Career experiences of women in British public relations (1970–1989)

Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 156–165

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

Career experiences of women in British public relations (1970–1989) Heather M.L. Yaxley ∗ The Media School, Bournemouth University, UK

a r t i c l e Keywords: Public relations Women Britain 1970s, 1980s Careers Agentic self-efficacy Change agent Personal agency

i n f o

a b s t r a c t This study foregrounds career experiences of women working in public relations in Britain during the 1970s and 1980s, a time when female employment in the field increased tenfold. Descriptive oral history interviews with seven women identified a post-facto connection with initial opportunistic experiences of public relations described universally as ‘exciting’. Despite a lack of purposeful career direction, interviewees evidenced agentic self-efficacy, not typically expected from women. Male and female role models acted as proxy agents influencing career advancement, however, the women did not act as change agents for younger female practitioners; indeed they were critical of subsequent generations. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction This paper aims to contribute towards historical knowledge of public relations by exploring the career experiences of women working in the field in Britain during a time when female employment in the field underwent notable growth. Histories of public relations have largely omitted female experiences (Cutlip, 1994; Creedon, 2004), with research into their historical role focused on the U.S. (Gower, 2001; Horsley, 2009; O’Neil, 1999; Patterson, 2009) including biographies of a few prominent women (Henry, 1998, 2012; Martinelli & Toth, 2010; Miller, 1997). One of these, Fleischman (1928) noted, in respect of careers in public relations, the “ultimate possibilities for women lie in the future” (p. 385). This prediction came true, as evidenced by the “trend towards women’s greater representation in public relations” “that began early in the post-World War II period” (Donato, 1990, p. 129). However, L’Etang (2006) states, “trying to recapture something of the her-story of public relations in Britain is a challenge” (p. 162). The development of public relations in Britain was largely unstudied until L’Etang’s extensive consideration of its professionalisation in 2004. She observed public relations in Britain was a patriarchal industry in the 1940s and 1950s where women tended to be excluded from “fast career progression” (L’Etang, 2006, p. 163). Traditionally women were not expected to follow a career path, until social changes emerging in the 1970s encouraged greater life choices (Gallos, 1989). Summerfield (1994) cites data showing women accounted for one-third of those in employment in the U.K. in 1961, increasing to twofifths by 1981; primarily accounted for by married women undertaking part-time work in low paid occupations. This reflects a view that “historically working women have jobs rather than careers” (Obelkevich & Catterall, 1994, p. 3). Within British public relations, surveys undertaken by the Institute of Public Relations (IPR) suggest women’s presence was considerably below this level, accounting for 12% of membership in 1975 and 20.8% by 1987. Within a growing field, the number of female practitioners increased from around 400 to at least 4000 during the 1970s and 1980s. Today, women

∗ Corresponding author at: The Media School, Bournemouth University, Weymouth House, Talbot Campus, Poole, Dorset, BH12 5BB, UK. Tel.: +44 1722 711295. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] 0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.03.009

H.M.L. Yaxley / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 156–165

157

comprise two-thirds of the estimated 61,600 British public relations practitioners (Gorkana Group, 2011), although no research has considered the historical career experiences contributing towards this increased representation. Despite a long history of career studies, Gallos (1989, p.110) notes: “theories have been largely built on male models of success and work”. Marshall (1989) argues against career assumptions based on a traditional male, sequential hierarchical model, with Cline (1989) making a similar criticism in relation to the emphasis in public relations theory of the desirability of achieving managerial status. However, knowledge of changing career paths is in its early stages (Valcour, Bailyn & Quijada, 2007) and there is little understanding of the reality of “how careers are actually played out” (Schein, 2007, p. 575); indeed, literature in respect of work in public relations has been criticised for “widely ignoring career development factors” (Wolf, 2006, p. 175). In response, this study sets out to foreground the career experiences of women working in public relations in Britain during the 1970s and 1980s, a period of historical interest owing to the significant growth of female employment in the occupation at the time. A life history approach is taken to focus on how individuals consider their actions over time (Musson, 2004), within the context of a particular period of social change. Narrative theory underpins this study offering a framework for understanding career experiences (Bujold, 2004) as people create stories in enacting their careers (Arthur, Inkson, & Pringle, 1999). It provides a way of considering the holistic “tapestry of meanings” (Collin, 2007, p.560) when conceptualising “how people experience their lives and how they express that experience as a career”.

