Category: management

Diversity is at the Heart of ‘Pushback’ Against DEI

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

In recent months, there has been lots of movement on the topic of DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion). Some companies, such as Target, have reduced their DEI efforts. Others, like Costco, have announced a recommitment to DEI. 

The Trump administration has moved to eliminate DEI in federal agencies and any organizations that receive federal funding. Universities have reacted to this with concern.

Meanwhile, professional associations in the public relations industry have also weighed in. For example, the Association of Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) has a panel in the next few weeks addressing DEI “pushback.” Recently, the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) released a position affirming its own commitment to DEI. The position was discussed at a Member Monday session, in which PRSA 2025 Chair Ray Day insulted those with alternative views to DEI as “being confused.” But leaders like him have not bothered to eliminate their own confusion about the pushback to DEI. Much of it is well-reasoned.

All of the above turmoil about DEI is evidence of diversity. That is to say, there is a diversity of opinions about diversity. 

Diversity, as well as equity and inclusion, are general concepts for which there is a large majority of people in favor. But DEI as it manifests itself in some cases as a specific program to achieve diversity is where there are legitimate differences on the nature of the problem, the causes of the problem, the scope of the problem, and its attendant solutions. DEI, as a set of assertions, attributions, assumptions, programs and policies, in many organizations violates the very principles of diversity, equity and inclusion. This is why many people—including many persons from what would be called minority groups (examples listed below)—object to DEI even as they endorse diversity.

I heard from several veteran PRSA members who were upset about PRSA’s statement. It assumes there should be one perspective on DEI, and that all members do or should share it. It expects compliance. Comments on PRSA’s social sites showed that there are differing opinions on the many nuances of DEI. But the responses showed that  other PRSA members violated the premise of diversity—as well as PRSA’s previous statements on ethics and civility—by descending into gaslighting, stereotyping, ad hominem attack and other emotional and childish rhetoric that showed no consideration given to inclusion of multiple opinions and equity of expression. 

I have experienced the same form of hypocrisy from PRSA when leadership denied me a seat on the national board saying I had violated its diversity policy when I expressed my Christian worldview on my personal blog. Read more about that episode here. 

So what are the objections to DEI? Not all DEI programs manifest themselves in the same way. But many do claim to champion diversity even as they stifle it. Here’s a list or problems:

  • It is based on anti-American values, namely critical race theory, which stems from critical theory, which emerged from the Frankfort School populated by Marxist philosophers. DEI’s roots are in the philosophy of Herbert Mercuse and his student Angela Davis, who basically claimed that dividing people by social class didn’t work so they would need to try division by race and gender. The whole point is division to gain power. Independent journalist Christopher Rufo does an excellent and objective summary of this—in which you can take Mercuse, Davis and others at their word—in his book “America’s Cultural Revolution.” 
  • The insistence on the false dichotomy of seeing the world as if everyone is ether an oppressor or a victim. Another socialist philosopher, Paulo Freire, wrote a book called “Pedagogy of the Oppressed” to indoctrinate the next generation through school curriculum. Paradoxically, this curriculum was tried and was rejected in socialist nations yet has its advocates in the United States, more of a “land of opportunity” than many countries around the world. Many of the people who reject the false “oppressor-victim” perspective are the very people DEI oppressively insists are victims. Take for example Blexit, a grassroots organization of Black Americans who are taking a “Black exit” from the victim mentality. 70% of its members are formerly of the far left. Or look at the rampant rise in anti-Semitism on college campuses—the sad outcome of this false perspective.
  • It favors category over individuality. Not only does DEI place everyone on a scale of either oppressor or victim, it maintains an unethical stereotypical categorization of people by race or “identity.” As such it does not acknowledge significant variation based on individual experience, condition, values and other individual attributes. In other words, it violates the central aspect of diversity. 
  • It favors representation over competence. For this reason, some have proposed MEI—merit, excellence, intelligence—as an alternative to DEI. Professor Victor Davis Hanson elaborates on the 10 problems with DEI. 
  • It makes unempirical assertions. Stemming from the above flaw, critical theory, unlike empirical theory, is based on speculative reasoning and not evidence. Thus, we have critical race theorists and others in DEI propagating false notions of universal “white privilege,” “white fragility,” “unconscious bias” and other fabrications. It would be insulting and preposterous to say all Africans are the same. Even in a single country like Nigeria, there are more than 300 languages spoken with associated tribes and cultures. It would be similarly preposterous to claim that all Asians are the same, all Hispanics are the same and so on. In the country from which my mother immigrated there are significant differences among provinces. Yet DEI insists on being prejudicial towards persons of a Caucasian heritage or white skin, without regard to actual experience, values, thoughts, behavior and other variables academics would study before making generalizable claims. 
  • It seeks equity over equality. This is another result of the socialist roots of DEI. It seeks the same outcome, as opposed to the same opportunity for all. This is the hallmark of socialist central planning, which has worked exactly never wherever it has been tried. The lessons of Friedrich Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” have been ignored here. The fallacy of equity (not equality) produces disincentive, loss of industry, disappearance of innovation, and a personal loss of any sense of accomplishment including for the people DEI programs claim to champion. 
  • It yields division, not unity. Numerous examples from diversity training show that the outcome often does not meet the objective. Employees or other members of a group come away divided, angry, silent, resentful, and offended. 
  • It favors certain perspectives over others. In the case of sex and gender, DEI seeks to affirm and promote one perspective, that of the LGBTQ and transgender communities, over those whose worldview of sex and gender is different and based not on culture but on faith or science. Such differing worldviews can coexist in an attitude of mutual understanding. That would exemplify actual diversity. But compelling all to accept one singular worldview is the antithesis of diversity.

