my professional organisation, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, Colin Farrington, recently called for a parliamentary press office to be created. His reasoning was that parliament was not doing enough as an institution to communicate the benefits of democracy to the public.

I agree with him but think that more than a press office is required. We should have an independent organisation within parliament to explain its workings to the public and to encourage people of all ages to participate in the democratic process, rather than depend on the partial views of politicians.

Unsurprisingly the Phillis report concluded that the current government communications model was failing with consequent damage to the reputation of government and its institutions. It found a government information machine that in some areas was under-resourced; journalists complained that departmental press offices did not understand the differing needs of the various parts of the media; and some departments dealt with thousands of calls a year without the resources to handle them effectively.

The system, which was slated by the Phillis report, was not only discreditable, but also not very effective. One of its most striking conclusions was that Alastair Campbell's supposed iron grip was not as effective as had been widely supposed. The report showed there was poor coordination between government departments and agencies which showed up most starkly when there were cross-cutting government crises, such as the catastrophic outbreak of Foot & Mouth in British cattle.

The Phillis report had several pages of conclusions and detailed recommendations to restore a measure of trust in and repair the reputation of government communications. I’m sure you’ll be relieved to hear that I've cherry picked and summarised what I consider to be the most important.

First, government communications should be led by a senior ranking communications professional who is a civil servant and not a political appointee. Of course government is intrinsically political and is entitled to promote and stand by its political beliefs. But people need to understand clearly what is a political statement and what is an explanation of the facts. Whilst there is of course a grey area between the two, governments should strive to keep the two forms of communication separate.

I’m glad to say this was speedily accepted and implemented by the government.

The theme of the separation of political and non-political communications runs through the report. For example, allowance is made for the director of communications in each ministry to “stand back and object if ministers personal agendas ever lead them to press for communications that would be politically biased or misleading”. Hopefully never again will we have a spin-doctor in charge of the GCN, the government communications network, as it is now called.

The report’s second most important point is the assertion that the creation of a ‘dialogue culture’ instead of an ‘announcement culture’ will lead to more effective government. In essence, dialogue with stakeholders during policy development is necessary if the final adopted policy is to be successful. This focus on stakeholders or ‘customers’ has been a feature of the commercial sector for decades, where CRM – customer relationship management – is at the core of many successful companies.

Implicit also in the recommendations was the recognition that the various disciplines of events, direct mail, graphic design, media relations, web design, and copywriting should fuse into one communications profession at the more senior managerial levels.

Anyone who has had the pleasure of working with colleagues from other disciplines knows that there are more similarities than differences at the planning and strategic levels. The opportunity for PR people who wish to embrace this 360-degree approach is obvious, as is the threat for those who don’t.

Nothing in life is perfect and I believe the Phillis report missed a vital point: while it correctly called for the head of the GCN to have the highest civil service rank, it neglected to address the rank of the individual communications director in each department. The civil service is notoriously grade conscious. Whether one is a grade 3 or grade 5 matters not just in terms of status, but also in terms of ‘clout’. The chances of moving away from an announcement to dialogue culture would be greatly improved if each communications director were a member of the ‘board’ that runs a government ministry.

The Phillis report correctly recognised that government departments vary both in the communication challenges they face and in their overall size and structure. Rather than being prescriptive and imposing specific and detailed recommendations that all departments must obey, it has sensibly left it up to individual departments to decide how to apply the report’s recommendations.

Anyone new to a big government institution such as a large ministry could be forgiven for thinking sometimes they had suddenly been banished to a strict monastic order whose monks had taken a vow of silence.

Imagine if you will, Father Peter who has ‘green fingers’ and supplies his fellow monks with a regular stream of fresh vegetables from his garden. Father Peter also knows how his vegetables are best cooked, but he’s not allowed to share his knowledge with Father Ted in the kitchen. That’s why the broccoli is always over-cooked and the potatoes hard as iron!

This, admittedly, imperfect analogy sums up for me the biggest problem for government institutions. They possess an enormous amount of information and many experienced, talented staff scattered around their organisations. Provided they can talk to each other, they are more than capable of applying collective intelligence to information and turning it into knowledge. Sharing and communicating this knowledge with all relevant internal and external audiences is the key to their performance and their reputation. It is also their hardest challenge.

Information Technology, IT, offers us the tantalising promise of accessing and sharing knowledge, both internally and externally.

