I believe Jim pointed out well that practitioners often lack the vocabulary and not have the same lexicon as the theorists/researchers do. This is common in many fields, and not using the theory/concepts as academicians put doesn’t mean that practitioners disagree or not using them.

Fraser delivers the view well from the field/industry in that ‘people in field might not have the vocabularies we have in academic researchers’, but they have ‘tacit knowledge’ about what is poor or unethical practice and there are good demand from practitioners for prescriptive knowledge of what could be the better ways of working. I also add my witness the principles from Excellence Theory are well observed across societies from my teaching, researching, and interactions with field professionals, although the excellence principles are not in abstract way in books and often be ‘spottily’ observed, the practitioners’ tacit knowledge is similar to the principles. In fact, as any practical field advances there arises a good amount of conceptualized ‘common knowledge' more than individualistic, down-to-earth ‘tacit knowledge’, and the common knowledge provides foundation for diversification of knowledge – sometimes there are debates and sometimes there are lumping or specifications. The IABC study and Excellent theory have laid the base for public relations and communication management going beyond the tacit knowledge to elaborated common knowledge.

Of course, many practical minds suspect and puzzled how to ‘digest and apply’ the conceptual and theoretical ideas in their practice, but theories are not skill sets such as how to write annual report, how to pitch campaign programs to clients. These are important skills solving day-to-day problems, but Excellence theory and the knowledge solve different problems such as what makes some organization more or less successful and what are the roles of communication management (public relations). As we know, practitioners more deal with day-to-day skill-set problems, esp. as Dave noted common problems when they are technicians or when they have lack of knowledge for sophisticate, strategy-building tasks occupied by managers. But, we are questioned by non-PR colleagues -- why they need us and have to answer this important question. IABC Excellence study and the theory give the theoretical answer for this 'raison d'être question' thrown to public relations' and communication management.

Excellence project researchers have addressed this fundamental question through their two-decade long research efforts. And if you read their reports, we realize that it is not a specific skill-set knowledge. It is a defining statement of ‘who we are’ and 'how and when we do better'.

*

Interestingly, even before pre-Excellence Theory, there existed successful PR/Communication Managers and organizations, but they were more based on some ‘heroes or heroines’ and a few champions and their heroic works. Such successful approaches and cases often shared anecdotally, and often exclusive and limited to their circles.

Here, the value of good (academic) theories arises. Excellence in communication management researchers connected the 'dots' distributed in the fields. The theory transformed good tacit knowledge elaborated and available and inclusive to practitioners -- the Excellence theory set to free the tacit knowledge available to many others whoever seek out. Good theories can and should remove entry barriers for many who want to do better practice and help even those with little access to those tacit knowledge often exclusive and spottily distributed. Good theories reduce the sunk cost from parallel, repeated trials/errors in practice and provide stepping stones for furthering common knowledge and improving ideas. We know many things are often reinvented but that way people’s creativity resources and assets are wasted. Good theories set the common ground and facilitate more and better knowledge by creating common foundation and it helps solve researchers' coordination problem--it facilitates researchers to be more constructive with their resources without redundancy.

Excellence theory and its principles also provide a theoretical benchmarking yardstick for org/communication managers. A theoretical benchmarking is possible and rewarding more than benchmarking with some peers because few organizations/companies are perfect in all aspects.

Many CEOs and senior managers demand what are the Best Practice of public relations. I have opportunities to talk with senior managers who don’t have PR/Communication background in the past but they usually see the values of Excellence Theory immediately once I explained them. This includes Asia, Europe, and US. They often suggested to help them for benchmarking insights using the Excellence Theory and interested in auditing their modus operandi against the principles so that their organization get specific directions.

*

Many suspect and remain skeptic about the value or role of ‘democracy’.

Those skeptics argue that we never ever had “a true or perfect democracy’ in the way it is conceptualized. To their eyes, it’s idealistic and obsolete. But, if we don’t ground on the conceptual idea of ‘democracy’, what kind of a world could it be? Democracy (as a normative theory) is surely conceptual and abstract, it may be hard to find in its full shape as it is conceptualized. Yet, it is real in its effects as a “regulating ideal’ for those who subscribe to it.