2. Literature review From a U.S. perspective, Creedon (2004, p.224) argues “women’s interest in public relations careers grew” from the 1950s and into the 1960s. The contribution of women to U.S. public relations from the 1940s to 1970s has been researched by Gower (2001) and Horsley (2009), who observed initial optimism and acceptance in industry publications regarding women’s role within the occupation in the 1940s, being replaced by derogatory remarks in the mid-1950s (including reference to them as “cheesecake”, i.e. peripheral; p.103) and omission of their contribution by the end of the decade. Nevertheless, Gower (2001) noted women entering the field in the U.S. during the 1960s had positive feelings about their future as a result of perceived feminine aptitude for the occupation. She felt this reflected a generational shift that may account for subsequent domination of women in public relations. Another shift appears in relation to routes into public relations. Horsley (2009) suggested women entered public relations in the U.S. via journalism in the 1940s, gradually assuming positions that required “more skill and independent work” (p. 110) increasingly in agencies and consultancies. Although Gower (2001) noted women took varied routes into the occupation, she suggested it was easier for them to succeed by opening their own business, or by focusing on targeting women as a public. By the mid-1960s, women in public relations in the U.S. were being advised to learn secretarial skills and complaints regarding gender inequity were increasingly reported, despite women’s greater presence in senior roles (Gower, 2001). Thirty years later, Mathews (1998) reported similar concerns, emphasising in particular a lack of focus on career paths for women in public relations in the U.S. and Britain. Despite interest in the U.S. of the implications of an increasing number of women entering public relations, which led to the “Velvet Ghetto Study” commissioned by the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) in 1984 (Cline, 1989), there were no comparative studies researching the female experiences in Britain. One newspaper interview by Collier (1957) of British female public relations consultants described them as “chromium-plated, brightly smiling women, non-stop smokers and talkers about business ethics, about soap-powders and public service”. Another article, published in Women & Beauty magazine in 1959, stated, “being a public relations officer is fun and varied – just the career for an ambitious girl!” (p. 33), emphasising “she will probably work in the field of fashion, beauty, household and charity enterprises”. L’Etang (2004) confirmed this driver of women into the occupation in Britain during the 1960s and 1970s, observing, “the growth of consumer markets in which, it was felt at the time, women would naturally be more expert” (p. 257). Feminine aptitude for the occupation in Britain seems associated closely to understanding other women as consumers. U.S. studies report women at the time were engaged primarily as communication technicians rather than in management roles (Broom, 1982) as a result of social expectations (Toth & Grunig, 1993). These may reflect a gendered nature of public relations work, which has been identified as emotional labour (Hochschild, 2003; Yeomans, 2007) in relation to expectations of how women in public relations should present themselves. Fröhlich (2004, p.8) identifies this as a “friendliness trap”, whereby the interpersonal attributes women use when entering the occupation “could prove to be a disadvantage at some later point in their career”. The employment of women in public relations in Britain lagged behind the U.S., where Broom (1982) reported women accounted for 10% of practitioners in 1968, 14% in 1970 and 27% in 1982. Toth and Grunig (1993) observed women working in U.S. public relations were the majority (58.6%) by 1989. Surveys undertaken by the British Institute of Public Relations (IPR) indicated women accounted for 12% of its membership in 1975, increasing to 20.8% in 1987, 40% in 1991, 44% in 1994 and 47.8% in 1998. Although the “gender shift” (Fröhlich & Peters, 2007, p.229) to females dominating employment in the occupation did not occur in Britain until the 21st century, the 1970s and 1980s saw women enter the male dominated field in greater numbers. Moloney (2000) cites an estimated 4000 people worked in public relations at the start of the 1960s. Figures in IPR membership handbooks claim 10,000 people were employed in public relations in 1986, and 35,000 in 1989 (including 15,000 in support roles). Regardless of the accuracy of these figures, they indicate this was a period of notable

158

H.M.L. Yaxley / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 156–165

growth for the occupation, with the number of female practitioners increasing tenfold from around 400 to at least 4000 during the 1970s and 1980s. Factors favouring women’s employment and career advancement in the 1970s include the impact of second wave feminism (Henig & Henig, 2001), which focused on gender equality (Coleman, 2009). From a U.K. perspective, critical incidents include “three major pieces of legislation designed to improve the situation of working women” (Morris & Nott, 1991, p. 69): the Equal Pay Act in 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act in 1975, and the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act in 1978, which were followed by the election of Britain‘s first female prime minister in 1979 (McDougall, 1998). Summerfield (1994) cites data showing women accounted for one-third of those in employment in the U.K. in 1961, increasing to two-fifths by 1981; primarily accounted for by married women undertaking part-time work in low paid occupations. She recounts how attitudes towards women workers changed during this period with emphasis on recruiting talent to promote economic growth and opening up opportunities for females to participate in higher education, which has been cited as an important aspect of gender differentiation in work (Wickham, 1982) and career success (Sweet & Meiksins, 2008). Hakim (2004) noted a significant change in the working experiences of women in the 1970s and 1980s, with greater representation except at senior levels within organisations and in traditional male occupations (such as construction and transportation). Nevertheless, literature from the U.S. suggests many barriers faced women seeking to develop a career in public relations. These include role (Dozier & Broom, 1995) and vertical (Crompton, 1997) segregation, gender inequities (Wrigley, 2010), the concept of a ‘glass ceiling’ (Wrigley, 2002), the role of male mentors (Tam et al., 1995) and societal and organisational constraints (Hynes Huberlie, 1997). Toth and Grunig (1993) undertook quantitative research regarding the gender shift in U.S. public relations, but qualitative experiences during this period have not been explored to any depth, and there has been little historical consideration of the careers of women working in public relations in Britain. L’Etang (2004) included 13 women in her oral history interviews; out of 67 subjects selected for their age or “importance or renown in the field” (p. 256). Her history of professional practice (2006) listed some prominent women working in British public relations in the 1940s and 1950s, with brief career histories provided for a few, such as Joyce Blow who graduated in classics and history and recounted frustrations in developing her career. Collier (1957) did not name any of the British women described in her brief newspaper article, although one may be presumed to be Mrs Gina Franklin, managing director of Link Information Services, Ltd., a 40-strong, all female agency (De Vita, 2006). In an interview for Advertiser’s Weekly (1958) Franklin shared her experiences of meeting fellow women practitioners on a visit to New York. Later she became the first president of the Association of Women in Public Relations (AWPR) formed in 1962 with a membership limited to 30, which sought to “help advance woman in PR, increase knowledge and elevate professional standards within the field, provide opportunities for discussions of mutual PR problems, and establish contact with executive PR women from other nations” (Public Relations News, 1961). L’Etang (2006) observes AWPR reflected a networking culture for senior women practitioners rather than evidencing a feminist development in the field. Other women sought office in the IPR, which was open to both sexes. Founded in 1948, Margaret Nally became its first female president in 1975, with Nora Owen appointed as the second in 1981 and Carol Friend the third in 1986 (CIPR, 2012). L’Etang (2006) outlines Nally’s path into public relations came via experience as a wartime radio mechanic, freelance journalism and secretarial work, whilst Owen had worked in fashion journalism. Friend (Walker, 2010) graduated in business studies and French before working for Air France and moving into PR first for a property developer and then in consultancy, co-founding PIELLE Consulting Group in 1980. More detailed narratives of female career experiences are lacking although L’Etang (2006, p. 163) reports women felt excluded from leading the occupation as public relations was “non-progressive”. At the start of the 1970s Allen (1971) noted public relations “has proliferated over the past decade”. This paper sets out to examine the narrative career experiences of women from this time when social changes were opening up new career opportunities for them and a tenfold increase in their number marked the beginning of public relations in Britain as an increasingly “gendered field” (Aldoory & Toth, 2002, p. 103). It also considers how “depictions of women may not reflect the reality of their experiences” (Grunig, 2000, p. 92) and looks at how those entering public relations may be active agents in their own career life stories. The concept of entrepreneurial and opportunistic agency was evident in the career paths of the early male pioneers and senior executives highlighted in public relations literature (Yaxley, 2012). Grunig (2000, p. 90) reports “agency is associated with individualism”, arguing it is an important consideration in “appreciating women’s actions” (p. 91), although she sees this within the context of interpersonal agency, whereby women operate in a communal rather than an individualistic manner. This distinction, proposed by psychologist Bakan (1966), is cited in career literature where Marshall (1989) considers agency as reflecting a more independent, assertive strategy in contrast to communion, which co-operative and adaptive. Bandura (2001) distinguishes between personal, proxy, and collective agency, the former involving self-efficacy, the belief in one’s own ability to execute a behaviour (Bandura, 1977), which White et al. (1992) claimed can be inferred in the careers of women who achieve managerial roles. However, Bandura (2002, p. 279) contends a “gendered patterning of perceived occupational efficacy” negatively impacts women who pursue careers traditionally occupied by men. This may have been the case for females entering public relations in Britain in the 1970s and 1980s, which was male-dominated at that time. Their career experiences may therefore, have involved proxy agency, “the competence, power, and favours of others” (Bandura, 2001, p. 13) or collective agency by “acting conjointly” with members of a group. Changing the nature of work and opportunity may result from individual activities or require collective efforts “to influence employment and trade practices” (Sweet & Meiksins, 2008, p. 173). Grunig (2000, p. 92) suggests women employ politicised interpersonal agency, in creating co-operative relationships, both to “get in”, and “get on”, in the public relations field. It is not clear whether

