CHAPTER 2

Influence and Power, Why Should I Care?

In Chapter 1, a senior public relations executive recalled the time when someone raised an ethical concern, only to see the advice ignored. Obviously this happens, probably more often than it should. So what can public relations professionals do to earn respect so that their counsel is valued? Prerequisites for serving as an ethical conscience include access to senior leaders to provide such counsel and the ability to actually influence them. However, 66 percent of PRSA members responding to a public relations ethics survey said they had faced the barriers of lack of access to leadership or information during their career (Neill 2016a).

Power has been defined as “getting things done, or getting others to do them” and influence is “the process through which power is actually used or realized” (Berger and Reber 2006, pp. 3–4; Pfeffer 1992). Power can be physical (coercive power), financial, or symbolic such as prestige (Mitchell, Agle, and Wood 1997). Power can be drawn from several sources, including individual characteristics, formal position or job titles, expertise, experience, relationships, and information (Berger and Reber 2006). Defining influence seems to be simpler. Through in-depth interviews with 65 public relations professionals, Berger and Reber (2006) found almost two-thirds of them defined influence as “holding a seat at the decision making table” (p. 17). Other definitions for influence included “having a voice” or “being listened to,” and “the ability to convince others of your point of view” (Berger and Reber 2006, p. 18).

Neill (2015a) found that public relations executives tended to have more influence when issues were perceived as falling within their areas of expertise, such as crisis communication and reputation management. Other key factors impacting their degree of influence were the CEO’s preference and the use of integrated decision teams, which tended to be larger and allowed for more diversity of perspectives based on both department and reporting levels (Neill 2015a). While not the case in every company, Neill (2012) found evidence of multiple integrated decision teams in one energy company. As evidence, the marketing council was comprised of some departments that might not be expected to weigh in on marketing issues:

The same study revealed that public relations tended not to be influential or involved in strategic decisions when others did not follow proper protocol or issues were perceived as falling within another department’s realm of expertise (Neill 2015a).

Organizational structure and reporting relationships also are essential factors that can enhance or hinder the ability of public relations executives to provide ethics counsel. As part of a large international study, Grunig, Grunig, and Dozier (2002) identified several, even ideal, structural characteristics of excellent public relations programs, such as departmental separation between public relations and marketing, a direct reporting relationship to senior management, and membership in the dominant coalition or C-Suite, “the group of individuals within the organization who have the power to determine its mission and goals” (pp. 141, 240–41). The term “C-Suite” is a reference to the titles of senior executives who have a coveted seat in the board room, such as the chief executive officer (CEO), chief financial officer (CFO), and chief marketing officer (CMO). Moss, Warnaby, and Newman (2000) found that public relations executives’ access to the C-Suite is dependent on the personal credibility and standing of the individual professional, and others’ perceptions of the quality of work and expertise of that executive.

While a C-Suite reporting structure might be ideal, it is not always reality. Survey research was conducted with members of the PRSA College of Fellows and Southern Public Relations Federation (SPRF) in May of 2017. When asked about their likelihood to be involved in high-level decision or policy-making meetings, the average response on a scale of 1 to 5 was 3.47 for SPRF members, indicating they were only somewhat likely to be involved; the average response for the College of Fellows was 4.0, indicating they were likely to be involved. These findings paralleled responses to another question about barriers. The majority of Fellows and SPRF members (59.7%, n = 43) indicated that yes, they have faced barriers when providing ethics counsel, and when responding via a checklist, the most common barriers selected were a hard-headed executive (n = 31), lack of access to meetings (n = 28), lack of influence (n = 19), and reporting relationship (n = 17). Bowen (2017) wrote about this first barrier in an article for PR Week regarding CEO hubris, which one male executive interviewed in 2012 found common in the corporate setting:

This same executive cited two additional barriers to ethics counsel, legal subterfuge and complicity:

These barriers are especially challenging and demonstrate a need for ethics training and strong mentors to help young professionals navigate these obstacles. Based on his experiences, this same male executive advised public relations professionals to set up expectations on the first day of the job. He recommended informing senior leaders that “you will be acting as the ethical conscience,” “that you will in fact not always be that yes person, but will have to say no sometimes,” and that “you can enlist others in power in your organization to back you up” (Neill and Drumwright 2012).

