Running head: Strategic Communications

Strategic Communications its implications in
Corporate Social Responsibility, especially as it relates to the United States Military

Social Responsibility and Ethics Management
MGMT 325
1 November 2008

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to inform the readers of Strategic Communications and its implications in corporate social responsibility especially as it relates to the United States Military and specifically how the United States Air Force is utilizing Strategic Communications to decisively influence worldwide audiences in efforts to either diffuse or prevent aerospace crisis.

Strategic Communications, its implications in
Corporate Social Responsibility, especially as it relates to the United States Military

Wow, now if that is not a mouthful, it is no wonder why today and in the future we are going to rely more and more heavily on what we say versus what we actually accomplish. I reiterate we must remember it is what and how we say things that are most remembered not how we acted. The ability to affect change in a memorable voice is accomplished through an ever growing medium known as Strategic Communications, which is defined by the Defense Science Board (2004) as “a vital component of U.S. national security. It is in crisis, and it must be transformed with strength of purpose that matches our commitment to diplomacy, defense, intelligence, law enforcement, and homeland security.” It is also further defined towards businesses by Peter O’Malley (1996) as “the means of using corporate or institutional communications to create, strengthen or preserve, among key audiences, opinion favorable to the attainment of institutional/corporate goals.” Finally, it is outlined by Carroll and Buchholtz (2008) as 99% of any good crisis management plan. Bottom line corporate social responsibility is managed through an effective strategic or crisis communications program.

Now that the savory task of introducing you to the subject is out of the way, let us begin to delve into the actual topic of this paper, which by the title, and abstract explain, my plan to provide you the reader with an understanding and insight into Strategic Communications and its implications in corporate social responsibility especially as it relates to the United States Military and specifically how the United States Air Force is utilizing Strategic Communications to decisively influence worldwide audiences in efforts to either diffuse or prevent aerospace crisis.

I plan to approach this through several avenues, first I will outline what the Department of Defense has sees as strategic communications and how to employ this new modern mass media/audience delivery mechanism and then I will describe how the United States Air Force has employed these principles to develop its approach to building partnership capacity and strengthening Air Force to Air Force relationships, and how they also utilized these principles to aid in our forces development in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ultimately I hope to draw the parallels of strategic communications and its effects in ethics management and corporate social responsibilities of both government and society as a whole. Let us begin our journey into the world of strategic communications by looking into the Department of Defense’s strategy.

The Department of Defense tasked the Defense Science Board (DSB) in 2004 to provide an independent advice to the Secretary on matters of strategic communications. In their report of over 100 pages they outline seven summary recommendations. Accordingly they believe if implemented these recommendations could make significant improvements in the media representation of the US military. The DSB (2004) concluded that “we must understand the United States is engaged in a generational and global struggle about ideas, not a war between the West and Islam. It is more than a war against the tactic of terrorism. We must think in terms of global networks, both government and non-government. If we continue to concentrate primarily on states (“getting it right” in Iraq, managing the next state conflict better), we will fail.” Is this not equally as important in today’s political arena, where the different political parties are striking out against each other in an effort to win the popular vote of a nation bent on changing the world for better or worse, one never knows. If we as a nation whether we are in government or just a good citizens (corporate or otherwise) we must impose the basic ethical principles of corporate social responsibility as described by Carroll and Buchholtz’s (2008), pyramid of “economic responsibilities” being profitable is a tenant which we must all face no matter the service we are in. In the military, our profitability is measured by the conflicts we either prevent or achieve victory.

“Legal responsibilities”, obeying the law here to is one that knows no bounds. In everyday life we are faced with decisions of right and wrong, and look for guidance from our ethical upbringing or in the case of the military the Uniformed Code of Military Justice and the Laws of Armed Conflict. Society must also rely on laws such as Sarbanes-Oxley or the Securities and Exchange Acts which try in their own way to steer our ethical upbringing.

As we continue up the pyramid we find that “ethical responsibilities” abound our everyday life as well and are equally important to shaping who we are as well as where we are going socially as people, corporations, and governments.

Finally, at the top is the “philanthropic responsibilities” we all, corporately, privately, or in government service must uphold the “Golden Rule” and be good citizens and stewards of our stakeholders’ quality of life. The Department of Defense is charged with the protection of the Constitution against all Enemies Foreign and Domestic. This constitution provides for peace and tranquility to our people as well as all the other freedoms we so proudly espouse to having.

We are a philanthropic nation, and we have been guaranteed certain inalienable rights which we must enable for our future stakeholders’ as they come along. We continue our struggles through the realms of defining strategic communications, and will now look at the aspects these concepts have on the United States Air Force (USAF) and what it has done to provide guidance in an ever changing global environment.

First let us examine how the USAF was faced with an ever changing role from traditional mission sets towards supportive and or an “in-stead-of” conventional forces position. This ever changing environment has forced the Air Force leaders to respond with greater efficiencies and smarter approaches, thus shaping our destiny for tomorrow. The Air Force has outlined this in their Key Talking Points papers to commanders USAF (2008) as “developing ways to build, sustain, expand and guide international relationships that are critical enablers for USAF expeditionary air, space, and cyberspace forces conducting global operations, fighting the GWOT and being postured to meet future threats.” Ultimately the goals of this plan and the partnerships it develops within and between the different commands of the Air Force is what in corporate climates might be considered differences between divisions responsible for employment or development strategies of a particular widget.