H.M.L. Yaxley / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 156–165

159

women who entered public relations at the start of the trend towards female dominance of the occupation acted as agents of change (Colgan & Ledwith, 1996) in establishing such relationships and opening up career opportunities for younger female practitioners. Clearly, literature suggests a number of benefits in exploring the experiences of women who started their careers in public relations in Britain in the 1970s and 1980s, which have not been researched to date. 3. Methodology This study reflects a “straightforward definition of a career is synonymous with the work-life history of an individual” (Mitch, Brown, & van Leeuwen, 2004 p. 5) seeking to capture subjective career experiences, which Khapova, Arthur, & Wilderom (2007) define as “the individual’s own interpretation of his or her career situation at any given time” (p. 115). It is not concerned with whether or not individuals experience “a succession of related jobs arranged in a hierarchy of prestige, through which persons move in an ordered (more or less predictable) sequence” (Wilensky, 1961, cited Arthur et al., 1999, p. 4) in order to explore how women customised their careers (Valcour et al., 2007) rather than impose a vertical progressive model on their experiences (Sullivan & Crocitto, 2007). An interpretive approach (Daymon & Holloway, 2002) is taken reflecting a constructivist philosophy (Guba & Lincoln, 2005), which presumes individuals seek meaning and sense in their work-life history. Oral history interviews are undertaken to obtain rich descriptive accounts with the aim of informing knowledge of women’s careers in an era when male domination was being challenged. Fontana and Frey (2005) claim this approach is “seen as a way of understanding and bringing forth the history of women in a culture that has traditionally relied on masculine interpretation” (p. 709). Participants were identified through British public relations membership organisations with a snowball technique used, whereby “the sample emerges through a process of reference from one person to the next” (Denscombe, 2007, p. 17), to locate additional contacts. The sample avoided focusing on those of renown in the field in order to record the stories of women who may not have followed a traditional hierarchical career path. Seven women participated in the research. All began their career in public relations as young women in the 1970s meaning they are now aged in their sixties. The study did not seek detailed demographic information regarding the respondents’ ethnicity, social class or family circumstances, as the primary aspect under examination was their gendered career experience during the 1970s and 1980s. Where personal information was shared in the interview, this is considered, where relevant, within the recorded narrative. Telephone interviews were arranged with six participants, (in one case conducted by Skype; Hanna, 2012); with an additional respondent providing a detailed emailed narrative, which reflected the structure obtained in the typed transcripts produced for all telephone interviews, which the researcher was able to take verbatim. The subjectivity of the researcher is recognised within the process of the interviews, her relationship with the participants and in recording their narrated career life-histories. A mindful approach is taken (Cousin, 2010) in acknowledging the experience and observations of the researcher, along with how the stories of the participants are represented. Details of the researcher’s own career in the field could be accessed readily online and with all participants a common understanding of working in public relations was either explicitly or implicitly stated. The method of analysis reflects a grounded approach (Charmaz, 2005) to seek understanding of participants’ interpretation and construction of their experiences in the context of emerging conceptual knowledge. Drawing on the literature, the research set out to address the following questions: 1. 2. 3. 4.

How did women develop careers in public relations in the 1970s and 1980s? What factors (drivers and barriers) affected opportunities for women’s advancement in public relations? Did the gendered nature of labour at the time affect women’s experiences of career development in public relations? Did women who worked in public relations in the 1970s and 1980s act as change agents in opening up career opportunities for younger female practitioners?

An interview guide was provided outlining the following areas of interest. These areas range from the personal to the more general, although the approach taken with participants was to invite them to tell their stories with minimal input from the researcher. In the interviews completed with all respondents, this enabled a continuous narrative to be told, allowing for a flow of ideas rather than specific answers to a prescribed series of questions. • Brief career biography in terms of dates, jobs and employers, including any experience prior to entering public relations. • Story of entry into public relations. • Insight into career experiences during the 1970s and/or 1980s, including identification of any critical incidents that influenced decisions made. • Thoughts on people who influenced career moves (positive or negative experiences). • Experiences of public relations at the time, including views on how women were treated and observations of change with more women entering the field. • Impact on subsequent generations.

