Public relations firms in the Philippines are generally known to be “an organization formed and operated which offers a variety of professional services and consultancy to other persons, organizations and companies in terms of counsel, technical services and other expertise for a fee by public relations practitioners or counsellors.” (Seitel, 1995) Their subsistence comes from the fees paid by varied clients for the services rendered them.
As service companies, they “have the wealth of experience and expertise and adhere to objectivity and flexibility, ethics of the profession, rely on excellent knowledge and command of the basics and fundamentals of the craft, and work on the basis of well-acclaimed reputation.” (Cutlip, 1994). Public relations, after all is “a management function which evaluates public attitudes, identifies the policies and procedures of an individual or an organization with the public interest, and plans and executes a program of action to earn public respect,” (Wilcox, 1986)
The firms adhere to the public relations process under the acronym
“RACE.” It stands for research, action, communication, and evaluation. (Marston, 1963) Practitioners follow it as a perpetual cycle for the proper implementation of management-approved, planned, and programmed activities within a given period.
The process gives birth to a public relations program which is the outline of
proposed activities, blueprint and game plan. (Hendrix, 1998) The firms’
management relies on its working knowledge of change or “the shift from an existing concept or matter to a modified or altered stage, expected to bring about something new, as tested, and finally accepted in the process.” (Bennis, 1969).
Industry and professionals’ circles claim that to date, however, no public relations firms categorized as corporations in the Philippines has ever lasted for 50 years. Countless reasons besiege such claim to explain this predicament. Until now, however, the question in the Philippine setting is still: “What is the life cycle of public relations firms in the Philippines?” Their life cycle or organizational life appears to be shorter than expected. Life cycle as reflected from a series of definitions means, the age or “the duration of existence or the average length of life of a kind of organism or a material object, especially in a particular environment or under specified circumstances.” (De Geus, 1997) But to become an institution is something or someone firmly associated with a place or thing” or simply, “give character to be incorporated into a structured and often highly formalized system.”
The life cycle of these firms are replete with trials and risks only those in entrepreneurship (as sole proprietors) bear. Practitioners who run their firms, even after stints of profitable work, could inevitably fail to consistently address management problems. As a result, they either decide to shift to counsellorship (individual solo practice) or just close shop. They end up as failed firms. Ideally, the firms’ management should sustain their business interests, regardless of threats to and struggles for their existence. Human resources come and go —— they retire,
resign, transfer, and terminate theirservices or die. The companies, however, hang on for their lives, pursue continuity and survival.
There are factors which are held important to serve as guide posts to a prolonged life of public relations companies. In line with management theories and principles, the life of these firms depends on their entrepreneurial orientation, internal and external environments. In entrepreneurial orientation or
“the process of initiating a business venture, organizing the necessary resources, and assuming the associated risks and rewards,” (Daft, 2003), the companies’
management become synonymous to their leadership profiles or their “ability to influence people toward the attainment of organizational goals.” (Daft, 2003).
The management go to the extent of creating a vision, “an attractive, ideal future that is credible yet not readily attainable” (Daft, 2003). Such a vision begets a mission or “a clear and compelling overall goal that serves as a focal point of effort.” (Collins, 1992) Productive management, especially in entrepreneurship are known for their expertise in client and financial administration.
The more astute ones even have preferences for innovation or the knack “to break away from established patterns.” Thus, their companies “cannot rely on any form of standardization for coordination.” (Mintzberg, 1989) . Another writer stated that innovation “is the generation, acceptance, and implementation of new ideas, processes, products or services.” (Williams, 1999). More than this thrust, they have
the risk-taking propensity, “the willingness to undertake risk with the opportunity of gaining an increased payoff.” (Daft, 2003).
The penchant for risk-taking and obsession for higher fees have in certain cases, even compromised their management to serve as “political merchants” or
“mercantilists” described as “buyers or sellers of commodities (in this sense, services) for profits” in the guise of public relations. This is especially patent in the field of public relations specialization known as public affairs or government relations the components of which are political campaigns, lobbying, advocacy work, and issues management.
