LU 5 - Communication Management

Question 1

Give and overview of Communication, Public Relations and effective organisations.

Answer 1

Throughout the world, but especially in Western democracies, thousands and perhaps millions of people perform communication duties for organizations. They counsel managers, manage communication programs, write, edit, design publications, produce videotapes, do research, communicate interpersonally, and perform many similar tasks. Although these tasks may seem commonplace, three important questions seldom are asked about them:

1. When and why are the efforts of communication practitioners effective?
2. How do organizations benefit from effective public relations?
3. Why do organizations practice public relations in different ways?

Although there is no shortage of opinions on these issues, the opinions differ widely and few of them are based on scientific research or sound theory. In fact, most communication scholars specializing in public relations would place these three questions among the great unresolved problems of social science.

The three questions are of great theoretical interest to researchers, but they may be of even greater practical concern to working public relations professionals. Practitioners must plan and defend public relations programs. Defending a communication program is a difficult task, however, when organizations often expect miracles from public relations and there is little theory to tell practitioners what to do, what effects are possible from organizational communication programs, and why.

The IABC Research Foundation saw the importance of these questions to the future of public relations and organizational communication when it sought research to answer the question: How, why, and to what extent does communication affect the achievement of organizational objectives? This “bottom-line question” is the focus of this book. The book is part of a long-term research project funded by the IABC Research Foundation to find answers to this question. The authors of chapters in the book are members of the research team conducting the IABC project. The project has two major stages-a theoretical and an empirical stage. This book is the product of the theoretical stage. Additional books and publications will report the results of the empirical stage.

Excellence in Public Relations and Communications Management resulted from a comprehensive literature review to support and refine a theory that is being tested empirically in the research phase of the project. Too often social scientists leap into the empirical stage of research without thoroughly studying the research and theorizing that has come before. Seldom, therefore, do those social scientists build a solid theory from the building blocks provided by other scholars.

We have searched the literature in communications, public relations, management, organizational psychology and sociology, social and cognitive psychology, feminist studies, political science, decision making, and culture to produce this book. The result is a theory of excellence and effectiveness in public relations that is based on research reviewed in this book. We believe that we have produced the first general theory of public relationsa theory that integrates the many theories and research results existing in the field. Yet this book is only the first stage in the development of the theory. The research team is testing and revising the theory through an international survey of over 300 organizations in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom and through additional qualitative research.

We may have a different theory when the research is completed. Science builds theory piece by piece. Seldom is a theory completely overturned. Rather it is shaped, revised, and improved to make it more useful for solving problems and directing human behavior-in this case directing the behavior of public relations practitioners and solving the problems they face. In this book, therefore, we offer the best answers we have to the three questions posed at the beginning of this chapter. This is what we know now: our hypotheses. After completing the research, we may know more or know it better, but this book represents our interpretation of what social science theory and research tell us today about the nature of effective organizational communication, excellent public relations departments, and the contribution that effective communication makes to successful organizations.

Question 2

explain the building blocks of the theory.

Answer 2

THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE THEORY

This book is organized in five major parts. The chapters in Parts I through V describe the building blocks that went into the development of the theory. In searching for these building blocks, we began with the question posed by the IABC Research Foundation: How does communication affect the achievement of organizational objectives? That question is the focus of Part I, which constructs the basic theory of effectiveness that connects the parts of our general theory of public relations. The central chapter of Part I, and perhaps of the book, is chapter 3, which discusses what it means for an organization to be effective and explains theoretically how effective public relations makes organizations more effective.

We learned quickly, however, that the one question posed by the IABC Research Foundation-the effectiveness question-was not enough. Thus, we added what we call the excellence question: How must public relations be practiced and the communication function be organized for it to contribute the most to organizational effectiveness. To answer the excellence question, we first had to determine how public relations should be managed for it to be effective in meeting public relations objectives. This is what we call the program level of analysis in Part I: the strategic management of individual communication programs.

We realized, also, that many organizations do not manage communication programs strategically and that these programs do not make their organizations more effective. Thus, we examined literature related to excellence in public relations management and for the organization as a whole. Peters and Waterman discovered that excellently managed corporations have characteristics in common that make them more successful than other organizations. The same is true for communication departments in organizations. Not all public relations programs are effective, only the excellent ones. And the excellent programs share characteristics that are suggested in the literature. We discuss these characteristics in Part II, which deals with the departmental level of the theory.

The program level tells us how effective public relations programs should be managed. The departmental level tells us the characteristics of departments that most often manage communication in this way. The problem that remained, however, was to determine the conditions that are associated with organizations that have excellent communication departments. The conditions that bring about excellent public relations are suggested by research on organizations and their environments, the organizational-level variables described in Part III.