It shapes and reshapes present to a better future. We realize it only when we can envision something in mind ahead. Theory is like that and Excellence Theory and Principles do this for the field of public relations. Absence of perfect case of something cannot discount the value or role of some theoretical statements, esp. when theories are used for prescriptive purpose. Normative theories are tool for betterment and vehicles of changes or improvements though slow and incremental. Otherwise, we do things randomly. We better not our field left with random practices and only to the hands of some heroes and heroines.

We rarely think about 'democracy', but we are influenced by it and living on it. So do we for some good theories.

We realize better public relations practice with good theories we build today. We may leave efforts to some atheoretical paths, but there will be much cost, and it is counter-field-betterment.

I only can share some personal impressions with a German perspective:

I feel, amongst scholars Excellence Theory in Germany is not that clear in the lead than in the US. So I think, not every university is teaching Excellence Theory within PR programs heavily exposed.  

Talking about practitioners, in Germany we still have many without a degree in PR but lots of career changers learning mainly practical skills in advanced trainings but less theoretical knowledge.

The sad thing about that (and about a lack of theory at all) is IMO, that lots of current discussions like Content Strategy or Content Marketing are quite fruitless sometimes....

The question should be - did they ever use Excellence Theory? Although it claimed universality as a normative approach, the theory was based on a mainly North American sample and has strong hints of 'social desirability' in the data collected from participants in the study.

In over 20 years of research among practitioners in several continents, I have yet to meet a senior corporate communicator or agency heavyweight who has ever mentioned Excellence Theory in the context of PR or corporate communications. Many of us have taught it, but there's little evidence of its implementation.

We teach it because it is the extant major theory that has been very ably promoted. It also indicates the paucity of theory-making in PR/CorpComms.

I agree with both Tom and Thomas. John, I think I'd ask the question differently. Why aren't more practitioners practicing excellent public relations? First, as Thomas argues, many educational programs in PR focus on communication skills/techniques. This allows them to perform what Glen Broom first identified as the technician role. If you see yourself--and the dominant coalition sees you--as the generator/distributor of messages, then you have little to contribute to strategic planning and decision making. As such, you are "playing defense" by "putting out fires" (e.g., crisis communication) rather than preventing fires. Related to Thomas' point is Tom's point that no heavyweights that he's met over the last several decades (and Tom has met most of them, I suspect) have ever mentioned the Excellence Theory. This is, in part, a technology transfer problem. I've been to many conferences where, for various reasons, other scholars have declared the Excellence Theory as dead. Actually, Google Scholar assures me that that's not the case. However, the practice of excellent PR has not transferred to practitioners. That's unfortunate--not because the Grunigs, Jon White, and I worry about branding issues--but because it reflects a stagnation in the sophistication of the practice. PR managers (in the theoretical sense of the word) influence decision making by the dominant coalition to incorporate the interests/perspectives of key publics or stakeholders. This, in turn, permits stable long-term relationships in what Priscilla Murphy smartly identified as a "mixed motive" game. Two-way communication is part of the "knowledge core" of an excellent PR department. In the old days when we did the Excellence Study, two-way communication meant using surveys, focus groups, etc. so that the PR department became the eyes and ears of the organization, not just its mouthpiece. Today with the Internet and social media, we have more tools to engage in two-way communication with publics. Unfortunately, PR technicians misuse social media as if they're one-way channels (e.g., posting news releases on FB). Excellent practitioners are experts in the court of public opinion; they are able to anticipate the secondary and "unanticipated" consequences of organizational actions. They glean this expertise by being excellent environmental scanners. PR practitioners have more tools to be better two-way communicators, but few do so. Part of this is due to the kind of people we attract to the practice, folks who perpetuate PR as a technician function (e.g., creative artistic practitioners). I hasten to add that technical sophistication is important to excellent PR, but it can't substitute for strategic thinking, planning, and problem solving. Twenty years later, the Manager's Guide to Excellence in PR and Communication Management still provides a terse explanation of "excellence" as both a normative and positive theory of PR.

Public relations practitioners may say that they are not using a theory or don't know that they are using it, but that does not mean they are not actually practicing its principles. Theories explain behaviors, and those actually engaging in the behavior probably don't know that their behavior follows theoretical principles unless they have actually studied the theory.