160

H.M.L. Yaxley / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 156–165

Overall, participants covered each of the research areas although not necessarily in a linear order. Interviewees asked for confidentiality in reporting their experiences and this is respected by anonymity in discussing their work-life histories. The interview transcripts and emailed documentation were coded inductively on the basis of participants’ own words and connected to the research questions and concepts found in the literature. 4. Results and analysis 4.1. Exciting opportunism All of the women told of an opportunistic entry into public relations during the 1970s. Each continues to work within public relations, although some described their involvement today as strategic consultancy. Two respondents are employed in in-house roles; the other five work as consultants. The majority had changed employment several times during their career (working for up to ten different organisations), with one woman remaining with a single employer (although her role had changed over time). All participants now work in a management position having started their careers in a technical function. This suggests they had not experienced role (Dozier & Broom, 1995) or vertical (Crompton, 1997) segregation. Indeed, the concept of a ‘glass ceiling’ (Wrigley, 2002) was overtly mentioned and denied by several respondents, with others emphasising they had made their way without encountering any insurmountable barriers. Each of the women had worked at some point in traditional male sectors, including farming, politics, trade unions, finance, transport, manufacturing and heavy industry. This challenges the view (L’Etang, 2004) that traditionally women in public relations worked predominantly in female sectors. A variety of career starting points was recounted: teaching, secretarial/clerical work, journalism and publishing, each of which can be described as a communicative occupation. The connection to public relations was made post facto, echoing the observation of Broughton (1943) that those who were established in their careers in public relations by the 1940s “backed into the field, as it were, by accident, and sat down. Afterwards it seemed natural enough, and their preliminary experience seemed as though it created public relations opportunity later” (p. 77). Yaxley (2012) observed this as a common thread that could be traced to the origins of careers in the occupation, and it would appear to link through to the 1970s. Indeed, it reflects the researcher’s own experience in entering public relations at the end of the 1980s. The women described their move into public relations as occurring “by accident”, “chance”, “opportunity” or “a bit of a bluff”. Some had left school without knowing what they wanted to do; others were graduates (not in public relations which was not taught at undergraduate level in the U.K. until 1989; L’Etang, 2004). None of the women previously had a clear idea of what public relations involved, but each felt at home in the occupation. All respondents said entering public relations was “exciting”. Other terms connected with their initial experiences were “great”, “loved it”, “friendly”, “a good thing”, “terrific”, “glamorous”, “lucky”, “pure serendipity”, “I had a ball”. Nothing negative was associated with their entry into the field. These experiences contrast with Bowen’s observation (2003) among undergraduates who were surprised to find public relations was not as glamorous as they expected. In the 1970s, with no preconceptions, public relations work was universally felt by the women in this study to be an exciting occupation. 4.2. Agentic self-efficiacy None of the women described a planned series of job moves; indeed, one commented, “I wasn’t looking for a long-term PR career – not many of my peers had a long-term master plan and the job market was buoyant”. Despite their lack of purposeful career direction, the women reflected agentic self-efficacy, which “may be defined as individuals’ judgements of their capability to be assertive in the protection of their rights, to persist in the pursuit of their goals, and to change their situation to achieve a better fit with interests, aspirations and expectations” (Sadri, 1996, p. 62). This is unexpected as Sadri (1996, p. 62) cites ’ socialization experiences of women lead to lower self-efficacy expectations with respect to a range of career-related pursuits”. One respondent recounted, “I think an awful lot of one’s career is about being in the right place at the right time”; a role Cline (1989, p. 273) criticises as a “passive” and “more typical of women”. However, this interviewee demonstrated agentic self-efficacy in the narrative of her career decisions. For example, she said, “I woke up one day and didn’t think I’d been to University – that my mother and father had scrimped and saved – for me to promote toilet cleaner, so I decided to move”. She also recalled declining an opportunity for which she had been headhunted. The stories that evidence the decision-making behind the participants’ career moves reflect personal agency (Bandura, 2001) whereby “in the modern workplace, workers have to take charge of their self-development for a variety of positions and careers over the full course of their worklife” (p. 11). In addition to seeking new opportunities on a pro-active basis, participants recounted they had been given additional responsibility, promoted and headhunted. Specific incidents were told where the women acted assertively to “jump in at the deep end”, “step up further”, “be feisty” and argue their case for pay equality. Two of the women described critical incidents (Chell, 2004) relating to gender inequalities; which one stated she resolved by “being assertive and not emotional”. This respondent said she “had to fight really hard to be paid the same as my predecessor who was male, not a graduate and not, I was told, as good at the job as I was”. Salary discrepancy is found in historic U.K. data (IPR, 1975) that indicate men were paid on average 40% more than women. In the U.S., Cline (1989) termed the issue “a million-dollar penalty for being a woman”, and a gender salary gap remains evident in U.K. practice today

