Public relations

Although strong criticism can be made of the conventional use of "public relations" techniques in meetings, especially when crudely done for simplistic purposes, skilled practitioners are sensitive to dimensions otherwise ignored. It is this sensitivity which can contribute considerably to the "magic" of whatever occurs in a condition of focus. The major problem of public relations as applied in meetings is that it is conceived in terms of the priorities of the meeting sponsor or organizer. A major concern then is to stress at all cost the qualities and significance: of those responsible for the event, of the event itself, of the participants, and of whatever is achieved. The techniques are necessarily so pervasive in their application that they cloak every facet of the event in a concealing garb of seeming glamour and significance. This of course serves to "paper over any cracks" in the arrangement, effectively turning each moment of the meeting into a piece of theatre, however flimsy the sets. Participant awareness of the reality, as it contrasts with the image, generates cynicism and is counter-productive.

One feature of this problem is the tendency to reinforce the status quo and to conceal weaknesses and conflicts which can provoke and justify healthy change. Existing categories are effectively treated like icons requiring appropriate praise and decoration. Another feature of this problem is dependence upon the "showmanship" strengths of PR techniques to provide "attention grabbers" to absorb the time of participants. These may extend from glossy audio-visuals through sumptuous feasts to tourist attractions. This leads to a simplistic conception of meetings, and a total disrespect for participants and the issues on which they supposedly hope to act. Sad to say, many meeting sponsors are evaluated by their peers in terms of "how good a show they put on" and the meeting market is such that it is unlikely that they would fail by underestimating the level of sophistication of participants.

Another feature of this problem is the stress on the impact on participants of "messages" fired at them as "targets" in the marketing "communications" approach which has given birth to most public relations techniques. Despite these present defects, the practitioners are nevertheless especially sensitive to configuration, place, timing, non-verbal stimuli and their effect on image. The question is whether these skills can be employed in the interest of participants and their concerns, rather than as a manipulation of them.

The question is how can meeting participants themselves engender collective sensitivity to these dimensions, correcting continually for any excesses. The process of building up and focusing significance collectively is one known through the rituals of less artificial cultures with a more organic response to a happening. It would appear that the "civilized" conscious emphasis on rational discourse in meetings has left them exposed to manipulation of any unconscious emotional needs which would otherwise provide a healthy equilibrium. How can the power of any such emotional arousal of the imagination be consciously evoked by participants to meld their perspectives together more effectively to "get their act together" and get the meeting into focus ? The "primitive" approach, the "PR communicator" approach, and the "small groups process" approach are extremes, each with important clues and dangerous traps.

The clues suggest the importance of articulating, "feeding" and reinforcing images (which well up and breed within the meeting) by an almost rhythmic alternation between different information modes, sensed to be in some comprehensible configuration. If harmoniously balanced through a timed progression of intensity, the meeting will then "take off". If not, the significance leaks away, leaving an empty, brittle shell of programme elements.