Last Thursday, I received a survey from the board of
directors of the Detroit chapter of the
Public Relations Society of America (PRSA). The board is seeking the input
of chapter members to help determine whether it should take a position on a
proposal to repeal of a national bylaw requiring that national PRSA officers
and board members be Accredited in Public
Relations (APR). The rationale behind the proposal argues that
because 80 percent of PRSA members do not hold APR status, national leadership
is not truly representative of the membership.
On a normal day, I wouldn’t have taken much note of this survey
or the argument behind the petition. However, as the chair elect for the
society’s technology
section I had spent the previous weekend at my first PRSA Leadership Rally
in New York, where discussion of the APR bylaw was prevalent. I had seen
my share of the bylaw discussions online, the arguments for and against, but,
as is often the case with written communications, the passion within this
debate was lost on me. I was unaware of the degree of polarity on the
issue and how long the debate has been active and, dare I say, controversial.
Accreditation
is the PR industry’s version of certification or licensure, although the nature
of the profession does not allow for APR to be looked upon in the same way as
the accounting industry views a CPA.
The process to become APR can be understood as a three-step
process: the first requires one to submit answers to a number of questions to a
panel of APRs charged with gauging your understanding of fundamental concepts,
theory and program design; the second is to elaborate on those answers and to
demonstrate your understanding through presentation to the panel; assuming the
panelists deem you ready to sit for the test, the third step is to pass a
rigorous computer exam.
Once you’ve earned accreditation, ongoing maintenance
through continued professional development is required by the accrediting
organization, the Universal Accreditation Board, and requires you file every
three years.
For my part, I earned my APR (I do not use the word “earned”
lightly here, as I dedicated many hours of study over the course of six months
to ensure I passed the accreditation) a number of years ago. In the
beginning, I did not aspire to become APR out of anything more than a
competitive spirit; I’m fairly competitive by nature and I work for a
company lead by a number of professionals who also are APR.
Anything you can do, I can do…
However, going through the process illuminated areas I was
deficient in and allowed me to take steps to improve. Becoming APR
improved my ability to develop strategy and made me a better professional.
I believe that investment accelerated my career. I believe my
organization’s investment and cultural support of APR has made us a stronger
company, allowed us to grow faster and attract some of the technology
industry’s brightest companies as clients.
As for the debate within PRSA, I think there are more
worthwhile professional endeavors than arguing this topic. That said,
here’s my two cents: the bylaw hasn’t encouraged more of us in our industry to
achieve APR and doesn’t serve the organization’s interests. PRSA is an entity
that depends upon the volunteer service from its membership to help it drive
the profession forward.
In my experience, APR will not create more time to volunteer
nor make you a better or more dedicated board member, so the APR requirement
merely serves to limit the potential contributions from the organization’s
body.
The APR process does makes you a better practitioner and is
the only mark of differentiation and competency the profession has, so if you
aspire to leadership within PRSA at the national level, you should be
APR. True leaders set an example for others to follow and like many of the
efforts we champion, most of the APR’s value is in the journey, not the end
result.
-- Kevin Sangsland