The first three parts answer the “how” and “why” parts of the original question posed by the IABC Research Foundation: How and why does public relations affect the achievement of organizational objectives. In Part IV, we address the bottom-line question also posed in the request for proposal: how much effective communication is worth to an organization. Given this overview of how the four parts of the book are connected to one another in a coherent theory, we turn to definitions of public relations and communication and then to an overview of each part of the theory.

Question 3

explain some definitions.

Answer 3

Thus far in this chapter we have used the terms public relations, communication management, and organizational communication interchangeably. We have done so intentionally, recognizing that many practitioners will disagree with our definitions. Although public relations is probably the oldest concept used to describe the communication activities of organizations, many organizations now use such terms as business communication and public affairs to describe these activities-in part because of the negative connotations of public relations.

Many practitioners define communication more broadly than public relations. They see communication as the management of the organization’s communication functions. They see public relations as one of several more narrow functions, especially as publicity, promotion, media relations, or marketing support.

Others, in contrast, see public relations as the broader term and apply communication narrowly to techniques used to produce such products as press releases, publications, or audiovisual materials. Many in the latter school also see public relations as a policy-making function of organizations, which sometimes but not always uses communication techniques in making or announcing policy decisions. Often these practitioners use the term public affairs to broaden public relations to include the interaction with groups and government that leads to public policy.

Following Grunig and Hunt, we define public relations as the “management of communication between an organization and its publics.” This definition equates public relations and communication management. Public relations/communication management is broader than communication technique and broader than specialized public relations programs such as media relations or publicity. Public relations and communication management describe the overall planning, execution, and evaluation of an organization’s communication with both external and internal publicsgroups that affect the ability of an organization to meet its goals.

In that sense, public relations/communication management is also orga~ nizational communication, although we use that term in a broader sense than it has come to be used in the academic world. In the academic world, especially in departments of speech communication, organizational communication largely has been used to describe the communication of individuals inside organizations. That is, organizational communication describes how top managers, subordinates, middle-level managers, and other employees communicate with each other in an organization.

Scholars of organizational communication in that narrow sense often pay some attention to external communication, internal publications, and systems of communication among groups in organizations; but their major interest is in interpersonal communication among individual members of an organization. We define organizational communication/ public relations as communication managed by an organization, especially as communication managed for the organization by communication specialists. Organizational communication, therefore, may be either internal or external.

Finally, some practitioners argue that our definition of public relations/ organizational communication as managed communication excludes the role of public relations in counseling management and formulating public policy for an organization. They argue that public relations is more than communication.

We respond that public relations managers should be involved in decision making by the group of senior managers who control an organization, which we call the dominant coalition throughout this book. Although public relations managers often vote in policy decisions made by the dominant coalition, we argue that their specialized role in the process of making those decisions is as communicators.

Public relations managers who are part of the dominant coalition communicate the views of publics to other senior managers, and they must communicate with publics to be able to do so. They also communicate to other senior managers the likely consequences of policy decisions after communicating with publics affected by the potential policy.

The term public affairs, therefore, applies to fewer communication activities than does public relations/communication management. Public affairs applies to communication with government officials and other actors in the public policy arena. Not all public relations programs deal with public affairs-for example. marketing communication or employee communication.

Question 4

explain the basic theory.

Answer 4

Part I develops the overall assumptions about public relations and the theory of organizational effectiveness that provide the glue that integrates the parts of our general theory of public relations discussed in the remaining parts of the book. The question of organizational effectiveness is addressed directly in chapter 3. Chapters 2 and 4, however, are necessary components of the basic theory. Chapter 2 describes the worldview that encompasses our basic theory, and chapter 4 describes public relations as a management function-the type of function it must be to make organizations effective. In chapter 5, the practitioner member of our research team discusses the practical application of our general theory.

We begin the book with a chapter on worldview because we believe readers cannot understand the general theory we present unless they understand that worldview that provides boundaries for that theory. Readers with a different worldview of public relations~which many will have-will find what we say to be irrelevant or idealistic unless they first enlarge their worldview to understand ours, if not to accept it. Our general theory of public relations, then, begins with the glue of philosophical assumptions.

Question 5

Explain philosophical assumptions about public relations.

Answer 5

Public relations scholars and practitioners not only differ widely in how they define and describe public relations and organizational communication but also in the assumptions they hold about their purpose and effects. Some see the purpose of public relations as manipulation. Others see it as the dissemination of information, resolution of conflict, or promotion of understanding.

