Good news that the CIPR has joined the PRSA in their 'PR Defined' initiative - a global effort to modernise the definition of public relations. The initiative is valuable in terms of bringing together the views of practitioners on how we define PR, although settling on one global definition will be difficult  However, the fact that so many practitioners are coming together to debate and to reflect on public relations practice is a positive step forward. 

There have been some interesting contributions so far (check out the PRSA's PR Defined pages). CIPR member Philip Sheldrake has also put forward a suggested definition, which is also worth review, particularly for its focus on organisational objectives and recognition of the complexities of influence in today's online environment.

Personally, I think the CIPR’s definition reflects how PR is developing:

Public relations is the discipline which looks after reputation, with the aim of earning understanding and support and influencing opinion and behaviour. It is the planned and sustained effort to establish and maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics.

I like this definition as it references the following:

• Mutuality (“…to establish and maintain goodwill and mutual understanding between an organisation and its publics…”), reflecting authentic engagement with publics and the two-way symmetric model vs. one-way push messaging (social media being a driver for this)
• Reputation and influence (the value of reputation being a basis on which public relations investments are made)
• The ‘discipline’ of PR. I see this also as the processes, technologies and convergence of functions that mean PR is not simply about communication but also about ensuring that organisational processes, governance, research resources, data analytic capabilities etc support and inform communications efforts.

If I was to add anything to the current definition it would be an explicit reference to the reason why we make efforts to earn understanding and support – to help to achieve organisational objectives (reflected in Philip's suggested definition). Also perhaps a reference to public interest, in support of the public information model and to reflect issues of ethical practice and PR's role within civil society. 

I'll be watching how this debate develops!

I had the pleasure of presenting Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty, with the CIPR 2010 President's Medal this evening, during an 'in conversation with' event at the CIPR's offices.  Below is the text of my introduction (short and to the point) about why I chose Shami and her colleagues at Liberty as the recipients of the medal.  Whatever your political persuasion, or indeed if you agree or disagree with Liberty's stance on issues of justice and equality, the work of communicating and engaging audiences on often complex issues to do with fundamental democratic principles is a challenge. Public relations is at the heart of the campaigning work of organisations such as Liberty, including education campaigns to dispel myths and promote a better understanding of human rights issues.

There will be a podcast of the conversation (hosted by the excellent Rhoda MacDonald) posted to the CIPR website soon, but there was one key take away point from the discussion - which in many ways is Liberty's biggest challenge - that can be summarised as follows:

As the merits of the Human Rights Act are debated, it is important to focus on the essence of the Act.  As Lord Bingham of Cornhill commented during the keynote speech at Liberty’s 75th Anniversary Conference, referring to those who would like to remove or dilute rights within the Act such as the right to liberty, the right to a fair trial:

Which of these rights, I ask, would we wish to discard? Are any of them trivial, superfluous, unnecessary? Are any of them un-British? There may be those who would like to live in a country where these rights are not protected, but I am not of their number.

For those considering the introduction of a British Bill of Rights, Liberty asks that we consider that the Human Rights Act already provides (to paraphrase): an "...uniquely British Bill of Rights, balancing Parliamentary Sovereignty with the Rule of Law."

Something for us to think about as we grapple with such issues.

Below is my introduction this evening:

One of the greatest privileges of being CIPR President is that you can recognise the achievements of outstanding individuals, who contribute so much through their communications skill.

In 2010 it was my honour to award the CIPR President’s medal to Shami Chakrabarti and her colleagues at Liberty, an organisation that campaigns tirelessly for individual human dignity, equal treatment and fairness. Shami's ability to engage, communicate and campaign on behalf of all sections of society is a perfect example of how public relations can be a force for good, not just for profit.

Liberty’s message is simple and powerful: every human being has a right to dignity, equality and justice and these rights must be protected by law.  This is a message that must be constantly contextualised, defended and promoted.  And, despite its simplicity, the supporting debates are often complex and nuanced, with detractors as well as supporters. The recent headlines on privacy and freedom of speech highlight the communications challenge.

But, the fact that we are able to debate freely, to agree, disagree and to question is a right that Liberty protects and I am grateful for that.

I went along to Nominet's first .uk policy forum last week (Nominet looks after .co.uk domain names). A great line up of speakers including academics, consumer rights consultants, child protection lobbyists and an ethical hacker, and a welcome from Ed Vaizey MP (via video). The theme was protection and trust online and as expected there were robust discussions about privacy and regulation vs. self-regulation (Ed Vaizey described himself as a 'self-regulationist').  Also discussed: citizen protection from criminal elements online (but also from the state and big corporate interests) and the tension between national and international policy development where the lines are blurred between jurisdictions and an international approach is needed to tackle concerns about crime and privacy.