H.M.L. Yaxley / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 156–165

161

(Gorkana Group, 2011). However, the second incident involved a female graduate press officer being given more holiday allowance than a non-graduate male colleague. The participant, who worked in the same department, argued, “It was wrong. We would have stood up if it was the other way round, but not sure if it would have changed then”. This indicates some collective agency, although not specifically in advancing the careers of other women. 4.3. Career influencers – role models and chauvinism In considering career influencers, the study identified examples of what Bandura (2001) describes as “proxy agency that relies on others to act on one’s behest to secure desired outcomes, and collective agency exercised through socially coordinative and interdependent effort” (p. 1). Singh, Ragins, & Tharenou (2009) identify mentoring as an influence on career success. Although one respondent was adamant that the idea was “namby pamby” and that “if you want to get on you will. . . it is all done on competency. Those who succeed do so on merit”, she credited a number of “robust, demanding, absolutely terrific, exciting, bright, clever, energetic people” who inspired her as role models. Several participants identified women already successful in public relations as informal mentors (Eby, Rhodes, & Allen, 2011). One described “the strongest and most wonderful role model – I would still hold her up as someone pioneering; I loved her”. Another reflecting on a former colleague said, “I saw women could get to the top and was lucky to see women doing an excellent job”. However, one interviewee related how she was headhunted by a “woman who was what I’d wanted to be, but when I had the opportunity, I decided that I didn’t want to do it as I’d lost faith in the agency world. I felt it had become a flippant practice only interested in promoting media coverage; it was too superficial”. At least one male colleague was considered as influential by all of the women. One said she had left a job when her male mentors had moved on, praising how they had “thrown me in at the deep end; allowed me to sink or swim, but always caught me”. She reported other bosses who “made work more difficult” and consequently led her to look for new opportunities. Others told of chauvinistic managers, some of whom aided their career progress and others who had to be persuaded. For one woman, standing up to a male boss gave her confidence: “inadvertently he helped make me more assertive – if you didn’t shout back, you didn’t get heard”. Most of the women narrated experiences of working in traditionally male environments, which were “sexist up to a point but very friendly”. The existence of an “old boys’ network” was mentioned, although being a woman in a man’s world was primarily seen as an opportunity to learn; “I was treated with respect and as a novelty”, explained one participant. Another concurred, “The men when I started were still old school gentlemen who treated me fantastically with respect”. One respondent said she experienced “no barriers in being a woman” and found male colleagues to be “supportive”; although she did reflect, “I may have been lucky”. Another told of a boss who was “tough – he scared the living daylights out of everyone, but I wasn’t deterred by this”. She concluded by saying this job gave her a “good grounding” that she relied on today. In one job, a respondent spoke about working for “misogynist, 50–60 year old, Knightsbridge/Sloan Square type gentlemen” who saw her as “a PR girl”, but she concluded, “It was a very enlightening, marvellous time”. Similarly, one woman talked of a boss who “took me out to lunch and I learned about wine – absorbed life things”, another explained how her bosses “made sure I mingled with people”. One respondent had a less positive story. She worked for an organisation in the north of England during the 1980s, which was “a real man’s world”. She recalled experiencing “constant bullying” and men who “tried to undermine my every move”. Nevertheless, she recounted this experience as one of overcoming obstacles. Previously she had worked in another traditionally male industry, which was a “world of G&Ts and long lunches, boozy events” for a boss who was a “lovely guy”. This respondent was the only one to mention having a child. She did not present motherhood as a barrier, but did recount being asked at an interview whether she intended to have further children: “as it wouldn’t be very convenient for us in a top job like this”. Her response was presented as, “I said I was not prepared to answer and was told I was risking being turned down in that case. I took the risk”, concluding, “I was appointed and survived for 20 years”. Partners and husbands, when mentioned, were universally portrayed as supportive and influential. In the early years of the respondents’ careers, the women’s decisions were often narrated in relation to their husbands’ careers, but this was never presented as a barrier. Although most of the women belonged to one or more professional network, they did not cite these as being supportive in their careers. One woman recalled, “a sense of collegiality” but had chosen not to join the women’s networks she was aware were emerging. Collective agency (Bandura, 2001) was expressed more in terms of working with other practitioners. One participant explained she and two other women were invited in the early 1970s to become the first female members of a newly formed public relations group. Although aware that they were asked to join to do secretarial tasks and noting, “we were taken for a ride”, she also said “we had so much fun. We enjoyed life. Feminism was not an issue and we just got on with the job”. 4.4. Surviving and thriving in a man’s world Yeomans (2010) identifies “emotional labour as a resource” (p. 9) within public relations, where female practitioners have to balance professional and social identities. Whilst recounting similar stories to the participants in Yeoman’s contemporary study (such as “taking on tasks that seemed menial or pointless”, p. 7), the experiences encountered in the 1970s and 1980s were not narrated as a form of emotional labour (Hochschild, 2003). The women did not express any sense of conflict in