As for potential routes to access and information, Bowen (2009) found the most common path of access to senior leadership was a crisis situation; however, the access was only temporary, ending once the crisis was resolved. Other routes to access included ethical dilemma counseling, successful communication efforts that created credibility over time, media relations consulting on high-profile issues, and recognized leadership abilities. Many of these paths to influence, however, required years of service, and provided only limited access (Bowen 2009). One female senior executive working in higher education described it as a revolving door to access:

While most public relations research has focused on the C-Suite, more recently scholars pointed out that organizations actually have multiple coalitions including formal and informal committees formed on an ad hoc basis that meet at a range of venues including golf courses, coffee shops, fitness centers, and airports (Berger 2005; Neill 2014). Neill (2014) identified three distinct levels of formal coalitions as critical areas for public relations’ participation: (1) the dominant coalition or C-Suite, (2) the leadership team for various company brands or divisions, and (3) executive-level committees. Some examples of executive-level committees that public relations executives reported serving on included the marketing council, diversity council, strategic spending team, and brand and reputation committee (Neill 2015a).

When public relations executives do not have access to executive-level meetings, some professionals, including this male professional working in higher education, contend their role is fire-fighting, rather than fire prevention:

A PRSA Fellow strongly urged public relations executives to fight for access, arguing that it might be the professional who pays the highest price without it:

Social Influence

When public relations professionals do not have formal power and access to senior decision makers, social influence can be an alternative source of power. As Redmond and Trager (1998) wrote, “doing a good job is not enough. For your career to move forward, you have to be adept at social relationships, building alliances, and building trust among those above and below you in the hierarchy” (p. 154). Social influence refers to “a change in the belief, attitude or behavior of a person…which results from the action, or presence of another person” (Raven 1992, p. 218).

Power

French and Raven’s (1959) five bases of power provide valuable insights for public relations professionals who desire more power and influence with senior executives, particularly in the context of ethics counsel. Their five sources of power are reward, coercive, legitimate, referent, and expert/informational power. Reward and coercive power are simply the ability to administer rewards or punishments. Legitimate power is often acquired through social structure, age, or position. Tactics associated with legitimate power typically include direct orders and commands (Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal 1964). Referent and expert power are most applicable for public relations professionals who do not report directly to the C-Suite (Berger and Reber 2006; Kahn et al. 1964). Referent power has been described as a feeling of oneness or identification with another; expert power is obtained through knowledge or ability in specialized areas (French and Raven 1959).

Effective tactics associated with referent and expert power include providing new information and reasoning to persuade the individual to accept a point of view (Kahn et al. 1964). Expert power also can be achieved through environmental scanning, a form of valued intelligence for organizational decision-making as discussed in Chapter 1, as well as other public relations’ competencies, such as crisis communications and ghostwriting for executives (Neill 2015a). All of these tactics are ways of gaining more influence and access to senior leadership, and are crucial to effective public relations.

Consistent with referent and expert power, Holtzhausen and Voto (2002) found through a qualitative study that public relations professionals gained power through building relationships, acquiring expertise, and forming alliances. The in-depth interviews with senior executives and professionals for this study also revealed how critical relationships and alliances are to their ability to provide ethics counsel, so two full chapters (Chapters 3 and 5) are allotted to address these issues in more depth.

Additional insights on power and influence are found in Raven’s (1992) power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. The process begins with (1) a purpose in influencing someone (e.g., attaining a goal, enhancing self-esteem, pressure from higher authorities), (2) an assessment of available power sources and preferences (e.g., legitimacy, expertise, referent power), (3) the use of self-presentation strategies referred to as “setting the stage,” and (4) enacting the influence attempt.

Through an analysis of qualitative and survey data, some scholars discovered differences between men and women in their selection of power sources and the vocabulary used to describe their influence strategies. In a 2008 study, Aldoory and colleagues found that women listed the most valuable power sources as their level of reporting position, job performance, and access to key decision makers; men moved job performance to the top of the list and added expertise, data and research, and their personal knowledge of the business or organization. In addition, men were more likely to attempt to influence senior management through direct approaches such as “confront, combat, challenge or oppose;” women used less direct terms, such as “express, discussion, voice concerns” to describe their attempts to influence supervisors. Gender differences and power sources will be discussed more in Chapters 4 to 6.

