USM University Relations Council

MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY

MANAGING PUBLIC  RELATIONSHIPS

Executive Summary
Background and Goals
Underlying Principles
Management Philosophy
Key Publics/Stakeholders
Major Issues

EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY

In an effort to establish a broad framework within which the constituent institutions and the System office of the University System of Maryland can manage and improve their public relations programs, an ad hoc committee¹  developed and issued a report in 1990.  That report was widely circulated, presented to the USM Board of Regents, and served as an effective working agreement for four years.

At the July 1994 and July 1997 retreats of the University Relations Council (the public relations directors systemwide), the report was reviewed, readopted, and updated to reflect current circumstances.

The fundamental elements of the report remain unchanged.  Based on the principle that reputation reflects each institution's relationships with many publics, the report recommends a management philosophy emphasizing institutional accountability and systemwide cooperation.

The report identifies key publics and significant issues and offers guidelines for public relations research and planning.  It suggests that research and planning provide the basis for public relations strategies, resource allocation and program evaluation.

Finally, the report calls for consistency and clarity in the institutional and System identity programs to alleviate confusion among external publics.

¹ serving on the ad hoc committee were (titles are as of 1990): Kathryn Costello, Vice President for Institutional Advancement, UMCP; Jack Felton, Vice President for Corporate Communications, McCormick & Co. (member of the Chancellor's Advisory Council and past president of the Public Relations Society of America); James E. Grunig, Professor of Public Relations, College of Journalism, UMCP (1989 PRSA educator of the year); Gains Hawkins, Director of Public Relations, SSU; John K. Martin, Acting Vice Chancellor for University Relations, USMA; Katie Ryan, Associate Vice President for Public Relations & Government Relations, UB; Judith Sachwald, Executive Assistant, Maryland Governor's Office; William Slater, Vice President for Institutional Advancement, UMES; Sally Souris, Vice President for Institutional Advancement, TSU; David Taylor, Director of Communications, UMAB; and committee chair John Lippincott, Director of Public Relations, USMA.
 

BACKGROUND AND GOALS

The reputation of the University System of Maryland has been a matter of serious concern since the formation of the System in 1988.  Reputation is, as Regent Earle Palmer Brown has noted on several occasions, one of the organization's "most important assets."

The Governor, legislators, regents, voluntary advisors, and numerous others have regularly urged the System and its constituent institutions to make sure that reputation serves to advance and not to hinder the organization in meeting its ambitious goals.

While this report is not intended to prescribe specific remedies to problems of institutional reputation, it is meant to provide general guidance on improving public relations efforts systemwide by:

• identifying problems, defining publics and anticipating issues for the System and the constituent institutions;
• devising a management framework for dealing with these problems, publics and issues; 
• recommending policies and procedures, formal and informal research efforts, tools and resources;
• suggesting approaches to matters of institutional identity. 

UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES

Among the broad principles that underlie this report are:

• The reputation of an institution of higher education is based ultimately on the quality of its people, programs and services in relation to its mission 
• Each constituent institution within the University System of Maryland has numerous publics; each of those publics may have different perceptions of the institution 
• For most publics, the reputation of the University System of Maryland will derive from the reputations of the constituent institutions.
• Public relations is best managed at the level within the University System of Maryland where the interaction with a given public is most likely to occur.
• Public relations, as an administrative function, is primarily concerned with managing relationships between discrete publics and the organization.
• Public relations, as a broad concept, is the responsibility of every individual within an organization.
• In some circumstances, media relations constitutes the most appropriate form of public relations; however, a full range of techniques is required to maintain long-term relationships with key publics. 
• Public relations offices throughout the System should be guided by the code of professional standards of the Public Relations Society of America and the statement of ethics of the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education.

MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY

The following approaches to the management of public relations throughout the System will help ensure aggressive, proactive, results-oriented efforts:

• Institutional public relations should be managed at the institutional level.
• Within each constituent institution and the System office, public relations should be identified as a top management priority; each public relations office should have a mission statement endorsed by the institutional leadership.
• Each institution should coordinate its public relations functions (including development, media relations, community relations, internal communications, publications, government relations, and alumni relations).
• The senior public relations executive at each institution should be an active participant in that institution's inner circle of management.
• The Board in its policies and procedures should emphasize the importance of public relations throughout the System, the responsibility of individual institutions to manage their public relations efforts, and the value of systemwide cooperation.
• The first priority for the System Office of Public Relations should be to manage public relations for the Board of Regents, the Chancellor and the USM Office.  Secondarily, it should support and coordinate systemwide efforts, advise and assist individual institutions, and broker information systemwide. 
• Public relations should be coordinated on a systemwide basis when doing so increases efficiency and/or effectiveness, ensures consistency of messages about the System as a whole, or supports systemwide goals (without detracting from institution-based efforts).
• The University Relations Council (composed of public relations officers from the constituent institutions and chaired by the System Office director of public relations) should serve as the primary vehicle for identifying appropriate opportunities for and forms of systemwide coordination.
• The University Relations Council should undertake a biannual review of this report and recommend appropriate revisions to the Chancellor's Council.

KEY PUBLICS/STAKEHOLDERS

An institution must attend to all its publics and those publics will change as issues
and priorities change.  Limited resources, however, require the public relations office to target key stakeholders whose interest in and/or influence is likely to have significant long-term impact on the institution.

Key publics for the USM constituent institutions almost always include students, alumni, faculty, staff, donors, and neighbors.  Included among additional publics to which institutions should attend are: parents (of current and prospective students), local officials, foundations, corporations, employers (of students and alumni), advisory boards and athletics fans.

Key publics for System Office include the Regents, the institutional leadership, the State's political leadership, the Maryland Higher Education Commission, advisory boards, as well as federal officials and agencies. 

There is, of course, a great deal of cross-over among these key publics.  System Office, for example, plays an active role in corporate and donor relations and in communicating System benefits to students and System policies to employees; the institutions have frequent contact with state political leaders.  Where such cross-over occurs information sharing and coordination are essential to managing those relationships effectively. 

System Office and the institutions also must attend to media representatives, high school faculty and guidance counselors, and community college faculty and staff -- both as communications channels to other key publics and as important publics in their own right.
 

MAJOR ISSUES

The institutional and System public relations offices should continually monitor issues
around which publics will coalesce and should advise their respective leaders on appropriate responses.  The system office should serve as a clearing house for information on systemwide issues.  Among the issues currently facing the System that should be reflected in strategic public relations plans and efforts are:

Reputation
 -- confusion surrounding institutional identities
 -- ignorance regarding the System as a whole
Internal Culture
 -- need for spirit of teamwork
 -- need for loyalty to the institution
 -- need for understanding of System benefits, successes
 -- need for healthy morale among faculty, students, staff 
Funding
 -- state budget constraints
 -- federal budget constraints
 -- relatively low levels of private support
Quality
 -- inaccurate perceptions of public higher education
 -- recruitment of high ability students
 -- unclear measures of quality
Access
 -- increasing cost and price
 -- need to reach underserved constituencies (minorities, handicapped, etc.)
 -- increasing selectivity of campuses
 -- availability and distribution of financial aid
 -- information technologies, distance education
Accountability/responsibility
 -- need for external understanding of System benefits, successes
 -- demand for public services supporting:
     economic development
     community/social programs
     elementary and secondary education
 -- diversity among employees, students
 -- reengineering, redeployment
 -- skepticism over cost/benefit of higher education
 -- concerns over faculty productivity
 -- local community concerns over traffic, noise, etc.
 

MANAGING 
PUBLIC 
RELATIONSHIPS

RESEARCH EFFORTS

Research is one of the most important public relations tools and should, therefore,
be widely employed throughout the System according to the following guidelines:

• Institutional public relations plans and activities should be based on informal and formal research (e.g. surveys, focus groups, environmental scanning) to establish baselines, identify issues, and determine strategies.
• Research efforts should focus on clearly identified publics that share important relationships with the institution.
• Where collaborative research would yield efficiency without sacrificing effectiveness it should be undertaken on a cost-sharing basis. 
• Publications/communications audits should be conducted at the institutional level to determine effectiveness and efficiency of current activities and to identify unmet needs.
• Institutions should establish "listening posts" (e.g. advisory groups, public forUSM) to gather regular feedback from key publics. 
• The System office should review existing data and data sources (including those from other university systems and from national associations) and alert the constituent institutions to the availability of information relevant to their public relations efforts.