162

H.M.L. Yaxley / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 156–165

undertaking gendered work, and did not report feeling they were playing a role or supressing their emotions. They did not object to being described as “a PR girl”, and used terms such as “ballsy” and “feisty” to describe themselves rather than to indicate a role they enacted. Several respondents related stories evidencing glamorous experiences. One promoted “luxury lifestyles”; travelling overseas, “looking after very wealthy people” and organising “social events with top echelons”. However, she said, “It was all strategic”. Another woman commented, “I found the best way to get respect was not to display female responses to challenging situations. I worked with people who had to persuade others. I had very good teachers – I watched and learned how to persuade”. She went onto to say that “You did have to be feisty, but I feel I’m like that naturally”. As with several other participants, this woman used the word “fight” when discussing her generation, which contrasts with the “warmth and social approachability” traditionally expected from female communicators (Fröhlich, 2004, p. 6). Whilst acknowledging the influence of equality legislation, respondents emphasised personal responsibility in career success. This suggests a liberal feminist perspective, which encourages women themselves to solve any problems they encounter (Grunig, Toth, & Hon, 2001). One woman stated: “I remember when someone opened a door for me and I said, thanks. Everyone stopped dead but I said I had bigger things to worry about. They were glad I wasn’t a feminist”. Another interviewee claimed, “I think women have an advantage if gifted in reading others and listening. Men go in as bulls in a china shop and we think more naturally. I didn’t use my female. . . I was quite attractive – but if people see you are confident, they will trust you and so I got over my nervousness and found a way through. I had great fun”. 4.5. Criticising the subsequent generations The study also explored whether women working in the 1970s and 1980s saw themselves as change agents (Colgan & Ledwith, 1996) in opening up career opportunities for younger female practitioners. One woman did identify herself as a “pioneer” who had “opened the door” to other women. But another said she was a “maverick”, with a third claiming, “I should think I’m a monster rather than a role model”. All of the participants commented on changes as a result of more women entering the field. One respondent recalled in the early 1980s “a whole lot of young girls getting into PR roles” who “ran around with Filofaxes and champagne glasses. They did us a disservice as the ones who’d done the hard graft. The Harriets and Charlottes were always about at night – always busy, but what were they doing? I doubt they were writing a press release – they seemed to be on the phone a lot”. Another woman said, “PR is a more girly job now”. In relation to her own generation, she reflected, “it was probably more of a struggle then. Women came in as a PA and got promoted”. She continued, “I’m not a trail blazer, but people have learned things working for me and moved on; gone to bigger and better things. I would like to think that by example people picked things up. Younger people don’t have the same attitude that they could be doing things wrong and could do better; they just want praise and approval all the time”. A further respondent commented that today “all this technology means people live in ivory towers and few build relationships”. Another felt “the next generation haven’t had to fight so hard. Maybe they don’t care as much – we were passionate to do the job as well as men”. One respondent observed, “PR became an easy option for rich women, well dolly birds, who held parties. I don’t think that is the situation now – the world is too tough”. She also said, “There’s nothing mystical about the career I’ve had. I like to think I have influenced others I’ve picked out that I felt were worthwhile”. Another woman said she was “proud to see my team develop. I had a rule about employing people who were better educated than me and I got some really superb people who taught me as much as I did them”. Although not expressed explicitly, criticism of the next generation may link to the claim by Fitch and Third (2010) that “the increase in women mapped onto and amplified pre-existing anxieties about both public relations’ claim to be a legitimate profession and the role and influence of public relations in organisational settings and corporate structures” (p. 6). The opportunistic, individualistic approach evident in attitudes towards younger practitioners, along with the lack of an apparent “gender awareness” or “feminist consciousness” (Colgan & Ledwith, 1996, p. 29) indicates the women this study were not influential change agents despite having experienced successful public relations careers. 5. Reflection and conclusions This was a limited study into the career experiences of women working in public relations in Britain in the 1970s and 1980s. It sought to explore and fill a gap in existing knowledge. While the women interviewed were not necessarily typical or representative of all those employed in the occupation during the period, their stories are valid evidence of particular experiences and indicate a common narrative with threads that link to the past and challenge perspectives in the literature regarding employment in public relations. It should be noted the women were identified primarily because they continue to work in the field, and this may suggest a level of self-efficacy and identification with public relations work that would not be found among those who left the occupation earlier in their careers. They also responded proactively to the researcher’s request for participation, indicating an interest in the topic. Further, the study relied on memory of lived experience, which is valued within oral history (Janesick, 2010), although it is also problematic (O’Donoghue, 2010). By their own admission, the participants were “feisty”, “ballsy” and “passionate to do the job as well as men”. They did not recognise a glass ceiling and had overcome barriers that may have impacted negatively on the careers of other lessdetermined women. Only one of the women mentioned having had a child, and although several did refer to partners or

H.M.L. Yaxley / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 156–165

163

husbands, family considerations were not presented as a barrier to career decisions. It is likely other women employed in public relations during the 1970s and 1980s did prioritise family over work and consequently their experiences would differ from those participating in this study. The researcher recognised elements of this study as continuing narrative threads identified in relation to those working in public relations in its formative years (Yaxley, 2012). These include the development of careers in an opportunistic and agentic manner, taking advantage of chance and making their own opportunities. Despite careers in public relations having existed for over fifty years by the 1970s, none of the women interviewed had a clear idea of what the occupation involved, but each felt at home. Making a personal connection to public relations post facto reflects another thread back through time (Yaxley, 2012). The women also universally identified their entry into the field as “exciting” with only positive connotations reported, which contrasts with 21st century entrants who find the occupation less glamorous than they expected (Bowen, 2003). A lack of purposeful career direction was evident, although the interviewees seemed to reflect agentic self-efficacy (Bandura, 2001), which is not expected typically from women (Sadri, 1996). Job opportunities were sought on a pro-active basis and respondents reported they had been given additional responsibility, promoted and headhunted. They recalled overcoming incidents of gender inequality, which indicates they were not passive (Cline, 1989) in their career decisions. Both female and male role models and mentors were identified as inspirational and influential proxy agents (Bandura, 2001) on women’s careers in public relations in the 1970s and 1980s. Chauvinistic male bosses were observed to have made women more assertive, with old-school attitudes viewed as respectful of women and providing an opportunity to learn. Rather than seeing experiences of gendered work as reflective of emotional labour (Hochschild, 2003), the women appeared to accept gendered work and not feel they were playing a role or supressing their emotions. This suggests a liberal feminist perspective (Grunig et al., 2001) emphasising personal responsibility in forging careers. Rather than evidencing a role as change agents (Colgan & Ledwith, 1996) in opening up career opportunities for younger female practitioners, the women interviewed were critical of subsequent generations, who were felt not to have had to “fight” for their opportunities. Nevertheless, several respondents felt they had influenced those they identified as worthy of their support, albeit not from a radical feminist position. In conclusion, in this study the narrative career life-story of women entering public relations in the 1970s and 1980s is one of an initial chance opportunity after working in another communicative occupation, followed by personal selfefficacy and proxy agency from role models as drivers in career advancement. Barriers, such as misogynistic colleagues and gender inequality, were overcome by personal agency, which was also applied to gendered work experiences, and evident in criticisms of younger practitioners. This narrative provides some insight into the career experiences of women working in public relations during the 1970s and 1980s and contributes towards understanding of career development in the field. Implications of the study suggests that females in public relations may employ personal agency and self-efficacy in achieving career success; defined as “the positive psychological or work-related outcomes or achievements one has accumulated as a result of one’s work experiences” (Judge et al., 1994, p. 3).