Once the influencer selects the power source, he or she can then set the stage for influence through tactics such as providing background information and research, ingratiating oneself (i.e., compliments or flattery), and/or using self-promotion techniques such as displaying awards, or emphasizing commonality (Raven 1992). A senior public relations energy sector executive in a previous study by Neill (2012) described her use of one of these tactics, self-promotion by displaying pictures in her office of herself with elected officials as evidence of the important work she was doing:

Other related forms of self-promotion that executives can use include displaying awards, diplomas, and certifications in their offices. Another form of self-promotion is power by association. A PRSA Fellow told this story about accompanying a popular CEO on a plant visit after a merger to appear influential:

Once the stage is set, then the communicator can select the appropriate influence strategy—reasoning, coalition building, invoking higher authority, and circumventing or going around the person or decision to achieve the result in an indirect manner (Redmond and Trager 1998). More details about influence strategies will provided in Chapters 4 to 6. Once the influence attempt is made, then the communicator must deal with the results. The influencer’s “success or failure will lead to a reassessment of the available bases of power” and choice of future strategies (Raven 1992, p. 230).

A related concept worth consideration is social capital theory, which refers to “the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit” (Nahapiet and Ghoshal 1998, p. 243). Social capital delivers three major benefits: (1) access to information, (2) timeliness, or receiving information sooner than others, and (3) referrals by personal contacts who mention an associate’s name at the right time and the right place, so that new opportunities develop (Burt 1992). Based on social capital theory, public relations professionals need a network of “contacts (a) established in places where useful bits of information are likely to air and (b) providing a reliable flow of information to and from those places” (Burt 1992, p. 15). Kennan and Hazelton (2006) discussed the importance of social capital in public relations and pointed out that professionals’ knowledge of formal and informal networks impacts strategic decisions and the efficiency of communication, and for those reasons “knowing whom to talk with about what is important” (p. 284). In her study on social capital in public relations, Dodd (2012) found that due to public relations’ boundary spanning role, they can serve as a “broker of social resources, filling a structural hole between the organization” and key publics. These social resources (i.e., connections, and their wealth, power, and reputation) are embedded in others with whom public relations professionals are in contact with, directly or indirectly. Dodd (2012) also suggested that social capital can be exchanged for tangible resources such as financial (e.g., departmental budget) or the achievement of goals and objectives.

One PRSA Fellow who had worked in government and legal settings made it a point to develop strong relationships with legal counsel as well as financial officers throughout her career:

This PRSA Fellow emphasized that these relationships often led to invitations to key meetings by allies who supported her inclusion. She said, “I do know I have been brought in through those people.” She added that even when her position in the hierarchy did not provide access “allies advocate on my behalf…she really needs to be here.”

Other Means of Gaining Influence

Senior executives can use other tactics to become more influential including conducting research, volunteering for tasks, and participating in cross-training sessions. Research, both primary and secondary, is consistent with environmental scanning, and can be used as a source of expert power (Kahn et al. 1964). As one corporate communications executive said:

Conducting research prior to attending business meetings is also a smart practice. As this marketing executive advised:

While not everyone will be willing to adopt this next practice, Neill (2012) found one marketing executive had a reputation in her company for volunteering for tasks while attending meetings. One of her colleagues reflected on this pattern:

Neill (2012) also found that in one energy company, cross-training and in-depth knowledge of the business were highly valued. For those reasons, employees tended to move laterally in the company to learn about the various divisions before being promoted to more senior positions. As one public affairs executive said:

Summary

Effective public relations management requires professionals to seek power and influence. Public relations professionals do not always report directly to the C-Suite in their companies and organizations. There are other ways, however, for them to be influential. As they build a reputation for success through communication campaigns, media relations, and crisis communication, they gain influence. Other ways to become influential include building relationships with experts in other departments such as legal and finance, conducting research in order to have solid evidence to support your counsel, and using self-promotion tactics. On the opposite side of the spectrum, public relations professionals who are uninvolved and not informed regarding management decisions, and therefore not influential, could become the scapegoat when things go south during a crisis situation.

Questions to Ponder