These and other complaints are borne out in scholarship and other research. The Heritage Foundation has pointed this out in a commentary on its website that also was published in the Washington Times: “Research has already shown that (1) diversity training programs have failed to improve attitudes and behaviors for years, and (2) attempts to reduce bias through measuring just how much each of us has stored away in the recesses of our mind have been a spectacular bust. Anthropology Now reports that “hundreds of studies dating back to the 1930s suggest that anti-bias training doesn’t reduce bias.” The National Association of Scholars has determined that ‘implicit bias’ training hijacks justice.

Hal Arkes, an emeritus professor of psychology at Ohio State University, points out in an op-ed that typical DEI “training” has tests for “implicit bias” that fail tests of validity and reliability that any academic would consider. These trainings also do not accomplish more than awareness of flawed concepts because  the companies that do and profit from such “trainings” never measure to see if there were changes in racial attitudes, an elimination of so-called “implicit bias,” or tangible result of any kind. What really happens is a perpetuation of an unproven myth that America is systemically racist. Studies have found that DEI training causes people to find racism where none exists.

The negative effects of DEI seeping into scholarship are also documented in the book ‘Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody‘ by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay. They blame the postmodern principles embedded in DEI orthodoxy, including knowledge (radical skepticism of objective truth) and politics (society is formed by systems of power hierarchies). In addition, DEI has damaged American higher education’s purpose and practice with its four themes of blurring boundaries, asserting the power of language, creating cultural relativism, and encouraging the loss of the individual perspective and universal truth.

As noted previously, many people in minority categories whom DEI would claim to support have started speaking out to resist the advance of a DEI system that is singular in focus and damaging to the very nature of diversity. They offer their own alternative perspectives and prescriptions, based on experience and evidence. Here are summaries of a the work and perspectives of some of them:

