Reputation vs Transparency?

In good public relations practice is there a difference between protecting reputation and transparency?

The Expert Group Review report on the New Zealand Defence Force’s organisational structure and record-keeping and retrieval processes in the wake of the Inquiry into Operation Burnham and Related Matters seemed to think so.

The Expert Review Group, chaired by one of my former bosses Lyn Provost, was comprised of  intellectual and organisational heavyweights.  They linked reputation and transparency in such a way that will have communication pundits chewing on the subject for a long time.    

According to the Review Group, the Defence Public Affairs unit needs to rebalance its priorities from a predominant focus on protecting and enhancing the NZDF’s reputation to advancing transparency in its communications.

In my opinion the two go hand in hand.  Transparency provides the lens through which citizens can form their judgements on an organisation’s reputation.  In the absence of clear facts simply explained it is difficult for the ordinary citizen to make quick and accurate judgements about reputation.   Reputation needs to be earned.   It is not a given and is never static.  One episode of bad news takes years of good news to right the ledger.

In advising clients public relations practitioners strive to impress the need for accuracy and openness in sure knowledge that journalists in the media will be waiting to pounce on any inaccuracies or obfuscation.

Most Public Affairs practitioners operate ethically though ironically a common perception of public relations is one of “spin”.   If a practitioner is a member of the Public Relations Institute of New Zealand, they are bound by a code of ethics.  One of the required values is to be faithful to those who we represent, while honouring our obligations to serve the public interest. The first principle on balancing openness and privacy is to promote open communication in the public interest wherever possible.

Any spokesperson for a large organisation is only as good as the information and briefings on which they are reliant.  The culture of a military organisation makes getting that information to the spokesperson challenging. The instinct of holding information close and not providing “intelligence” to external parties is strong.  Combine that with complex chains of command and control and overlays of team loyalty and it’s not so surprising that Defence found themselves in a pickle.

Defence Public Affairs have always done well on promoting the NZDF’s reputation and like Fire and Emergency and NZ Police the organisation always polls high in reputation surveys. The raw material for visual story telling about men and women of action is a pr practitioners dream.  But now they need to work with the Chief of the Defence Force to implement the letter and spirit of the Expert Review Group’s recommendations. 

It will be a long haul as any programme on changing culture inevitably is.  I’ve no doubt they will do their bit and if Air Marshal Kevin Short and his management can pull it off they will provide a model for cultural change not only in New Zealand but other western democracies.