Dr Victoria Nash of the Oxford Internet Institute made some interesting points, asking us to consider research findings that show a desire for more government intervention online from consumers whilst trust in government is declining - how is this squared? Also who should govern those who govern the Internet? If self-regulation is the model of choice then it is vital that we have full transparency and accountability - in other words, who are those making the decisions and what drives their decision making?

Another highlight was Anna Fielder, a consumer policy and rights consultant. She posed a number of thoughtful points on the issue of the 'right to be forgotton' online (essentially citizens being able to delete their online personal histories). How does this right work within a culture whereby we share content, globally? What about content that is not your personal copyright, such as a friend's photograph? And perhaps most importantly, we should consider the impacts of editing or removing personal histories. Does society have a right to access such history as part of a broader historical context? What about the transparency and accuracy of historical events if individuals are editing and removing evidence of such events or participation?

So just a few highlights from a packed day but certainly something to think about. Nominet will be synthesising the outputs of the policy day in the near future and I look forward to the outcomes.  No doubt about it, there are no easy answers....

 The current privacy / super injunctions debate makes fascinating reading.  But I find it difficult to support the media’s moral crusading and triumphalism (some, not all of the media).  Add MPs potentially abusing parliamentary privilege and tweets declaring success for ‘free speech’ and you have a potent rhetoric that has the potential to skew the substance of the debate.  What we are talking about here are two principles enshrined in human rights law: the right to freedom of expression and the right to respect for private and family life.  It is the balance between the two that should be at the heart of an informed and thoughtful debate, including how such principles should be supported and protected in a media environment that has changed drastically over the last decade. 

The government has belatedly announced that a joint committee of MPs will now examine privacy law.  Let’s hope that they can deliver a considered set of recommendations, as what we have now is a free-for-all.  Do MPs, or those online have a right to disregard the law because they disagree with a judgement?  Is this a victory for ‘free speech’ or the equivalent of mob rule?  For those countries that have no free speech protections, an unseemly tussle over the public’s right to know about the sex life of a footballer has the potential to make a mockery of what many are fighting for.   Indeed, it says much about the tabloidization of media and society that The Sun newspaper, a football player and a former reality TV contestant are testing such fundamental principles. Where were the campaigns following the Trafigura super injunction?  This is where the real test should have been  - a worthy cause that lacked an essential ingredient – sex.  I fear that we are being naïve if we believe that the media crying foul in this particular case is anything other than to protect and promote commercial interests.  

I am a supporter of free speech and privacy.  It is extraordinarily difficult to balance the two and I hope that the discussions that follow this debacle will be considered, focusing on what is genuinely in the public interest, rather than what the public is interested in – two different things. These rights were hard won. They deserve respect.

Having been in PR for a while (OK, more than a while) you hear very similar value propositions from consultants on what they do and how they work. But not always. That's why I'm excited to be working with the Meanwhile team as a non-exec partner, advising on everything to do with reputation, risk and crisis. 

First off, the team is outstanding (check out the biogs here).  As they say, they have built and sold businesses, brands and IP and have been the 'client, the agency, the tea-boy and the CEO'.  Check out a video of their work here. Secondly, the team blends skills from film, production, advertising, social, digital media and PR with invaluable entrepreneurial experience.  They know what it takes to run a business.  They know the challenges faced by the boards and investors.  Which brings me to their value proposition: combining the social influence of marketing and communications with the entrepreneurial approach of private equity and venture capital.  I like it.  It feels different. 

And as a non-exec, I can balance this new role with other work that challenges and excites. Can't be bad....

The CIPR has announced that it will be launching The Conversation this coming Monday, during its social media conference. The Conversation allows the aggregation of the best PR related blogs from members and non-members, in the UK and beyond. I like this approach because it is open, gathering together the best thinking about PR from all corners of the globe.  Looking forward to reading some great content that is going to fuel the conversation about PR....

Here's what the CIPR has to say:

The Chartered Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) is launching ‘The Conversation’ at its social media conference, 11 April. The Conversation is your one-stop shop for great blog posts by practitioners, consultancies, academia and students, from the UK and further afield. Syndicating your personal or company blog couldn't be easier, allowing the wider PR community to find your content, find your personal, business and consultancy profiles, and respond to your news and points of view. Everyone is welcome to register themselves and their organisation.

In the spirit of The Conversation, the CIPR has invited some of the UK's keenest PR bloggers to break this news.

There will be no need to ‘make friends’ all over again on The Conversation. Simply give your existing social networks permission to allow us to take a look at your network, your social graph as some call it, and we'll make sure those relationships are established immediately on The Conversation (ie you won't need to share your passwords with us). Hey presto, instant social glue.

