Before making propositions, this team looked at the theoretical framework
guiding this research. For research purposes compliance gaining,
agenda-setting, and diffusion of innovations were to help meet theoretical
objectives of this research.
Of the 16 strategies, this team chose, promising, threatening and expertise as strategies to try to persuade military leaders to better utilize their public affairs officers. The intent of this paper is to educate leaders on the utility of public affairs. If leaders begin to include public affairs in the planning of operations, their reward will come in the form of a more successful public affairs mission. Fink (1986) wrote a crisis is a turning point with a degree of risk and uncertainty with at least half a chance of the outcome being negative. If public affairs practitioners are part of the operational planning, they would be in a much better position to produce and implement a crisis communication plan should the need arise. Afterall, the best time to prepare for a crisis is when there is none (Fink, 1986).
Should leaders continue to ignore the importance of public affairs in their operations planning, this team fears an imminent risk of poor public affairs performance lies ahead. How can public affairs officers adequately field questions if they are uninformed? Should public affairs even be fielding questions about what the military is doing? Department of Defense Directive 5122.5 (1996) states public affairs is vital and established the position of Assistant Secretary of Defense Public Affairs. One of the responsibilities for the ASD PA is not only to ensure a “free flow of news and information” to the press, American public and Armed Forces internal audiences, but also to develop policies and plans that will support Department of Defense objectives and operations (http://web7.whs.osd.mil/text/d51224p.txt). To further persuade servicemembers to better utilize public affairs, this team also looked at the Agenda-setting Theory.