At one time. philosophers of science (as well as most other people) looked at a scientific theory as free of values. a neutral explanation of how a phenomenon such as public relations works that could be proven to be true or false. Theories, however, are used not just by public relations scholars, scientists, and other kinds of researchers. Public relations practitioners have them too, even though their theories may be specific to certain situations and based on intuition or experience rather than research. Practitioners have “working” theories, which –among other things-tell them what to do when an organization faces a communication problem and the strategy that will be most effective.

Like scientists, public relations practitioners would like to have evidence that their theories are “true” or “proven,” assurance that a given strategy will produce predictable results in a specific situation. Today, however, philosophers of science realize that theories are not value-free, that they cannot exist independently of the basic worldview of the people who develop or hold them.

A domain of scientific or scholarly inquiry, such as public relations, is held together not so much by agreement on theories as by agreement on the problems that theories used in the domain should solve. Public relations scholars and practitioners, for example, want to solve such problems as defining the contribution that communication makes to an organization, segmenting and targeting publics, isolating the effects of communication programs, gaining support of senior management for the communication function, understanding the roles and behaviors of public relations practitioners, identifying and managing issues, using communication to increase the satisfaction of employees, learning how public relations interacts with marketing, or defining how organizations should participate in the public affairs of a system of government.

Within the domain of public relations, as in any other domain, scholars and practitioners approach and attempt to solve these problems differently. They approach these problems differently because they apply different theories. Not all theories can be compared, though. Philosophers have identified two levels of theories, theories at the level of presuppositions and theories at the levels of laws or propositions.

The second level of theory, the laws or propositions, is familiar to most communication practitioners. Most are in the form of if-then statements. For example:

If an organization is credible, then it will be more persuasive when it communicates.

If a public is involved with the consequences of what an organization does, then it will communicate more actively with the organization.

If an organization is socially responsible, then it will meet less interference from government.

The first level, that of presuppositions, is less familiar to practitioners and scholars. Yet it is more important in understanding where theories come from and why there is conflict over them. Presuppositions define the worldview of scholars and practitioners. They are a priori assumptions about the nature of truth, of society, of right or wrong, or simply of how things work in the world.

The presuppositions that make up the worldview of scholars or practitioners cannot be measured or tested directly. Still they are extremely powerful. Presuppositions determine the priority that people give to problems in a domain. In addition, practitioners and scholars generally study and use theories only if they fit within the boundaries of their worldview.

Our literature review suggests that much of the practice of public relations has been built on a set of presuppositions that has made it less effective than it could be. has led to unrealistic expectations for organizational communication, and has limited its value to the organization it serves.

Presuppositions about public relations begin with its role in society. The first worldview is that of many practitioners who believe that public relations has no social role other than to help a client meet its objectives. This worldview can be described as the:

Pragmatic Social Role: Public relations is a useful practice, something that adds value to a client by helping to meet its objectives.

Practitioners with a pragmatic view of public relations usually see no need for codes of conduct or ethical standards because they may interfere with “getting results” for a client.

Some social scientists take what they consider to be an objective view of public relations: It is a neutral practice that is to be observed as an object of study:

Neutral Social Role: Public relations, like society itself, is a neutral object of study. Researchers can discover how practitioners view their social role and what their motivations are.

Other practitioners and scholars see public relations as a set 0f behaviours influenced by worldview. Two contrasting Presuppositions see public relations as an instrument for maintaining or gaining power:

Conservative Social Role: Public relations maintains a system of privilege by defending the interests of the economically powerful

Radical Social Role: Public relations leads tO social improvement reform, and change.

The conservative and radical presuppositions assume that organizational communication can have powerful effects on society. They see public relations as a tool used in a war among opposing social groups. They are asymmetrical presuppositions. They assume that organizations and opposing groups use communication to persuade or manipulate publics, governments, or organizations for the benefit of the organization sponsoring the communication program and not for the benefit of the other group or of both. In the language of game theory, public relations based on asymmetrical presuppositions is a zero-sum game: One organization, group, or public gains and the other loses.

An alternative to this worldview, the idealistic view, is based on a set of symmetrical presuppositions. A symmetrical worldview sees public relations as a non-zero-sum game in which competing organizations or groups can both gain if they play the game right. Public relations is a tool by which organizations and competing groups in a pluralistic system interact to manage conflict for the benefit of all:

Idealistic Social Role: Public relations is a mechanism by which organizations and publics interact in a pluralistic system to manage their interdependence and conflict.

