CorporatePR

The Infrastructure of Relationships

It seems I am going back to basics these days, reexamining the words we use to describe the practice of communications.  Today, I found myself thinking about trust and relationships.  This was sparked by my reading of a recent paper on Trust and PR Practice by Brad L. Rawlins. It is an interesting and useful article, particularly for its review of the literature of trust and its role in relationship building, a primary goal of public relations.  It got me thinking about relationships, however, as it didn't really address the content of them:  Who is involved in a relationship?  Is it only people? Or is there truly an ability to have a relationship with an abstraction, such as a brand or corporation?  What would "relationship" look like at this abstracted level and what could PR do here? 

I followed a trail of breadcrumbs at the Institute for Public Relations website, which has lots of good research.  Clicking on "Relationships" I found a number of articles, mostly about measurement. One was particularly interesting, by Elizabeth Dougall, Tracking Organization-Public Relationships Over Time: A Framework for Longitudinal Research.  In her review of the literature about measuring relationships, she identifies a weakness: measurement of relationships usually is based on the perspectives of the people involved.  But the question is, can relationships be measured as an entity in itself (abstraction or not)?  It seems it can, primarily through looking at the formalization of structures, the intensity of flows (information and resources), standardization and outcomes (effectiveness, reciprocity). Dougall's paper actually looks at corporate conflict with activist groups, and she identifies "relationship-signaling statements" as part of analyzing the flows.

This helped me think again about my questions above.  Perhaps there are two layers to relationships and PR needs to address both:  the personal side and the infrastructural side.  But before I get to that, I have to backtrack a bit.  One thing that neither Dougall's nor Rawlin's paper offered was a definition of relationship.  So, I headed over to my usual first source, the Mirriam-Webster Online Dictionary.  Here's what I found: relationship -- "the relation connecting or binding participants in a relationship."  Also, "a state of affairs existing between those having relations or dealings." Finally, "a passionate attachment."  Obviously, I had to look at the word relation in order to make any sense of this.  There are two definitions of relation I like:  "the attitude or stance which two or more persons or groups assume toward one another" and "the state of being mutually or reciprocally interested (as in social or commercial matters)."  And interested:  "having the attention engaged" or "being affected or involved."

Let's synthesize a bit: A relationship is a state of affairs connecting or binding mutually or reciprocally interested (affected/involved) people/groups.  The "state of affairs" is the structure and processes (flows).  Mutual/reciprocal interest ties us back to trust: 

"Trust is one party’s willingness—shown by intention and behavior—to be vulnerable to another party based on confidence developed cognitively and affectively that the latter party is (a) benevolent, (b) reliable, (c) competent, (d) honest, and (e) open." [Link]

Trust has also been identified as a key factor in persuasion, along with competence and goodwill. (I have previously written about how social media can help to foster trust, as it is particularly good (structurally) for creating goodwill.)

If the job of public relations is to foster trusted relationships, there is certainly a variety of best practices out there that can be followed.  These practices work both from a mass communications level (competence, trust) and on a more individual/networked communications level -- where social media tactics tend to play out (competence, trust and goodwill).  It doesn't seem, however, that these tactics really get at how to foster trusted relationships at the infrastructure level.

This is where I think the tools of social media can really help.  I think that particularly in the area of information and resource flows, social media can amp up the intensity, both in terms of more channels as well as more "buzz" or conversations.  By identifying and open new channels of communication between an organization and its publics, for example, particularly for mutual influence and mutual exchange -- communication that moves in both directions -- we can potentially impact the level of trust on both sides of the communications.  This is without even considering the content of the channels themselves.  We also need to better identify the signs of relationships at the infrastructural level, so we can more accurately identify and measure them, as well as trace them backwards to the individuals or groups involved.

Perhaps that is a good research project for someone: putting some rigorous thought into the infrastructure of relationships in a world of social media, and the impact on organizational trust.  Perhaps then we can betting figure out what PR can accomplish at the abstraction layer.

What is Control and Does a Company Have Any?

I offered my two cents in a debate about influence and control between Mike Driehorst and Geoff Livingston.  Entering these types of religious debates is always interesting, because one's contribution or position can be so easily misconstrued. However, I think it is important to try to start questioning what the words we use mean, because I think there are some serious miscommunication happening because we aren't clear in how we define words. What is influence? What is control?  I tried to parse this a bit in a comment to Mike's post.  After reading other comments and Geoff's post, I thought it would be useful to offer what I think about control.

I think the context of all of this debate is this:  What does a company actually CONTROL?  Is is the brand? The messages?  Most people who are writing and blogging about social media in a corporate context believe a company does NOT control its brand or messages. I am one of them!  However, there are some things that companies DO control, and Mike was trying to get to that, starting with the fact that if a company didn't exist, there would be nothing to control, so that the company at the VERY least, has control over its first existence.  But what happens after that?

Let's back up for a moment. There are good reasons to conflate control and influence, because they are so intertwined.  Can we really say that any decision that anyone makes has not been influenced by anyone (or anything) else, even it is is an authoritarian command?  And yet, for the purposes of the arguments we are making in social media marketing, it would behoove us to try to separate the two, if only to clear up fuzzy thinking which, in my opinion, is creating arguments where there doesn't really need to be any.

Looking at the definitions of influence and control we can immediately see the problem. The definition of control, from Mirriam Webster Online:  (transitive verb): to exercise restraining or directing influence over : regulate b: to have power over : rule.   If we are trying to differentiate control from influence, this definition doesn't really help.  Obviously in this case, you could argue the company itself cannot have singular control because clearly other audiences offer directing influence.

The noun control is equally as fuzzy: 1 a: an act or instance of controlling; also : power or authority to guide or manage. The introduction of authority is interesting, which is power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior.  But again, it still conflates influence and command.

Things are a bit clearer when we look at the definition of influence.  According to the dictionary it is: the act or power of producing an effect without apparent exertion of force or direct exercise of command or the power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways.  In my opinion, it is the indirect or intangible that separates out influence from control.

What if we defined control as the ability to make a decision about corporate actions?  What then would be under a company's control? Off the top of my head, I came up with this list:

1)  Whether the company exists or not
2)  The ability to sign a contract (employment, partnership, real estate, financial)
3)  The ability to pay a bill or salary
4)  The ability to decide what products will be produced at what quantities
5)  What official corporate collateral, image will look like:  logo, signs, annual report, brochures, website (unless they have turned their website into a wiki, which is unlikely for the vast majority at this point)

Now, I am not saying that any of these items can't be influenced by outside parties.  Of course they will be.  The very definition of decision admits this (a determination arrived at after consideration).  Yet only official corporate representatives can actually make the decisions that put these things into play.  They can choose to ignore influence (particularly in #5), which may even result in the company failing.  These people who "actually make the decisions" do indeed have control, as we have defined it.

In this case, the company does not control the brand or the messages, for example.  They can only influence. And this has always ever been the case.

Let me know if you think this helps!