This seems to be the case with the Excellence theory. The Excellence study showed that a large number of professionals do indeed practice one or more of the excellence principles--although often not all of them in the same organization. Two major ongoing surveys, the European Communication Monitor and the USC GAP studies, both confirm widespread use of the Excellence principles, especially the strategic management role of the public relations function. The role was the most important defining principle of excellence. You can get a You Tube summary of the European Communication Monitor at this website: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FYaZhb9ez8. Note the discussion of how "excellent" departments have a strategic role. You can get a copy of the GAP study at this website:  http://ascjweb.org/gapstudy/gapviii/. Please note this passage:

"PR/Communication as an increasingly strategic contributor to organizational success: GAP VIII closely examined three indicators of PR/Communication’s perceived role and contribution: participation in organizational strategic planning, the extent to which PR-related recommendations are taken into consideration by senior management, and the function’s perceived contribution to financial success.

"Almost 40% of respondents report that PR/Communication plays an active role in organizational strategic planning, while 15% strongly disagree and 45% are neutral. 59% agree that PR/Communication’s recommendations are taken seriously by senior management, while 9% strongly disagree and 32% are neutral. Finally, 44% agree that their senior leadership believes PR/Communication contributes to financial success, while 6% strongly disagree and a substantial 50% are neutral.

"These findings are important because each of these three indicators strongly correlates with many positive outcomes and descriptors used by participants to describe their organizations, including “successful,” “good external reputation,” “innovative,” and “proactive,” among others."

I also have listened to many presentations at the Arthur Page Society where presenters have described public relations programs that clearly follow the Excellence principles and have had conversations with numerous professionals in Europe, Asia, and South America who follow the principles. In addition, to the Excellence study itself, other studies have documented the practice of the principles in Slovenia, Korea, New Zealand, Brazil, and Chile. In short, Tom, there is a great deal of evidence of the implementation of the Excellence theories.

As for the supposed social desirability of the items in the Excellence study, I believe I responded to that claim well on p. 320 of Excellent Public and Effective Organizations--at least for the items that measure the symmetrical model of public relations. Items related to a strategic role are factually stated and have been used in many studies.

It is also a bit of a put down to say that the theory has been taught because it has been "ably promoted." If anything, I believe that the critics of the Excellence theory have been better promoters of their views than we have been.

On a nice day in New York City, in November of 2006, I attended the annual Institute for Public Relations Distinguished Lecture. I sat at a table that included consultants from some of the world's largest PR agencies. The other tables around us also included consultants as well as practitioners from some of the largest American-based corporations. The guest lecturer, Jim Grunig, spoke to the lecture's title: After 50 Years: The Value and Values of Public Relations.

As one might expect, there were references in the speech to Excellence theory and principles. As someone who had heard it all before, I focused more on the comments and exchanges of the audience members around me. It was obvious that few, if any, had any real knowledge let alone understanding of the Excellence work. It was also obvious after a while that few were interested in learning more as their conversations drifted. And, these were NYC PR elites!

Let me tell a second story. A year and a half ago, I received a phone call. A Chief Communication Officer, who leads a small but prominently placed shop, was working on a masters in PR. She wanted me to lead a review of her organization's function, including a specific line of inquiry that involved a comparison to the Excellence principles. Ultimately, she wanted to model her department on the Excellence work. 

My point of these two stories is that while many are unaware of or misinformed about the Excellence work, those in practice that see value in it still like it a lot. I have used the Excellence theory and principles in my consulting work for over 25 years. 

Is it perfect and complete? No. Generally, I found it (Characteristics of Excellent Public Relations Programs and the {8-9-10-or 11?} Generic Principles in particular) and still find it a somewhat 30,000 foot view of what goes on in a PR/C function and its place in an organization. But, it is a foundation. It is a benchmark. It is amazing tool to drive conversations among the 'dominant coalition' (to use an old fashioned term). 

Simply, there is nothing else of its complexity and comprehensiveness out there - for the CCO to think about and apply. I appreciate that it may not be in universal favour, for a good number of reasons: in-fighting within IABC and thus 'cloudy' support and insipid promotion from the get-go; no other association wanting to endorse it to practitioners because it was IABC's product (this was before the GA but IABC's financial where with all and influence in the PR world was already slipping); the rise of the critical scholar and that 'hip' school; the decrease in production from the structuralist/functionalist school as younger scholars sought newer and more popular research topics; what seems like a desire more recently by many PR/C scholars to be seen as 'serious' researchers which means forsaking research that has immediate practical application; and the feeling now of a so-long-ago and disproved 'in search of excellence' connotation. 