  • Candace Owens, “Blackout”—In this book, Owens, a Black woman who grew up in poverty, argues with evidence how the liberal policies intended to help Black Americans actually works against them, how the left ignores the importance of faith in the Black community, and how fathers in the home is the key to Black Americans rising out of the cycle of poverty.
  • Carol Swain, “The Adversity of Diversity” — Swain is a prominent Black political science professor, recently retired (and plagiarized by Harvard President Claudine Gay), who speaks against the billion dollar DEI industry that, in her words, “has become an aggressive force that takes organizations away from their core missions and often transforms them into divisive and disruptive institutions that openly violate the rights of members of disfavored groups.” Swain’s recommended alternative of Real Unity Training Solutions entails a return to core American principles that embrace nondiscrimination and equal opportunity in a meritocratic system that recognizes individual effort rather than group rights.
  • Teresa Manning, policy director for the National Association of Scholars, strongly insists from an academic perspective that DEI is a ‘false religion that will destroy America’:
  • Thomas Sowell, “Social Justice Fallacies” — The prolific Black Stanford Professor and economist’s most recent book points to the fact that “many things that are thought to be true simply cannot stand up to documented facts, which are often the opposite of what is widely believed. However attractive the social justice vision , the crucial question is whether the social justice agenda will get us to the fulfillment of that vision. History shows that the social justice agenda has often led in the opposite direction, sometimes with catastrophic consequences.” 
  • John McWhorter’s book “Woke Racism: How a New Religion Has Betrayed Black America” details how “claims to “dismantle racist structures” is actually harming his fellow Black Americans by infantilizing Black people, setting Black students up for failure, and passing policies that disproportionately damage Black communities. What is called “antiracism” actually features a “racial essentialism that’s barely distinguishable from racist arguments of the past.”
  • Shelby Steele, a Black New York Times columnist, argues in his book “The Content of Our Character” (invoking MLK’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech) that our culture has been trapped in putting color before character, or considering only racial categories and not individual attributes.  (Also see his son Eli Steele’s Substack newsletter ‘Man of Steele’)
  • Coleman Hughes, a young Black intellectual wrote “The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America.” Hughes argues for a return to the ideals that inspired the American Civil Rights movement, showing how our departure from the colorblind ideal has ushered in a new era of fear, paranoia, and resentment marked by draconian interpersonal etiquette, failed corporate diversity and inclusion efforts, and poisonous race-based policies that hurt the very people they intend to help. 
  • Robert Woodson, a contemporary of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King in the civil rights movement, founded the Woodson Center to help underserved communities fight crime and violence and restore families by applying the principles of market economy, faith, and personal responsibility. Woodson also edited the book “Red, White and Black: Rescuing American History from Revisionists and Race Hustlers” which features prominent Black scholars telling the story of Black people “living the grand American experience, however bumpy the road may be  along the way.”
  • Bari Weiss, a Jewish woman who left the New York Times to start her own media company The Free Press, writes how DEI is a movement focused not on diversity but power in her poignant article “End DEI.”

It should be obvious that when it comes to diversity, there is a diversity of perspectives. Yet certain people, and companies or organizations like PRSA, are unwelcoming to alternative perspectives. I have asked diversity officers about the concept of including and welcoming a diversity of perspectives and they get visibly upset. Sadly, people who bristle at consideration of diversity of perspective reveal that they are not about diversity—they are about conformity. They are not about equality—they are about power. And they are not about inclusion—they are about control.  

Diversity programs should stress non-discrimination, and at the same time be non-celebratory. Individuals and organizations should not double down on oppressive persuasion, but work  toward common understanding of legitimate differences, including perspectives on diversity. PR is based on communication, and the root of communication is “common.” Creating environments where people can disagree on particulars but nevertheless work toward common general goals would be productive. This would be good, ethical and civil public relations. It is also a picture of true diversity.

Does Advertising Adjacency Affect Corporate Reputation?

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

(Note: I have been on a sort of hiatus from blogging as I was on a sabbatical during the fall of 2024 to write a book on public relations theory. Then, based on previous academic articles I have published, I was asked by a book editor to contribute a chapter on corporate reputation. With the book in production and the chapter awaiting my presentation at a conference for feedback, I hope to pick up the pace on the blog again. More about both books when their publication dates near).

Public relations professionals use all forms of tactics, including paid advertising. Public relations professionals also are strategically concerned with the reputations of the organizations they represent. So an article in the Wall Street Journal (subscription may be required) about advertisers concerned with Meta’s allowing free speech being a threat to ‘brand safety’ caught my eye.

Mark Zuckerberg, Meta’s president, gained lots of attention for recently saying Meta would back off on censorship and allow more free speech on Facebook and the company’s other platforms. There had been complaints that there was a noted bias against conservatives when some posts were given a lower push by an algorithm or accounts blocked entirely. There was even evidence that some of this was done in cooperation with federal government agencies. 

Of course, what is censorship to some is responsible monitoring of misinformation and hate speech. But there again, those are subjective judgements. A difference of opinions and values is not necessarily hate. And many comments labeled misinformation have borne out to be true, from Covid origins to the involvement of Russia in previous elections. 

I’ll leave that debate there.

But the WSJ article pointed out that advertisers are concerned that with the filters off, their digital ads could be adjacent to questionable content. I have wondered about this concept long before there was such a thing as digital advertising.

