Why All Managers are Alike

Because, like you I suspect, they have key target audiences whose behaviors help or hinder them in achieving their organizational objectives.

But even in their own best interests, too few involve themselves in their public relations effort to degree they should.

The result can be a PR program that overemphasizes things like special events, media relations or communications tactics, without a basic, realistic plan for delivering key audience behaviors they need to succeed.

I’m talking about behaviors that lead to strong community support; increased repeat purchases; growing capital contributions; positive consumer reaction; higher employee retention rates; healthier relationships with bargaining units; legislators viewing organization as a key player in business or charitable communities; competitors with a grudging but healthy respect for your operation, and suppliers ever more anxious to keep your good will.

If this sounds like something you might like, make sure your public relations team applies a fundamental premise like this one to your unit’s operating priorities: People act on their own perception of facts before them, which leads to predictable behaviors about which something can be done. When we create, change or reinforce that opinion by reaching, persuading and moving-to-desired-action very people whose behaviors affect organization most, public relations mission is accomplished.

The payoff for your department, division or subsidiary will be a public relations effort pretty much in sync with where you want to go.

For emphasis, I repeat – from get-go, you need to aim your effort squarely at those outside groups of people whose behaviors really DO affect your organization. In short, you need a blueprint that helps persuade those stakeholders to your way of thinking, hopefully moving them to take actions that lead both to your success and that of your organization.

Sometimes it looks hopeless. From comfort of their plush offices and five to six figure salaries, self-appointed NGO's often denounce child labor as their employees rush from one five star hotel to another, $3000 subnotebooks and PDA's in hand. The hairsplitting distinction made by ILO between "child work" and "child labor" conveniently targets impoverished countries while letting its budget contributors - developed ones - off-the-hook.

Reports regarding child labor surface periodically. Children crawling in mines, faces ashen, body deformed. The agile fingers of famished infants weaving soccer balls for their more privileged counterparts in USA. Tiny figures huddled in sweatshops, toiling in unspeakable conditions. It is all heart-rending and it gave rise to a veritable not-so-cottage industry of activists, commentators, legal eagles, scholars, and opportunistically sympathetic politicians.

Ask denizens of Thailand, sub-Saharan Africa, Brazil, or Morocco and they will tell you how they regard this altruistic hyperactivity - with suspicion and resentment. Underneath compelling arguments lurks an agenda of trade protectionism, they wholeheartedly believe. Stringent - and expensive - labor and environmental provisions in international treaties may well be a ploy to fend off imports based on cheap labor and competition they wreak on well-ensconced domestic industries and their political stooges.

This is especially galling since sanctimonious West has amassed its wealth on broken backs of slaves and kids. The 1900 census in USA found that 18 percent of all children - almost two million in all - were gainfully employed. The Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional laws banning child labor as late as 1916. This decision was overturned only in 1941.

The GAO published a report last week in which it criticized Labor Department for paying insufficient attention to working conditions in manufacturing and mining in USA, where many children are still employed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics pegs number of working children between ages of 15-17 in USA at 3.7 million. One in 16 of these worked in factories and construction. More than 600 teens died of work-related accidents in last ten years.

Child labor - let alone child prostitution, child soldiers, and child slavery - are phenomena best avoided. But they cannot and should not be tackled in isolation. Nor should underage labor be subjected to blanket castigation. Working in gold mines or fisheries of Philippines is hardly comparable to waiting on tables in a Nigerian or, for that matter, American restaurant.

There are gradations and hues of child labor. That children should not be exposed to hazardous conditions, long working hours, used as means of payment, physically punished, or serve as sex slaves is commonly agreed. That they should not help their parents plant and harvest may be more debatable.

As Miriam Wasserman observes in "Eliminating Child Labor", published in Federal Bank of Boston's "Regional Review", second quarter of 2000, it depends on "family income, education policy, production technologies, and cultural norms." About a quarter of children under-14 throughout world are regular workers. This statistic masks vast disparities between regions like Africa (42 percent) and Latin America (17 percent).

In many impoverished locales, child labor is all that stands between family unit and all-pervasive, life threatening, destitution. Child labor declines markedly as income per capita grows. To deprive these bread-earners of opportunity to lift themselves and their families incrementally above malnutrition, disease, and famine - is an apex of immoral hypocrisy.