Like those I sat with in NYC, I appreciate that many/most "senior corporate communicator or agency heavyweights" know little if anything at all about Excellence theory. Agency heads have no real desire to know: the management of the PR/C function is the least of their possible billables. From the reports that I have seen, when they do take on a review of a PR/C function, their reviews tend towards operations and away from strategic management. On the other hand, most CCO heavyweights would use a major management consultancy if they wanted a major review or change management project - to have instant credibility among their peers in the dominant coalition. Major management consultancies have not heard of Excellence theory. 

Does that provide some possible reasons, John?

I think you misstated my question: I don't think I said "any more."  I think I asked why it isn't "used more."  Makes a difference.  Please read the questions carefully before constructing a headline.  I feel that the way it is stated evokes a meaning that was not intended.  If I am incorrect, I apologize.

At any rate, I appreciate the responses, particularly because they reinforce what I felt is true.

Fraser, there is no scarier word to a practitioner than "theory."  It terrified them when they were students, and it still does.  They don't know -- much less understand -- the Excellence Study, but it probably would make no difference if they did.  Major consultancies would have heard of it if they had a glimmer of how to make money on it.   And, Jim, I'm sure you are correct that some may be practiing excellent PR without labelling it as such.  Dave, I couldn't agree more as to a "stagnation in the sophistication of the practice".  The situation doesn't lessen the value of the Excellence Study, but it speaks loudly about the state of the industry. 

A few years ago I spent a good deal of time with the owner of a leading Midwest PR firm. He became excited at the notion of strategic planning, accountability and establishing the value of PR until he talked with his staffers.  They held their own meeting and informed him that they preferred to "establish the value of PR" by showing their clients what the "free space" garnered through publicity would have cost if it had been purchased at advertising rates.  So little time, so many ...

Maybe it isn't that the dominant coalition -- folks without any PR knowledge or experience -- sees nothing wrong with simply telling the PR department/agency what to do and how to do it.  Maybe the real problem is that the PR department/agency sees nothing wrong with it either.

John 

I believe that Excellence Theory is  an evaluation theory that aims to comprehensively describe the management of PR department/ agencies. It can be seen that every public relations department over the globe has been fully evaluated and described by PR researchers everywhere. This may be the reason why fewer researchers are using Excellence theory especially after the emergence of the new media platforms such as social media and the the development of mobile and wireless communication. These new platforms provided new research topics to be explored.

I believe Jim pointed out well that practitioners often lack the vocabulary and not have the same lexicon as the theorists/researchers do. This is common in many fields, and not using the theory/concepts as academicians put doesn’t mean that practitioners disagree or not using them.

Fraser delivers the view well from the field/industry in that ‘people in field might not have the vocabularies we have in academic researchers’, but they have ‘tacit knowledge’ about what is poor or unethical practice and there are good demand from practitioners for prescriptive knowledge of what could be the better ways of working. I also add my witness the principles from Excellence Theory are well observed across societies from my teaching, researching, and interactions with field professionals, although the excellence principles are not in abstract way in books and often be ‘spottily’ observed, the practitioners’ tacit knowledge is similar to the principles. In fact, as any practical field advances there arises a good amount of conceptualized ‘common knowledge' more than individualistic, down-to-earth ‘tacit knowledge’, and the common knowledge provides foundation for diversification of knowledge – sometimes there are debates and sometimes there are lumping or specifications. The IABC study and Excellent theory have laid the base for public relations and communication management going beyond the tacit knowledge to elaborated common knowledge.

Of course, many practical minds suspect and puzzled how to ‘digest and apply’ the conceptual and theoretical ideas in their practice, but theories are not skill sets such as how to write annual report, how to pitch campaign programs to clients. These are important skills solving day-to-day problems, but Excellence theory and the knowledge solve different problems such as what makes some organization more or less successful and what are the roles of communication management (public relations). As we know, practitioners more deal with day-to-day skill-set problems, esp. as Dave noted common problems when they are technicians or when they have lack of knowledge for sophisticate, strategy-building tasks occupied by managers. But, we are questioned by non-PR colleagues -- why they need us and have to answer this important question. IABC Excellence study and the theory give the theoretical answer for this 'raison d'être question' thrown to public relations' and communication management.