In the Air Force we have numerous commands (divisions) responsible for various aspects of our missions i.e. Air Mobility Command is the “movers and shakers” transportation and fuels primarily focus their attention. Air Combat Command is responsible for combat forces deploying and employing in support of other commands depending upon the situation. Air Force Cyber Command one of the newest commands is responsible for the “Cyber” arena. This area is not only vastly larger and sometimes more complex than some of the others. The cyber threats our nation and the corporate worlds are facing is making this area the battlegrounds of the 21st Century.

As a community the Air Force in USAF (2008) states that they must “increase awareness of and support for USAF efforts to develop and sustain international partnerships; increased awareness of how USAF efforts support the National Defense Strategy; improved relationships with these agencies.” They continue to challenge the various commands to understand the fiscal constraints challenging our ability to ensure dominant Air, Space and Cyberspace power for the 21st Century without increasing risking our Airmen’s ability to have the right tools therefore, we must replace and modernize systems. Only by partnering together in this ever changing world of globalization and social responsibility can the various command elements within the USAF and the military ever hope to achieve synergy and balance of limited resources. Ethically, the military and especially the Air Force must remain good citizens of the citizens’ resources. If the Air Force cannot effectively communicate across its own domains how can it, strategically communicate with congress over budgetary decisions or the American people when in need of new recruits to fill the future roles in defense of this great nation.

In an article by Michael Frangipane of the 88th Wing Public Affairs office (2008) the Air Force has partnered with local hospitals to “provide an 11-week comprehensive training curriculum that will expose Air Force nurses to a spectrum of medical/surgical clinical inpatient settings aimed at preparing them for what they will encounter in the field. It also allows nurses to hone skills needed for base hospitals and clinics.” This program will allow the Air Force to capitalize on the communities standards and provide positive influence or philanthropic value back to the community. I would be amiss if I did not discuss how the efforts of strategic communications are helping the USAF in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to Air and Space Journal (2007) “The journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step, and a plan. Planners developed a campaign plan to establish a common sight picture to coordinate and synchronize their efforts” across all partners within the coalition. The essence of the plan is to “Build an Iraqi Air Force capable of conducting sustained operations, focused on the COIN fight in the near-term, in order to defeat terrorism and create a stable environment, while setting the conditions for achieving air sovereignty.” This concept is not new, and has been around since the beginning of the occupation; however it is now meeting with the strategic communicators who are selling this plan to the law makers and the governments of the many provinces within Iraq and Afghanistan. By identifying and developing communications opportunities within these coalition forces and partnerships we can effectively stem the tide of public opinion and socially and ethically withdraw our forces from these occupations. If you place the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan up against those of Germany it hasn’t even been one-tenth of the time we have spent in Europe as a matter of fact, I know we are still there, although we are no longer an occupational force since the wall fell. As outlined, strategic communications can be instrumental to crisis management situations.

Wow, what a journey we have been on. Throughout this paper I have attempted to describe strategic communications by explaining its definition both in the military arena as well as being a corporate or institutional means to create, strengthen or preserve the organizational goals as received by the audience. I further described how understanding strategic communications can have a great ethical impact upon the audience and requires great care and consideration when determining who are the stakeholders and what are their stakes. I further described how the Defense Science Board (2004) stated that “Strategic communication requires a sophisticated method that maps perceptions and influence networks, identifies policy priorities, … employs relevant channels, leverages new strategic and tactical dynamics, and monitors success.” As a military force in the service of the government and the people to whom they serve, it is the Department of Defense’s responsibility to practice corporate social responsibility when it employs the strategic communications arm of defense. We impose organizational ethical principles upon our personnel, all are sworn to uphold and defend our great nation with respect to their position and authority. Our continued ability to strategically direct our advisories away from an intended targets and even our allies towards common goals is a relevant ethical dilemma that we are faced with in this world of globalization and easily accessible mass media outlets.

I continued by describing how the USAF is utilizing the strategic communications process to improve intra service relationships from different commands to aim our achievements toward the ultimate goals of the USAF. (2008) to “FLY, FIGHT AND WIN ...IN AIR, SPACE AND CYBERSPACE.” I further discussed how important it is to involve our coalition partners especially in support of our current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are developing a multinational plan together with our partners utilizing the tenants of Air Power and strategic communications to define the way ahead today and tomorrow. We ultimately cannot achieve withdrawal without first achieving victory in the realm of public opinion.

Oh what a great concept, Strategic Communications could potentially provide the road map to success and Corporate Social Responsibility if ethically employed by the public affairs arms of our corporations and governments.

Bibliography/Reference

Defense Science Board (2004). Office of the Under Secretary of Defense For Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (September 2004). “Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Strategic Communication”

O’Malley, P. (1996). Retrieved on 20 October 2008 from http://www.omalco.com/iabc.htm

USAF. (2008). Air Force Key Talking Points

Carroll, A. B. & Buchholtz, A. K. (2008). “Business & Society Ethics and Stakeholder Management” 45, 220-222

Frangipane, M. (2008). AF partners with Ohio hospital to ready nurses for deployment 88th Air Base Wing Public Affairs: retrieved from http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123120159

Air & Space Power Journal - Winter 2007. (2007). The Coalition Air Force Transition Team retrieved from http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj07/win07/allardice.html

Strategic Communications World Wide Web site (2007). Retrieved on 20 October 2008 from http://www.strategiccomm.com/

Feulner, E. J., Dale, H. C., Graffy, C., Doran, M., Duffey, J., & Blankley, T (March 14, 2008). “Public Diplomacy: Reinvigorating America's Strategic Communications Policy”, Heritage Lecture #1065, retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/hl1065.cfm