The Conversation promises to be an exciting addition to the CIPR's website, at least it will be with your input. It won't match Facebook for functionality or LinkedIn for seeing who's connected to whom, but it will be the first such attempt by a professional body to our knowledge. We hope you'll jump in, and work with us as we iron out the inevitable glitch or two.

Following the successes of the CIPR social media panel – CIPR TV, 'Social Summer' events in 2010 and 2011, social media measurement guidance and input to ASA regulation – it's apt that The Conversation will be launched at the CIPR social media conference. We hope to see you there.

I was one of the respondents to a call for evidence by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills on the issue of women on boards (to be clear, I'm not an 'expert' on this subject, although I am a female director (a Chair, a NED and an executive director) and have been since 1998).

The result of this consultation - Lord Davies' report on Women on Boards - rejects the idea of quotas (legislating for the percentage of women on boards) for now, but has not ruled them out completely.  In other words, corporates must heed the warning and up their game or legislation will do it for them – certainly the EU Commission has threatened to do so if there is no progress.

Personally I don't support such a move as quotas are, in my view, inherently inequitable and we are dealing with far more complex issues (such as culture, confidence and working practices) than simply opportunity creation.  In Norway, where quotas were introduced several years ago, analysis cited in the report shows that compliance has been met by the creation of more non-executive roles (which makes sense if working practices and work / life balance are of concern) but not by women rising through the organisational ranks to the board.  Can this be classed as a success?

So no quotas yet, but there are 10 recommendations for FTSE companies, which include:

FTSE 100 boards should aim for a minimum of 25% female representation by 2015

All FTSE 350 companies should set out what percentage of women they aim to have on their boards in 2013 and 2015

Additions to the UK Corporate Governance Code to include measurable objectives for diversity policy implementation and disclosure of 'meaningful' information about appointment processes and diversity

These are welcome and the report does a good job of outlining the benefits of balanced boards and identifying some of the challenges. As for the detail in the report, a few comments:

• The report calls for Chairmen and CEOs of UK companies to take action, with the support of investors and executive search firms.  I would argue that women themselves must also be part of this action by proactively engaging with their boards on cultural, working practice and selection transparency issues, from senior management upwards

• Facts behind the stats are key – we need a detailed understanding of gender balances across industry sectors so that the ‘pool’ from entry to board can be monitored, understood and mapped to the percentages recommended in the report.  This will help to identify the things we need to tackle well before senior management level (education choices etc)

• The report focuses on FTSE organisations, but it would be helpful to consider those organisations that fall outside of the FTSE, in public sector, government, third sector and smaller, private enterprises so that we have a more detailed picture of what opportunities women have grasped and how

• I welcome the view that women directors from outside of the corporate sector should be considered for roles (and that previous financial experience must not be a barrier).  To be overlooked because there is a fear women will not understand corporate governance issues if they do not have a corporate background is to – wrongly - assume a lack of governance expertise in every other sector

• It is clear from the respondents that the biggest issues are to do with work / life balance, culture of the boardroom (too male, stereotypical behaviours) and maternity issues.  So, any recommendations must link to broader policy initiatives in these areas. Numbers on their own won’t do it, nor should the review recommendations be isolated

• The provision of training for women and the creation of new networks is needed, but if cultural issues are to be tackled then this must extend to all board members, including chairs.  The creation of women-only networks and training programmes, whilst giving access to mentors and best practice, in my view create further ‘islands’ between the two groups of directors.  What is needed is open networks and training – for all directors.

Interestingly, Julia Finch (Julia is in favour of quotas at this time) writing in the Guardian today comments:

The argument against quotas from those women who have clawed their way to the top is always that nothing stopped them from making it to the boardroom.  It is not a case of pulling up the drawbridge to stop other women following: they won’t lower it, either, for those following behind and help correct a situation that is clearly wrong.

I don’t agree with this view, but it does tie into my first point about women being part of the solution.  But let’s be clear, this is about cultural norms.  It requires a broad church to change these norms.  Nothing else will do.

The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) has published recommendations to help improve the dialogue between company boards and their shareholders by doing more to explain risk and provide balanced information for investors (amongst other things) in company reports.  The CEO of the FRC sums it up: "Annual reports are more than marketing documents."  The recommendations are in response to concerns that organisations are not being open enough about risk and other factors that may impact company performance.

The communication of risk and the degree of openness and transparency an organisation should commit to - versus compliance alone - requires expertise, not simply in understanding often complex factors, but how such factors, associated considerations and impacts should be communicated to stakeholders so that openness is supported but any risk to the organisation is managed appropriately.  This supports a recent discussion at the Institute of Directors about creating a 'culture of candour' around the board table and the need for communications experts to be at the board table, not only to help create such a culture but to understand and outline the (often nuanced) communication requirements.

