I laughed out loud, sardonically, when I received an email from PRSA asking me to take a survey. They also encouraged me to come back to the organization with a membership discount incentive.
At first I was going to ignore it. But I looked at the survey. True to form for this flailing organization, they asked the respondent to sign a statement that they would not share the contents or design of the survey.
So, transparency is still not a thing for a public relations organization that sells accreditation and promotes an ethics code that touts transparency as a professional value.
Let me be transparent. After decades of membership in this organization and service from the local to national levels, there is nothing that draws me back. The organization is professionally irrelevant, personally insulting, and ethically suspect.
They are professionally irrelevant because they offer programming that is fundamental. I have years of experience, a PhD, and am members of other organizations which feature high-level discussions led by veteran CCOs on a range of current topics from a management perspective. Meanwhile, PRSA’s very expensive annual conference features keynoters who are celebrities, not experienced public relations professionals.
They also sell accreditation in public relations (APR), which a member pays for to get study materials and take the exam, and then pays to maintain it every three years. It’s a nice revenue stream for the organization. But they do nothing to promote APR externally to hiring managers, CEOs and others who may favor a candidate with APR if they know what it is. I chaired the national committee on APR for several years and mentioned this to leadership and was rebuffed. My own research with two co-authors shows a tepid enthusiasm among members for accreditation, and those who do pursue APR say it is mostly for intrinsic value but there is little recognition from employers.
I also can share that PRSA is personally insulting. I ran twice for the national board and was told I was a “PR purist” and that I violated the diversity policy because I expressed publicly my biblical worldview on social issues. I blogged about this previously and I would point out again that their rejection of me for my faith is a violation of their own diversity policy, ethics code, civility statement and quite possibly the law. Many other veteran professionals—those with APR and membership in the College of Fellows—have expressed their own dismay at such toxic leadership and shared their own decision to leave the organization.
And this leads to the problem that PRSA leadership is ethically suspect. That’s actually an understatement. Mary Beth West, who challenged leadership and was met with gaslighting and multi-year undeserved defamation in response, has been recently showing the receipts via her “A Better PRSA” Facebook page on the attitudes of national leadership. Through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, she has legally obtained disturbing PRSA leadership email exchanges that show disparaging remarks about members (even some that sound excessively threatening and often are expletive-laden), clear discrimination toward members of faith (including faith-based universities seeking certifications or accreditations that PRSA helps control), an expressed disinterest in a Black woman for leadership, admissions of their own poor processes, favoritism for their own inner circles, and concern that people “will walk away” if they experience poor process and leadership. West has previously shared information that shows the organization has not been forthcoming with financial and membership numbers that would keep members from making fully informed decision about joining or renewing, another concept from its own ethics code.
Again, both West and I have heard from many, including veteran and accredited professionals, who have share our concern and have left or are considering leaving the organization. Unfortunately they don’t all speak publicly about this, somewhat because of intimidation by leadership and witnessing what happened to West.
It saddens me that I have great respect and admiration for many PR professionals in my local chapter, including a large number of former students. I benefitted from PRSA when I was a younger professional. But I speak up because I am concerned that many at the local level don’t all realize the full truth of the toxic mess at the national level.
So I don’t look at potential new programming or a minor financial discount as compelling and a reason for me to jump back on a sinking ship that would rather steer away than fix the holes. The holes include a lack of service to current members at the professional and student level. I see a declining membership and financial position (I’ve been told a $1.7 million deficit and 25% headquarters staff cuts were “acknowledged” in a memo to a limited few earlier this year). I see poor management and insidious bias. I see not only no reason to return, but relief that I left and am not wasting my time serving an organization that disrespects me.
