by Rich Murphy, PhD, APR
Puget Sound Chapter Vice-President for Education and Accreditation
It is not surprising that I am still thinking about the importance of APR accreditation among the elected national leaders of PRSA.
As accreditation chair of the Puget Sound chapter this year, my job is to encourage all our colleagues to earn their APR. At chapter programs, in our monthly newsletter, Newsflash, in public information sessions, and one-on-one, I am repeatedly urging local practitioners to seek the industry’s distinguishing credential of professional expertise. For all the reasons PRSA gives for offering accreditation in the first place. Because the profession values it. Because it is a mark of the skill, knowledge, and experience clients value, and deserve. Because it enriches the practice of the PR professional.
I am thinking about the issue, too, because I recently earned my own APR, and did so at the behest of excellent local PR leaders. They recommended it highly to me. Said it was among the very best things they have done in their career, for themselves, and for their clients.
APR and leadership are on my mind again this morning as I post a website announcement of the upcoming APR preparation course for local members: http://www.prsapugetsound.org/Page.aspx?nid=23 . As a chapter, we are working hard to advance the profession of public relations in the Puget Sound region. The APR program is one of the most important ways we do that work.
So I am glad that PRSA as a national organization continues to validate its professional credential by requiring elected national officers and board members to hold the APR. It is right to do so.
All the arguments I have heard against such a requirement—and I have been thinking about them a lot—are specious.
Requiring the APR is not elitist, but sensible. If the leaders of the organization do not have the credential they are encouraging all their colleagues to earn, then accreditation is devalued for us all. It is also not un-democratic to require the top elected officers in the organization to have the industry’s only credential of professional expertise. PRSA’s democratic processes are securely in place. It has many mechanisms for hearing and responding to—i.e., “representing”—the diverse voices of its members in policy-making and governance. Further, though APR does not measure executive or organization management skills, it is not irrelevant to elected office. What we need to do is elect leaders with both professional expertise and policy/governance talent.
The most egregious of the hollow arguments against APR as an eligibility requirement for national PRSA office concerns leadership. It is simply untrue that APR has nothing to do with leadership. An organization dedicated to advancing the profession and the professional needs leaders who are committed to accreditation, and to strengthening it both for members and for clients. Anything less would not be leadership. Anything less would be foolish.
Tuesday this week, PRSA’s Nominations Committee released the list of nominees for 2011 Officer and Board positions. All are APR members, as required by the by-laws.
This is as it should be. And as I hope it will continue to be. PRSA should continue to require its elected leaders to have earned their APR. And I will continue to do my job as accreditation chair with the confidence that the industry and my profession still believe it matters.
September 8, 2010 at 7:43 pm |
I have a different take on this, Rich, though I concur with the sentiments that the APR should be a professional credential that practitioners should seriously consider. I would also argue that most people interested in a leadership role in the organization should be focused on encouraging this and the best way to do this is by going through the process yourself and receiving the APR designation.
My suggestion would be that designating a certain number of board seats open only to those with the APR designation may be appropriate. However, I don’t think it should be a requirement for board service. Late in my career, I believed that a Master of Communication degree from the UW was a better use of my time and professional development.
In addition, being an effective PR practitioner doesn’t necessarily qualify you to be a good organizational leader – though it is a baseline for organizational leadership. I’ve presided over numerous organizations – including PR chapters/orgs – in a 30+ year career and the skills used there aren’t necessarily directly related to the APR designation.