Brands have placed ads in newspapers and magazines for years, not exactly knowing what editorial or other ad content would appear on the same or adjacent page. If the ad is near content some reasonable people could see as objectionable, would those readers see it as associated with the brand?

Granted, in broadcast media, and magazines with a specific content and tone, ads are also considered sponsorship. There is a reputational factor to consider there.

But in print, and largely in social media advertising, I doubt that many viewers see an ad in their stream as an endorsement or sponsorship of other content in their stream. This is especially true because users can choose who to follow and select their own feeds (unless they just scroll “for you” posts). In other words, users have more agency over what they see than advertisers do.

Are users not savvy enough to realize that advertisers are there to reach them, not to promote others? I would venture to say that they are. 

Also, if professionals are worried about brand safety, what reputation impact would there be if the brand is known to be  encouraging subjective censorship? 

This might be something for brands to do their own research on. Do their key publics—from employees, to customers, to investors and more—factor in they content near corporate branding when they form their own view of the company, ie it’s reputation in their minds? An academic study on this would also be fascinating. 

Or perhaps Meta could use its resources to find an answer to this question. It may be in their own interest to do so.

The need to balance corporate and personal values

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

Last semester in a  discussion about employee relations a student asked me about the situation in which an employee’s values don’t match the company values.

It’s a good question. I think about it personally. I myself have had to say publicly that I get my values from God and not my employer. 

Nevertheless companies talk a lot about their “values.”

The Institute for Public Relations Study recently addressed this question and shared a study on the subject. Of interest is that a third to almost a half of employees, by different age groups, said their company’s values aligned with their own “somewhat” or “not at all.”

My question is “should they?” And if so, what specific types of values?

I would say values should be categorized as collective vs. individual, or organizational vs personal.

Collective or corporate (i.e. any organization, not just a corporation) are universal, related to an organizations mission, and not likely to violate a personal value. Examples of these would be that the customer comes first, quality is job one, we try harder. Values related to how a job is done, operational goals, and organizational culture. 

Personal or individual values are based on more deeply held beliefs associated with an individual’s own identity. These are associated with an individual’s family, ethnic or national culture, faith, and other things that precede and supersede the workplace. Often these values are related to the hot topics debated in society that are not directly related to one’s job. 

So when a company “takes a stand on social issues,” which stand do they take? Are they conscious of the unintended consequence that stand serving as a proclamation to some employees—and other stakeholders—that their personal values-based position on said issue is not valued, welcomed, accepted? Such employees will go from ambassador to stranger, they will go from being proud of their job to seeing it as just a paycheck, and maybe a temporary relationship on the path to something where they don’t feel insulted.

Getting employees to identify with employer is great to some extent. We spend significant amount of time at work, one of the first things people ask you is what do you do or where do you work? I have read academic research about going beyond employee engagement to employee-organization identity fusion. That sounds a little extreme to me, as if a person gives up their individual identity in order to blend into a workplace. That is more akin to an authoritarian regime than the “value” of individual autonomy and diversity. 

Indeed, it is useful to foster a positive culture, one in which employees are engaged, productive, happy and serve as brand ambassadors even beyond the work setting. They can be proud of where they work, and even should be. But a profession and particular job is but one aspect of identity. I would even say it is secondary, marginal, and circumstantial.

Personal identity is deeper, more permanent. You can change jobs, it is harder to change your ethnicity, faith, and other aspects of personal identity. If implied one must do the latter they are increasingly likely to do the former.

The noble thing for companies to do, therefore, is work toward values that are appropriate for the mission of the organization as an aspect of organizational culture. But they should maintain and even be upfront about having institutional neutrality on the topics of our day that reflect a personal value. They should seek with intention a balance of being both non-discriminatory AND non-celebratory of any personal values.

This may be different in the case of small or privately owned enterprises, in which an owner will publicly proclaim their personal values or even make them part of the organizational values. This could be a follower of Jesus Christ or an avowed secular humanist. I’ve seen both. That is up to them. But in either case they will both attract and repel employees on the bases of personal value, as opposed to business metrics such as product or service quality, customer service and others. 

Of course, many non-profits were founded and exist  entirely around a cause that is intimately related to a value that is deeply personal. These could be as disparate as advancing the Christian Gospel or advocating for abortion. Here it would be ethical to be clear about a non-profit organization’s purpose, and it will affect who applies for jobs, volunteers and donates to the organization.

