At the very heart of the practice of public relations is its ability to generate trust from an organisation’s stakeholders towards an organisation itself. And there is no more important characteristic of an organisation to help deliver this trust than transparency.

One of public relations key roles, then, is to help build a culture of transparency within organisations.

The internet
The internet has made the importance of transparency more important than ever. It provides information to a depth and arcane complexity that boggles the mind.

Also, the internet delivers information to a diversity of stakeholders on a diversity of issues in the sort of compressed timeframe that was once simply impossible. Information and opinions (whether right or wrong) are there for virtually all (or the virtual all) to see.

The power of the internet allows activist groups and/or NGOs to generate a momentum of ‘noise’ that can impact profoundly on an organisation’s operations and reputation.

It has been stated that the balance of power in information sharing is now, due to the internet, with the stakeholder rather than the supplier (organisation).

This emphasises even more the salience of advice that the best public relations practitioners have been giving to organisations for years:
• Be transparent
• Be honest
• Be proactive in supplying information relevant to the needs and/or wants of stakeholders.

Striking before the iron is hot
It is far more preferable for an organisation to provide information on sensitive issues before they are asked and especially before they need to (i.e. before a regulator, government minister or media outlet forces its hand). This is because much damage to the organisation for withholding or not being generous/proactive in providing the information will have occurred before they are pressured externally to ‘hand it over’.

From the point where information is requested it will already be, in many cases, too late to stop damage being done to an organisation.

Whether right or wrong, an organisation that is simply accused of being secretive or obfuscatory will almost certainly take a reputational hit. Mud sticks. These days, the act of being secretive is comparable to what an organisation is actually allegedly being secretive about.

Of course, there is invariably a difficult judgement call to make when releasing information proactively, especially on contentious issues:

• Releasing information early can stymie criticism of being secretive or obfuscatory off at the path
• It enables an organisation to take the moral high ground and, no matter what the issue is that is the heart of the potential ‘secretiveness’, position itself as ethical and concerned with the needs and wants of its stakeholders
• It is possible the issue at the heart of the potential ‘secretiveness’ will never come to light, so by going out proactively with it the process may cause damage whereas, undiscovered, it may have lain dormant.

Of course, it is a mantra of effective issues and crisis management that it is not whether you will be found it, it’s just a matter of when.

Add to this the reality that all the instances of secretiveness add up. By taking a consistently proactive, transparent approach, one that respects the concerns of stakeholders, then an organisation’s reputation will, without any doubt, be enhanced over time.

And if an organisation operates in a contentious space – energy, nuclear, resources etc – then the organisation just needs to bear up and realise they are going to cop a smack now and then: this is the way of the world and if you can’t stand the heat…

The interconnected world
Organisations must realise they are part of a global world (stupid tautology but anyway…). Contemporary society demands that they (organisations) need to be cognisant of the global impact of their actions. We are not separate from Asian countries that (may) produce goods or African countries that (may) buy them.

We are in this together – economically, socially, environmentally – so taking a narrow view or issues and/or operations is self-defeating and so self-centred as to be imperialistic in the worst possible Hail Britannia-type traditions.

Of course, at the heart of this notion is corporate social responsibility (CSR), a practice that is about as analogous to strategic public relations as you can get. CSR not only protects organisational reputation but it helps it make money now and in the future so, ultimately, plays a huge role in organisational longevity and, where relevant, shareholder returns.

It is important to note that simply giving out information is not enough to be transparent. The information needs to be relevant to stakeholders and expressed in a manner that they understand. It also needs to be made clear why this information is relevant to them. The information must be contextualised. If the organisation doesn’t do it, then a less understanding stakeholder like the media will be only too happy to do so.

To use the analogy of being a responsible friend, organisations are accountable for their actions. That means being honest and upfront about their positives and their negatives. Obfuscating some of the nasties, deliberately developed or not, undermines the integrity of the organisation.

Being honest means respecting stakeholders. Not being honest equals disrespect towards them. Organisations cannot expect their stakeholders to accept it if an organisation is upfront with positive news but obfuscatory with the bad. People (friends) will simply not accept that.

The determination of public relations strategists – who, after the CEO, are organisations’ lead ‘keeper of the brand’ – to generate organisational transparency revolves around the chief strategic precept of public relations, to create mutually beneficial relationships between an organisation and its stakeholders .

It has been said that information is power. By sharing information, then, an organisation is sharing power. And what more meaningful expression of an organisation’s willingness to engage with or relate to a stakeholder can there be than sharing power? By doing this an organisation is likely to come close to gaining a friend for a very long time.

NB. Some of the notions expressed in this post have been discussed before by communication scholars. These scholars include, but are not limited to, J.E. Grunig, Rawlins and Hung

Tweet This Post