References Advertiser’s Weekly. (1958). America, public relations – and women. Advertiser’s Weekly June, 20, 20. Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. (2002). Gender discrepancies in a gendered profession: A developing theory for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(2), 103–126. Allen, M. (1971). What price a good press officer? Publication unknown; article, Institute of Public Relations Archive, History of Advertising Trust, Beccles, England Accessed 31.05.2012. Arthur, M. B., Inkson, K., & Pringle, J. K. (1999). The new careers: Individual action and economic change. London: Sage. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. The Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology-An International Review-Psychologie Appliquee-Revue Internationale, 51(2), 269–290. Bowen, S. A. (2003). I thought it would be more glamorous: Preconceptions and misconceptions among students in the public relations principles course. Public Relations Review, 29, 199–214. Broom, G. M. (1982). A comparison of sex roles in public relations. Public Relations Review, 8(3), 17–22. Broughton, A. (1943). Careers in public relations: The new profession, E.P. Dutton and Company. Bujold, C. (2004). Constructing career through narrative. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(3), 470–484. Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded theory in the 21st century: Applications for advancing social justice studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research ((3rd ed.), pp. 507–535). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Chell, E. (2004). Critical incident technique. In C. Cassell, & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 45–60). London: Sage. CIPR (2012). Past Presidents Retrieved from: http://www.cipr.co.uk/content/about-us/people/past-presidents Cline, C. G. (1989). Public relations: The $1 million penalty for being a woman. In P. J. Creeden (Ed.), Women in mass communication: Challenging gender values (pp. 263–275). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Coleman, J. (2009). An introduction to feminisms in a postfeminist age. Women’s Studies Journal, 23(2), 3–13. Colgan, F. & Ledwith, S. (1996). Women as organisational change agents, In: Ledwith, S., & Colgan, F. (Eds.), Women in organizations: challenging gender politics. (pp. 1–43). London: Macmillan Press. Collier, K. (1957). Women in public relations – hard workers and hard spenders. Manchester Guardian, October 21. Collin, A. (2007). The meanings of career. In H. Gunz, & M. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of career studies (pp. 558–565). London: Sage. Cousin, G. (2010). Positioning positionality: The reflexive turn. In M. Savin-Badin, & H. M. Major (Eds.), New approaches to qualitative research: Wisdom and uncertainty (pp. 9–18). Abingdon: Routledge.