But behind alignment with core mission, neutrality on unrelated personal matters should be an organizational value with which most individuals can agree. I have written about the virtue of neutrality before.  

A term related to values that is expressed often in recent years by corporations and CCOs is “purpose.” Purpose generally defined is beyond mission and considers the positive role an organization plays in society. In discussing this concept at length, Ranjay Gulati in his book “Deep Purpose”  offers a cautionary note that echoes what I have been saying: “Culture should not coerce conformity. It should seek to find an overlap between personal passion and company goals. The best cultures facilitate individuality.”

Gulati also offers prudent advice about articulating values generally and enabling individuals to enact them. This is more like guidelines than rules and can help avoid a corporate value trampling on individual values. Among the many examples in the book he mentions Apple under Steve Jobs: “As we’ve seen, Steve Jobs helped create Apple University with the goal of training people not to think exactly as he did, but rather to understand his guiding principles and mindset and apply them using their own judgment in the leader’s absence.”

My answer to the student in class was brief and basically asked students to consider that there are differences between corporate and personal values. I did acknowledge that it was a good question and I have more to say on the subject. I’ve done that here, and I hope PR and other management professionals will give consideration to the difference.

Viral Employee Video and Weak CEO Apology Demonstrate Need to Have PR in the C-Suite

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

Right at the end of the past winter semester, a business story broke about a company in my area in West Michigan that had public relations implications. In an employee meeting, the CEO of furniture company MillerKnoll told employees to quit worrying about not getting a bonus when they asked about how to stay motivated. Instead, she implored them to commit to meeting an internal corporate financial goal. 

She famously told her team to “leave pity city.”

An employee had recorded this message and shared it on social media. It went quickly viral, reaching 7 million views quickly with numerous comments. The story earned more media mentions than a typical new product release, including national outlets like the summary with perspective on the incident in the Wall Street Journal as well as a series of articles in local media leading up to a reported apology by the CEO in Crain’s Grand Rapids Business. 

I don’t know if the MillerKnoll PR team was involved or listened to with regard to crafting the messaging for the initial meeting or the subsequent apology. But there are certainly some PR lessons here. 

A primary lesson is that internal communications can quickly go external. MillerKnoll is not the first and won’t be the last to experience a window opened on what they think are internal deliberations. All internal communications should be planned considering the impact on reputation if it is seen externally.

Related, employees can’t be isolated. First, employees are also members of the community and may also be customers and/or investors. Even if they are not, those other stakeholder groups increasingly care about and make decisions based on how employees are treated by corporate management. In a talent shortage, potential employees may wonder if they want to bother applying for a job at a company where the leadership communicates in harsh and insulting fashion.

There is a lot of published advice on executive apologies and lots of research on what makes them effective. Suffice it to say apologies have to be sincere, address the reason for the offense, be meaningful and often action based. In this case, the CEO said she was sorry for how employees reacted—but not for what she said and what that implies about her view of employees and their concerns. This is especially true in this case when the CEO told employees not to worry about their bonus when she received nearly $5 million in salary, stock options and non-equity incentive compensation and other perks, according to the MillerKnoll 2022 proxy statement (see page 32).

The central issue in this whole story is about employee motivation. Employee motivation—as well as retention and engagement—are primary concerns of CEOs everywhere, especially post-Covid. Motivation is not done by chastisement or shame. Making company ‘needs” paramount and diminishing the legitimacy of personal concern is not a wise plan. Asking employees for commitment after negating your own commitment to them is set up for failure. 

At the time this incident was getting social media and news media spotlight, I was reading papers and grading a final exam in my graduate course in Communication Management. I was reminded about some of the readings we discussed in the section we did on internal communications and performance. The 2021 Edelman Trust Barometer showed that after the pandemic, employees are considered the most important stakeholder for long-term success, replacing customers, that 78% of employees surveyed have anxiety about losing their job, and 43% say their employer doesn’t take seriously employee burnout. 

The Axios 2023 State of Essential Workplace Communications shows that management and employees are not in sync in terms of how things are communicated to them. 77% of leaders think the communication they provide has the context to help employees do their jobs well, whereas only 46% of employees agree.