MANAGING 
PUBLIC 
RELATIONSHIPS

PLANNING NEEDS
Through careful planning that is based on research and that reflects key publics and
issues, public relations offices can improve their effectiveness and efficiency.  Therefore:

• Each institutional public relations office, as well as the System office, should develop, implement, and evaluate an annual strategic plan (revised as necessary throughout the year).
• Each institutional public relations office, as well as the System office, should develop, implement, test and evaluate a crisis communications plan and review that plan every two years.
• All public relations plans should be designed to contribute to the achievement of institutional goals and should be consistent with System goals.
• The System office should provide advice -- as needed and as resources allow -- on the development of public relations plans.

MANAGING 
PUBLIC 
RELATIONSHIPS

MESSAGES AND TECHNIQUES

Public relations messages and the techniques for delivering those messages will vary
widely among the constituent institutions.  However, a few general principles are worth noting:

• Messages and tactics should be devised at the institutional level to reflect the institution's goals, public relations research and plans, and the key publics and issues.
• Media relations is an important mechanism for raising levels of awareness; however, public relations programs should employ a full range of communications vehicles to reach key publics and to achieve institutional goals.
• Direct one-on-one and small group interactions are often the most effective way to cultivate and enhance relationships and should be widely employed with key publics.
• The public relations offices should identify good "message carriers" and educate them about the institution and its messages.
• Staff throughout the institution, especially those on the "front lines" (e.g. receptionists), should be sensitized to their role in public relations and trained to represent the institution appropriately.
• Institutions should develop experts/speaker/success story lists in an easily accessible format.  Full sets of these lists should be kept in the System office for referrals.
• A central message regarding the System as a whole is that it allows and stimulates collaboration among the constituent institutions.  This message should be reinforced at the institutional level as well as by System Office.
• A systemwide capabilities brochure should be developed  by the System Office.
• The System office should identify public relations opportunities and recommend innovative tactics to the constituent institutions

MANAGING    
PUBLIC 
RELATIONSHIPS

STAFFING AND RESOURCES

Adequate staff and resources are necessary if public relations plans are to be effectively implemented.  Conversely, careful planning will help ensure effective -- and efficient -- use of resources.  Accordingly:

• Adequate resources for institutional public relations should be allocated at the institutional level and should be based on an approved strategic plan.
• Peer comparisons can be helpful in determining appropriate staffing and funding levels.
• Systemwide or inter-institutional collaboration should be employed (and funded on a cost-sharing basis) when it would yield efficiency without diminishing effectiveness.

MANAGING 
PUBLIC 
RELATIONSHIPS

EVALUATION GUIDELINES

The cycle of public relations research, planning, and implementation can become a
"spiral of progress" when evaluation is added.  The following guidelines for evaluation should be reflected in public relations programs systemwide:

• Institutional public relations offices are accountable to and should be regularly  evaluated by their respective institutional leaders.
• Evaluation should be based on meeting the stated goals and objectives in the strategic plan and office mission statement.
• As resources allow, the System office should provide counsel to the institutions on evaluation techniques.

MANAGING 
PUBLIC 
RELATIONSHIPS

INSTITUTIONAL IDENTITY

One of the most persistent and perplexing issues facing the University System of Maryland
has been institutional identity.  The passage of legislation in 1997 to change the names of the System and several institutions provides an opportunity to reduce public confusion surrounding nomenclature and increase understanding of the distinct identities.  Consistency and repetition will be especially important in this regard.  In addition:

• The constituent institutions should review their identity programs (editorial and graphic) in an effort to minimize confusion and to emphasize institutional distinctiveness.
• Institutional affiliation with the System is an important (albeit secondary) concern.  To indicate their affiliation, the constituent institutions should include the logo and tagline designed for this purpose on all their publications with a circulation in excess of 5,000.
• The System identity program should reflect its nature as a federation of diverse institutions.  the System Office should list the constituent institutions on all major publications and on its letterhead.
• The System seal is reserved as the official mark for the Regents, the Chancellor, the System, and for selected systemwide programs and activities (as determined by the System Office).
• The System as a whole should be referred to by its official name, "University System of Maryland" ("University System," "System" or "USM" in second references).  The name should be regularly monitored for acceptance and understanding among key publics. 
• The name "University of Maryland" may be used by  University of Maryland, Baltimore and by University of Maryland, College Park.  Most systemwide communications will use their full names (as they appear in the 1997 legislation) to distinguish clearly between the two institutions.