Excellence project researchers have addressed this fundamental question through their two-decade long research efforts. And if you read their reports, we realize that it is not a specific skill-set knowledge. It is a defining statement of ‘who we are’ and 'how and when we do better'.

*

Interestingly, even before pre-Excellence Theory, there existed successful PR/Communication Managers and organizations, but they were more based on some ‘heroes or heroines’ and a few champions and their heroic works. Such successful approaches and cases often shared anecdotally, and often exclusive and limited to their circles.

Here, the value of good (academic) theories arises. Excellence in communication management researchers connected the 'dots' distributed in the fields. The theory transformed good tacit knowledge elaborated and available and inclusive to practitioners -- the Excellence theory set to free the tacit knowledge available to many others whoever seek out. Good theories can and should remove entry barriers for many who want to do better practice and help even those with little access to those tacit knowledge often exclusive and spottily distributed. Good theories reduce the sunk cost from parallel, repeated trials/errors in practice and provide stepping stones for furthering common knowledge and improving ideas. We know many things are often reinvented but that way people’s creativity resources and assets are wasted. Good theories set the common ground and facilitate more and better knowledge by creating common foundation and it helps solve researchers' coordination problem--it facilitates researchers to be more constructive with their resources without redundancy.

Excellence theory and its principles also provide a theoretical benchmarking yardstick for org/communication managers. A theoretical benchmarking is possible and rewarding more than benchmarking with some peers because few organizations/companies are perfect in all aspects.

Many CEOs and senior managers demand what are the Best Practice of public relations. I have opportunities to talk with senior managers who don’t have PR/Communication background in the past but they usually see the values of Excellence Theory immediately once I explained them. This includes Asia, Europe, and US. They often suggested to help them for benchmarking insights using the Excellence Theory and interested in auditing their modus operandi against the principles so that their organization get specific directions.

*

Many suspect and remain skeptic about the value or role of ‘democracy’.

Those skeptics argue that we never ever had “a true or perfect democracy’ in the way it is conceptualized. To their eyes, it’s idealistic and obsolete. But, if we don’t ground on the conceptual idea of ‘democracy’, what kind of a world could it be? Democracy (as a normative theory) is surely conceptual and abstract, it may be hard to find in its full shape as it is conceptualized. Yet, it is real in its effects as a “regulating ideal’ for those who subscribe to it.

It shapes and reshapes present to a better future. We realize it only when we can envision something in mind ahead. Theory is like that and Excellence Theory and Principles do this for the field of public relations. Absence of perfect case of something cannot discount the value or role of some theoretical statements, esp. when theories are used for prescriptive purpose. Normative theories are tool for betterment and vehicles of changes or improvements though slow and incremental. Otherwise, we do things randomly. We better not our field left with random practices and only to the hands of some heroes and heroines.

We rarely think about 'democracy', but we are influenced by it and living on it. So do we for some good theories.

We realize better public relations practice with good theories we build today. We may leave efforts to some atheoretical paths, but there will be much cost, and it is counter-field-betterment.

Frazier raises a point I have been hammering on in publications for several years; we need to present the results of our scholarship so that a non-academic practitioner can understand and apply the findings to practice when appropriate. This’t done nearly enough, and I am as guilty as anyone else in this regard. It may be that a section termed “Application” or a similar heading ought to be included (perhaps in a Ben Day box) in the body of the paper/publication. I’m reasonably certain such a move would be welcomed by the industry.

I don’t mean we have to “dumb-down” our language -- that would be arrogant and totally inappropriate. However, matching message to audience is a basic of good communication.*

At least it is worth a try. What do you think?

*Using the license of the “long tooth,” I prefer “communication” rather than

“communiucationS”. However, I would consider “communicationS” when the mathematicians use the term “algebraS”. and the earth scientists label

a part of their field “geologieS”.

John Ledingham

nice information , thank you for all.

Public Relations practitioners often do not (consciously) employ a theoretical framework, because they are ability-based practitioners, not theorists.

Well, Michael, I absolutely agree, although that should not be too much of a surprise considering that, in the main, it is what we have taught for the past 50 years...and I am as guilty off this as anyone else, as I struggled to explain how “there is nothing so practical as a good theory”. However, I see an increasing concentration on incorporating theory into practice in our courses. Thus, I would expect that, in the very near future, we will see managers capable of handling the “ability-based” problems, and practitioners skillful both in design (in the larger sense) and in management.