One research study we dove into showed a complex model that essentially showed the importance of internal public relations in achieving employee engagement. Briefly, internal communication satisfaction (made up of feedback, information, climate and media) will positively affect both perceived organizational support and perceived employer attractiveness. Those two things are key determinants of employee engagement, which in common terms means employees who work with vigor and dedication. 

Another article we reviewed in a section on communication and leadership demonstrated the importance of a “communicative” leadership style, defined as “someone who engages employees in dialogue, actively shares and seeks feedback, practices participative decision making, and is perceived as open and involved.”

A CEO who pays attention to all of the above would not have had to mention “pity city” in the first place.

Reviewing this situation also made me thing about all of the interesting and practical topics my graduate students wrote papers about. There were papers on executive communication coaching, communication competence, transformational leadership, communication management and the ethic of care, the communication role in organizational culture and employee performance, and more.

All of this shows that leadership is more than having authority and insisting on something. Communication is more than just distributing information. An educated public relations or communications professional should be at the right hand of a CEO to ethically and strategically consider both communications and actions with regard to employees. 

A Process for Both PR Pedagogy and Practice

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

I’ve been teaching public relations for more than 20 years. But a few years ago I changed how I teach—my pedagogy—in several classes. This was the result of noticing how students have changed over the years, attending teaching conferences, and my own experimentation. 

What resulted was a way of teaching that students tell me they really like. And while that is nice, the reason I like it is because I notice students are actually learning more. I use this in my writing classes as well as a PR management and case studies class. It works when students work independently, such as writing classes, as well as on group projects, such as case studies. 

[Note and plug—to accommodate this teaching method I turned my lectures into books that I self-published and make available to students for $5 for an ebook and $15 for a paperback. Media Relations Writing, Corporate Communications Writing, and Public Relations: A Management Function are available from Amazon, Apple, Barnes and Noble or Vital Source. They have been adopted by other colleges and purchased by professionals. Learn more about these books.]

This way of teaching is the fusion of several pedagogical methods increasingly popular in higher education:

  • Flipped class—The old way was for me to lecture in class, and then students would go off and do an assignment and turn it in during the next class, after which I would grade it. A “flipped” class means students acquire the information that was a lecture before class, either by reading or watching a recorded video or some other means, and then in-class they do their homework with me there to coach. 
  • Peer learning—When I taught in France at a partner school of my university, I noticed students were always talking while I was lecturing. I thought this was rude until someone explained that this was their way, they were talking to each other about what I was saying. I applied this concept in my classes by having students come to class with a draft of an assignment and pairing with a fellow student to do a peer review/edit. I am there to make sure they are doing a substantive review and also answering questions. After this we talk as a whole class. Students learn from each other as well as me. They also learn the value of feedback, collaboration, brainstorming, that creativity is a process of draft and revision and considering alternatives. 
  • Experiential learning—Learning by doing ‘real-world’ assignments is the gold standard not just in PR education, but in all academic disciplines. The assignments are not invented but based on actual problems or opportunities of a class client we have for a semester. Also, instead of learning and then doing, students learn as they do, and what they ultimately turn in for a grade is not a first draft, but the result of a process. So at the end of a class period where the peer learning happens, they have time to make final revisions and then ultimately turn in the assignment for a grade. They do better, I see fewer mistakes having caught them in the process, and students retain what they have learned with less anxiety in the process.

It occurred to me when chatting with professionals about this that the same pedagogical methods could be translated into a process for professional practice on creative projects. For this I would translate the flipped class, peer learning, experiential learning to a simple and alliterative model of acquire, adopt, apply.

For professionals, acquire would mean independently gaining knowledge about a client or project by research, reading a creative brief, and sketching some initial ideas.

The adopt stage would involve a collaborative meeting to come to common ground on the problem, opportunity, or project goals. Then sharing and reviewing each team member’s ideas, suggestions, strategies and concepts.. The best agreed upon ideas—or revisions of them—would be adopted.

The application stage would be the design, writing and implementation of the tactic or campaign. 

The acquire-adopt-apply process captures the benefit of both solitary introspection and group collaboration. People come better prepared to creative meetings with a draft in hand. The meeting is focused on development vs conception. And the application is done with greater confidence and sense of both personal input and teamwork.

We PR educators often encourage each other to make the classroom like the workplace. Professional practice may be able to take some things from current pedagogy as well.