The firms’ management are supposed to be attuned to the internal and external environments throughout their life cycle. More importantly, under the internal environment, the management generally capitalize on their resources, the components of which are value or “the rate or scale in usefulness, importance, or general worth;” rareness or “marked by unusual quality, merit or appeal;”
imitability, which simply means, “an ability to be imitated or copied;” and organization “to exploit the full competitive potential of their resources and capabilities.” (Barney, 1997).
On the external environment, the companies’ management will have to come up with an organizational blueprint or “the formal structure of the organization in the narrow sense –– tables of organization, written rules of operation, patterns of activity within the organization –– what actually gets done by
whom, the normative order –– the ways of organizing that are defined as right and proper by both members and relevant sectors of the environment.” (Harlan, 1955). They are also called upon to recognize the existence of organizational culture or
“the force that orients and directs the behavior of individual organizational members so that there is consistency and predictability within the organization.”
(Hodge, 1996).
The technological changes or the practical application of knowledge, using the newest and latest devices or apparatuses on certain workloads to relieve or lighten the burden, are essential in the operation of public relations firms. They are to keep track of the state-of-the-art to also be able to serve their clients better.
Oftentimes weaknesses and threats break the firms’ company lifelines. The logical step is for their management to consider use of the process of adaptation, “to account for helping the organization change to meet new opportunities and threats in the environment. Includes research and development, engineering, market research, and other departments responsible for innovation and change.” (Hodge, 1996). This process leads to adjustment or alignment in the firms’ structure, behavior or function to ensure extension of life span. It is “the act of proper positioning or state of adjustment of parts in relation to each other… An arrangement of groups or forces in relation to another.” (Hodge, 1996) It is a pivotal scheme which starts off where adaptation ends.
People in the upper echelons of the firms’ management are conceded experts in mass communication since they deliver information, ideas, and attitudes to a sizeable and diversified audience through the use of media developed for that purpose; (Agee, 1995). They make use of publicity more in their campaigns as unpaid or “free advertising for a company or its products. (Mason, 1980) These are among the instruments which the firms’ management utilize to keep up with the
“process of planning and decision- making, organizing, leading, and controlling an organization’s human, financial, physical, and information resources to achieve organizational goals in an efficient and effective manner.” (Griffen, 1987; Donnelly, 1987) These factors direct the firms and their practitioners to professionalism, which is the ideal of providing competent and ethical service to those in need. (Cutlip, 1994)
Entrepreneurs of local public relations firms generally operate solo, and handle management problems through plain common sense. A greater number of them have had no business backgrounds before they ventured to the public relations industry. Strategic management for them is more often a complicated scheme, if not an unheard of matter, to tackle company difficulties. It is a common knowledge among public relations practitioners that their entrepreneur counterparts tend to be more reactive rather than preventive.
The Corporate Planning Society of the Philippines, defines Strategic Management as, “The whole cycle of planning, budgeting, and performance monitoring/controlling of a company’s implemented programs for productivity and
profitability, within a given time span. It combines strategy, system, and structure, components which are key to corporate survival in a turbulent environment.”
Such process to restore their public relations firms’ freshness and vigor (renewal), challenge existing practices and activities to redeploy capital and human resources (reengineering), or bring them into use anew (reinvent) are for the books.
(Bennis, 1995) What is important is for their management to consistently generate business (entrepreneurship), regardless of the need to have their firms’ structure, system and strategy, adapt and align to the dynamics of the prevailing environment to function well. Stewardship is an alternative concept wherein management commits itself more to sustain operations than gain profits only for longer periods of time.
The ideal framework should have the interface of profitability and prolonged existence, or simply the optimization of the union of entrepreneurship with stewardship, to ensure survival for the longer term goal of institutionalization.
It crystallizes Porter’s statement that, “Organizational efficiency is indicated by profitability in the short term and survival in the long term” (Rumelt, 1994)