164

H.M.L. Yaxley / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 156–165

Creedon, P. J. (2004). From making PR macho to making PR feminist: The battle over values in a female-dominated field. In R. R. Rush, C. E. Oukrop, & P. J. Creedon (Eds.), Seeking equity for women in journalism and mass communication education: A 30-year update (pp. 223–312). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Crompton, R. (1997). Women & work in modern Britain. Oxford University Press. Cutlip, S. M. (1994). The unseen power: Public relations, a history. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Daymon, C., & Holloway, I. (2002). Qualitative research methods in public relations and marketing communications. London: Routledge. De Vita, M. (2006). The look of success. The Guardian, 23 September. Retrieved from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/sep/23/careers.work7 Denscombe, M. (2007). The good research guide. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press. Donato, K. M. (1990). Keepers of the corporate image: Women in public relations. In B. F. Reskin, & P. A. Roos (Eds.), Job queues, gender queues: Explaining women’s inroads into male occupations (pp. 129–144). Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Dozier, D. M., & Broom, G. M. (1995). Evolution of the manager role in public relations practice. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(3), 3–26. Eby, L. T., Rhodes, J. E., & Allen, T. D. (2011). Definition and evolution of mentoring. In T. D. Allen, & L. T. Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple perspectives approach (pp. 7–20). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Fitch, K. & Third, A. (2010). Working girls: Revisiting the gendering of public relations. PRism 7(4), Retrieved from: http://www.prismjournal.org Fleischman, D. (1928). An outline of careers for women: A practical guide to achievement, Doubleday, Doran and Company. Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research ((3rd ed.), pp. 695–727). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fröhlich, R. (2004). Obstacles for women’s future and career in public relations: Feminine and feminist values as a friendliness trap? Proceedings of the ANZAC conference. Fröhlich, R., & Peters, S. (2007). PR bunnies caught in the agency ghetto? Gender stereotypes organizational Factors, and women’s careers in PR agencies. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(3), 229–254. Gallos, J. V. (1989). Exploring women’s development: Implications for career theory, practice and research. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 110–132). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gorkana Group. (2011). 2011 PR Census. London: PR Week/PRCA. Gower, K. K. (2001). Rediscovering women in public relations: Women in the public relations journal, 1945–1970. Journalism History, 27, 14–21. Grunig, L. A. (2000). A feminist phase analysis of research on women in postmodern public relations. In D. Moss, D. Verˇciˇc, & G. Warnaby (Eds.), Perspectives on public relations research (pp. 89–120). London: Routledge. Grunig, L. A., Toth, E. L., & Hon, L. C. (2001). Women in public relations: How gender influencers practice. New York: The Guildford Press. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Pragmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbok of qualitative research ((3rd ed.), pp. 191–215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hakim, C. (2004). Key issues in women’s work: Female diversity and the polarisation of women’s employment. London: The GlassHouse Press. Hanna, P. (2012). Using Internet technologies (such as Skype) as a research medium: A research note. Qualitative Research, 12, 239–242. Henig, R. B., & Henig, S. (2001). Women and political power: Europe since 1945. London: Routledge. Henry, S. (1998). Dissonant notes of a retiring feminist: Doris E., Fleischman’s later years. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(1), 1–33. Henry, S. (2012). Anonymous in their own names: Doris E., Fleishman, Ruth Hale and Jane Grant. Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press. Hochschild, A. R. (2003). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press. Horsley, J. S. (2009). Women’s contributions to American public relations, 1940–1970. Journal of Communication Management, 13(2), 100–115. Hynes Huberlie, M. (1997). Women in public relations: How their career path decisions are shaping the future of the profession, Proceedings of the AEJMC convention. Institute of Public Relations. (1975). IPR salary survey. London: IPR. Institute of Public Relations. (1986). Handbook. London: IPR. Institute of Public Relations. (1989). Handbook. London: IPR. Institute of Public Relations. (1995). 1994 membership survey. London: IPR. Institute of Public Relations. (1999). 1998 membership survey. London: IPR. Janesick., V. J. (2010). Oral history for the qualitative researcher: Choreographing the story. New York: The Guildford Press. Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D., Jr. (1994). An empirical investigation of the predictors of executive career success, CAHRS Working Paper, #94-0. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University. Khapova, S. N., Arthur, M. B., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2007). The subjective career in the knowledge economy. In H. Gunz, & M. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of career studies (pp. 114–130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. L’Etang, J. (2004). Public relations in Britain: A history of professional practice in the 20th century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. L’Etang, J. (2006). Public relations as theatre: Key players in the evolution of British public relations. In J. L’Etang, & M. Pieczka (Eds.), Public relations: Critical debates and contemporary practice (pp. 143–166). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Marshall, J. (1989). Re-visioning career concepts. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 275–291). Cambridge University Press. Martinelli, D. & Toth, E. (2010). Lessons on the big idea and public relations: Reflections on the 50-year career of Charlotte Klein, Public Relations Journal, 4(1), Winter, Retrieved from: http://www.prsa.org Mathews, W. (1998). Women in PR: Progression or retrogression? Public relations review. Fall, 14(3), 24–28. McDougall, L. (1998). Westminster women. London: Random House. Miller, K. S. (1997). Woman, man, lady, horse: Jane Stewart, public relations executive, public relations review. Autumn, 23(3), 249–269. Mitch, D., Brown, J., & van Leeuwen, M. H. D. (2004). Origins of the modern career. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Moloney, K. (2000). Rethinking public relations: The spin and the substance. London: Routledge. Morris, A. E., & Nott, S. M. (1991). Working women and the law: Equality and discrimination in theory and practice. London: Routledge. Musson, G. (2004). Life histories. In C. Cassell, & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 34–44). London: Sage. Obelkevich, J., & Catterall, P. (1994). Introduction: understanding British society. In J. Obelkevich, & P. Catterall (Eds.), Understanding post-war British society (pp. 1–8). London: Routledge. O’Donoghue, T. (2010). Your qualitative research project: An introduction to interpretivist research in education. Abingdon: Routledge. O’Neil, J. (1999). Positioning women as outsiders within the public relations profession, AEJMC conference papers. Patterson, S.A. (2009). Examining the role of women in the development of public relations, Public Relations Journal, 3(1) Winter, Retrieved from: http://www.prsa.org Public Relations News (1961). Public Relations News, XVIII(45). Sadri, G. (1996). A study of agentic self-efficacy and agentic competence across Britain and the USA. Journal of Management Development, 15(1), 51–61. Schein, E. (2007). Afterword: Career research – some issues and dilemmas. In H. Gunz, & M. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of career studies (pp. 573–576). London: Sage. Singh, A., Ragins, B. R., & Tharenou, P. (2009). What matters most? The relative role of mentoring and career capital in career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 56–67. Sullivan, S. E., & Crocitto, M. (2007). The developmental theories: A critical examination of their continuing impact on careers research. In H. Gunz, & M. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of career studies (pp. 283–309). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Summerfield., P. (1994). Women in Britain since 1945: Companionate marriage and the double burden. In J. Obelkevich, & P. Catterall (Eds.), Understanding post-war British society (pp. 58–73). London: Routledge.

H.M.L. Yaxley / Public Relations Review 39 (2013) 156–165

165

Sweet, S., & Meiksins, P. (2008). Changing contours of work: Jobs and opportunities in the new economy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Tam, S. Y., Dozier, D. M., Lauzen, M. M., & Real, M. R. (1995). The impact of superior-subordinate gender on the career advancement of public relations practitioners. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(4), 259–272. Toth, E. L., & Grunig, L. A. (1993). The missing story of women in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5(3), 153–175. Valcour, M., Bailyn, L., & Quijada, M. A. (2007). Customised careers. In H. Gunz, & M. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of career studies (pp. 188–210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Walker, P. (2010). Obituary: Carol Friend. 21 April. Retrieved from: http://www.cipr.co.uk/content/news-opinion/features/pr-people/636/obituary-carolfriend White, B., Cox, C., & Cooper, C. L. (1992). Women’s career development: A study of high flyers. Oxford: Blackwell. Wickham, A. (1982). The state and training programmes for women. In E. Whitelegg, M. Arnot, E. Bartels, V. Beechey, L. Birke, S. Himmelweit, D. Leonard, S. Ruehl, & M. A. Speakman (Eds.), The changing experience of women (pp. 147–163). Oxford: Martin Robertson. Wilensky, H. L. (1961). Orderly careers and social participation: The impact of social integration in the middle class. American Sociological Review, 26, 521–539. Wolf, K. (2006). PR career progression? The gap between traditional research and the U.K industry’s perception. Journal of Communication Management, 10(2), 174–190. Women & Beauty, (1959). Careers: Ideas for sale, Woman & Beauty, March, 33. Wrigley, B. J. (2002). Glass ceiling? What glass ceiling? A qualitative study of how women view public relations and management. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(1), 27–55. Wrigley, B. J. (2010). inist scholarship and its contributions to public relations. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of public relations (pp. 247–260). London: Sage. Yaxley, H. M. L. (2012). Exploring the origins of careers in public relations. Public Relations Review, 38, 399–407. Yeomans, L. (2007). Emotion in public relations: A neglected phenomenon. Journal of Communication Management, 11(3), 174–190. Yeomans, L. (2010). Soft Sell? Gendered experience of emotional labour in U.K. public relations firms. PRism, 7(4), Retrieved from: http://www.prismjournal.org