If the FRC proposals are accepted, then the 'culture of candour' will become - to a degree - a requirement, as will the need to have at the table those with the expertise to anticipate and structure the appropriate communications support.

So, my last blog post as President of the CIPR. Time flies as they say.

My final post is based on my last update to CIPR members, simply because it says all I want to say (and thanks to all those who have taken the time to comment on these posts over the last 12 months).

Roosevelt said it beautifully (about farewells): "Be sincere; be brief..." and so I will.

Firstly, a huge thank you to our members, fellows, volunteers, council and board colleagues, staff, partners and the broader public relations community for the input, advice, critique and support in 2010.

I promised small progress steps in January this year and we have achieved many, including a review and restructure of the CIPR. Also the launch of our new website and the first interactive live PR TV show, CIPR TV. New Diplomas in Public Affairs and Crisis Management; new guidance for members on planning and measurement, procurement, media spamming, communicating with children and social media. We represented the interests of our members on matters key to PR, including the Barcelona Principles on evaluation. We launched a public sector initiative to bring together examples of PR value. We were co-founders of the new UK Public Affairs Council. We brought together some of the UK's foremost social media practitioners and launched the Social Media Panel to develop advice for our members. We welcomed the UK's first cohort of Chartered PR practitioners; we launched online CPD for members and held conferences and workshops on a wide range of PR topics. We launched the Diversity Working Group and celebrated the achievement of young PR practitioners with the launch of the Future Leaders Forum. We celebrated creativity and excellence at the CIPR Awards. We opened the doors to Russell Square for our 'Social Summers' – informal weekly events for practitioners on everything social media. We held careers days for students and recruitment events for members. Our groups rolled-out a huge programme of events, awards and activities and attracted stand out speakers to their conferences. Importantly, the Institute has taken tough decisions and is back in surplus, financially in a stronger position.

So progress, yes, but there is much still to do. Not every challenge is solved. I said in January that all we set out to achieve would not be beautifully packaged in my year as President and it hasn't been. We will do more to support members impacted by spending cuts. We need to focus on tangible outputs from our new working groups and forums. We need to ensure every individual member feels supported and connected to the Institute. Our voice on national issues will be amplified. We have processes to revamp, feedback to act upon and a dialogue to continue with practitioners so that we offer the right support and guidance. We need to keep listening and engaging.

So more small steps, but all in the right direction. I now hand over the Presidency to an outstanding PR professional, someone as passionate about the CIPR and its members as I am, Paul Mylrea. Together with our new CEO Jane Wilson, our team and volunteers who form our council and board and run our groups throughout the nations and regions, the CIPR will be there for members, a voice for the profession.

It has been an honour. Happy Christmas to all those celebrating the festive season.

Luke Johnson, writing in the Financial Times, comments that

...today, every Chief Executive needs to understand PR and how to make the best use of it.

Whilst Luke's article focused on the business benefits of public relations, he also touched on crisis management, a topic which dominated last week's discussion at the Institute of Directors' annual Chartered Director 'Review of the Year'. The subject was risk and reputational risk, including how the board determines, monitors and manages risk and how it rebuilds the organisation in the aftermath of a crisis.

The CIPR was part of a panel that included former directors at Ernst & Young and HBOS and the Civil Aviation Authority. Paul Mylrea, Head of Press at the BBC and CIPR President-Elect was also part of this panel. As we discussed volcanic ash clouds, the financial crisis and the 7/7 London Bombings, all of the speakers underlined reputational risk as a key dimension in the board's planning and response to crisis. The personal reputational risk of those CEOs and Chairs that are the public face of an organisation in such times was also a key point of discussion.

The discussion was a broad one, but as it related to PR, the consensus was that public relations practitioners must work hand-in-hand with the board to monitor and manage reputational risk, particularly in relation to trust and transparency, and that CEOs and Boards must be trained to respond and deal with such risk. One speaker discussed a 'culture of candour', the role of the board and its advisors in creating such a culture. As PR practitioners facilitating dialogue and feedback with publics, monitoring perception and reputation, our role is to advise the board with candour, not just in times of crisis but in the management and discussion of any reputational risk to the organisations that we advise.

I'll be doing some more work with colleagues on reputation risk issues in the New Year, but to summarise a few key points from our President-Elect:

• the worst thing that could happen to your organisation is often the mundane thing that is not on the crisis plan
• the people that can do most harm to an organisation can be friends, family and colleagues - not the obvious choices
• the worst time for the worst thing to happen is now.

On a positive note, excellent planning, monitoring and building a trusted relationship with the board will help organisations respond well in times of crisis, helping the organisation to retain and regain reputational capital.