Imagine if you would, a knowledge network which enables, for example, a press officer while answering a media enquiry to get up on his or her PC’s screen the latest briefing note from a specialist in the relevant policy team, and then to post the press line to take, so that his or her colleagues don't have to start from scratch, if asked the same question. Or the minister’s private secretary to view the diary commitments, not just of his or her boss, but all the junior ministers as well. The planning team would be able to post future key events and propose diary dates for the ministers. And the crisis preparedness team would be able to track issues and flag up alerts if they identify an issue in a hurry - the classic definition of a crisis. The prime minister's planning team in No 10 Downing St will be able to go deeper into the diary and inspect the more detailed versions to ensure no clash in ministers’ commitments across the whole government. And so on.

For this IT network to function its users must have confidence that the data is up-to-date and accurate. That's why ‘ownership’ of the knowledge network must be at the highest level in any government organisation - the board - in order to force through the cultural changes that will be necessary in most government institutions.

Who knows, maybe one day even Father Ted will find out broccoli is best eaten al dente?

After all, not so long ago I worked for a PR consultancy which managed the UK political affairs of one of the world's largest fast food chains. Based on Lotus Notes, every contact with a politician was logged and their views recorded. Briefing notes were accessible to ensure follow-up material could be retrieved and sent off swiftly to the MP. The demands placed on this system were minuscule compared to the complex requirements of a major government ministry, but it does show that a bespoke IT system can be of great assistance to communication professionals.

At the risk of being highly simplistic, it seems to me that civil servants in large government institutions work at three levels: all involve communications issues.

First, they must answer the more mundane requests for information from the public. Their answers can be communicated via letters, the internet, or dedicated telephone helplines.

Second, they have to provide their ministers and other colleagues with knowledge in the form of briefings, so that they in turn can answer questions from such people as other ministries, the media, and foreign governments. And of course to be able to deal robustly with the missiles lobbed by opposition parties during parliamentary question time and debates.

Third, and most importantly, they must develop policy in line with the wishes of their political masters. This is the function, which will determine more than any other the reputation of their organisation because if the policy is obviously flawed the public will be needlessly antagonistic, their minister’s career will be damaged, and their organisation’s future blighted.

Recently, in a Rush Communication team led by my colleague, Peter Rose, I have been working with Ann Robinson, another colleague with senior civil service management experience, to review and improve the strategic communications of one of UK’s largest and most complex ministries. I regret I can't say which one. We also benchmarked our review among most of the major government ministries in Whitehall, so we have a reasonable idea of the state of play in government communications.

What we found was both depressing and encouraging. The former because the effective use of IT was proving to be very difficult and the day-to-day media battle was, in many cases, still driving communications. Our general impression was that communications was still regarded by some as an add-on rather than integral to delivery.

But there was good news: all the communications professionals we spoke to were determined to implement the Phillis report’s recommendations. All recognised the need to change from an announcement to dialogue culture. And all realised several ministers and their political spin-doctors would have to be persuaded that it was in their long-term interest not to focus excessively on the short-term media battle.

As an example of good dialogue culture in practice, let’s take an imaginary policy team responsible for, say, the important environmental issue of sustainability. This team might have seconded to it a communications professional, or already have a policy officer with communications training, to ensure that a communication strategy was considered at the start of policy development. A key area of this would be clarity on stakeholder management with the aim of consulting and involving them throughout. This would assist in the identification of implementation difficulties and enable them to be taken into account and dealt with during policy development. This would be particularly important with sustainability where implementation of the policy would be voluntary and need stakeholder buy-in.

I think this also demonstrates that while the management of communications will become more strategic, there will also be a blurring of differences between many job functions. This observation was also made in The Death of Spin?, the report on the internet that I wrote in 2000 for the then Institute of Public Relations. Among its conclusions was that the role of PR people would have to change from the traditional information guardian or gatekeeper to communications facilitator, or enabler.

The Death of Spin? predicted that the role of information gatekeeper would devolve to the lowest common denominator because the humblest team member would have access, via the internet or intranet, to all the necessary information.

It seems to me that all government and private sector communication departments will have to embrace the philosophy of becoming an enabling or strategic department, or find that their undoubted skills will be ignored in favour of other people who are quicker to grasp the opportunity of a communications-driven culture.

Public relations and other communications disciplines will be competing around the board table for budgets against the legal, accountancy, and management consultancy professions who will increasingly see communications as an extension of their professional services.

Public relations will increasingly have to perform to real and measurable objectives, or it will not obtain budgets. Even the most narrow-minded marketer will no longer require flimsy criteria such as the amount of column inches or AVEs, advertising value equivalents, Return on investment is criterion understood around the board table and public relations will ultimately only succeed if it works to the same standards as finance and other disciplines.

If we do not rise to the challenge, our reputation, let alone the government or other organisation we work for, will suffer. I believe we can expect challenging, tough and, yes, rewarding times ahead.