Although these presuppositions about the social role of organizational communication are couched in the language of external communication and the organization’s macrolevel role in society, they are equally applicable to internal communication and social relationships within an organization. Asymmetrical communication systems inside an organization generally are found in highly centralized organizations with authoritarian cultures and systems of management. Symmetrical communication systems are found in decentralized organizations with participatory systems of management-a relationship described in chapter 20.

The theory we develop in this book fits within the idealistic framework. We believe that public relations should be practiced to serve the public interest, to develop mutual understanding between organizations and their publics, and to contribute to informed debate about issues in society. In a sense, we also take the neutral view of public relations: It is an object that can be studied relatively objectively. But we also realize, as we point out in chapter 2, that an observer never can be free of his or her presuppositions. That is why we contrast our symmetrical, idealistic presuppositions with the asymmetrical presuppositions of the conservative and radical worldviews. In studying public relations in this book and in the larger [ABC project of which it is a part, then, we also have looked at public relations from the perspective of a final social role: Critical Social Role: Public relations or a communication system is part of a larger organizational or societal system. These systems are constructed, therefore they can be decomtmcted and reconstructed. Public relations scholars and practitioners can and should criticize public relations for poor ethics, negative social consequences, or ineffectiveness; and they should suggest changes to resolve those problems.

In adopting the critical social role, we do not accept public relations as it is currently practiced as ‘the way public relations is” or the way it must be practiced. If we did, a study of excellence would be meaningless. We look at public relations as a profession and a function in society as something that can be constantly improved.

Practitioners often do not understand or accept theories like ours because they work from a pragmatic or conservative worldview. We argue that practitioners with a pragmatic worldview have a set of asymmetrical presuppositions even though they do not realize it. They take an asymmetrical view, usually a conservative one, because their clients hold that view.

We hope to make the case for our symmetrical presuppositions pragmatically as well as philosophically. Our research suggests that external communication programs and internal communication systems based on symmetrical presuppositions characterize excellent public relations or communication departments. Philosophically, we believe that symmetrical public relations is more ethical and socially responsible than asymmetrical public relations because it manages conflict rather than wages war. But, pragmatically, our literature review shows that symmetrical communication programs also are successful more often than asymmetrical ones and contribute more to organizational effectiveness.

Asymmetrical presuppositions suggest that organizations can achieve powerful effects with communication. These effects seldom occur, however, and thus asymmetrical public relations programs usually fail. Symmetrical presuppositions suggest more realistic programs and effects. Symmetrical communication programs often succeed and make the organizations that Sponsor them more effective.

In addition to discussing the symmetry of public relations, chapter 2 discusses the role of gender in affecting worldview. It shows that the feminine worldview approximates the worldview we have developed better than the masculine worldview. We also discuss the common worldview that public relations is a technical function, which we believe must be enlarged to integrate the technical function of public relations into a broader managerial function. We conclude, therefore, that excellent public relations embodies a worldview that defines the communication function in organizations as synunetrical. idealistic and critical, and managerial.

Question 6

Explain organisational effectiveness.

Answer 6

Chapter 3 moves down from the level of worldview to develop a theory of why public relations-managed communication makes organizations more effective-the answer to our effectiveness research question and ti e second application of glue that holds the rest of our theory together.

Chapter 3 reviews theories of organizational effectiveness and concludes that managed interdependence is the major characteristic of successful organizations. The literature reviewed shows that organizations are effec tive when they attain their goals. However, goals must be appmpnate for the organization’s environment, or strategic constituencies (stakeholders and publics) within that environment will constrain the autonomy of the organization to meet its goals and achieve its mission.

Organizations strive for autonomy from the publics in their external or internal environment that limit their ability to pursue their goals. Organ’ zations also try to mobilize publics that support their goals and thus increase their autonomy. Having the autonomy to pursue their goals is important to organizations. because our literature review shows that effective organizations are able to choose appropriate goals for their environmental and cultural context and then achieve those goals.

Autonomy, however, is an idealized goal that no organization ever achieves completely. Thus, organizations work toward this idealized goal by managing their interdependence with publics that interact with the organi zation as it pursues its goals. Organizations plan public relations programs strategically, therefore, when they identify the publics that are most likely to limit or enhance their autonomy and design communication programs that help the organization manage its interdependence with these strategic publics. Public relations departments help the organization to manage their independence by building stable. open, and trusting relationships with strategic constituencies. Thus, the quality of these relationships is a key indicator of the long-term contribution that public relations makes to organizational effectiveness.

Strategic management, chapter 6 points out, is a primary characteristic of excellent public relations. Strategic management, therefore, provides the integrating link that connects our theory of excellence to level of public relations programs discussed in Part II.

Question 7

Explain the management level of public relations.

Answer 7

The integrating theory of public relations outlined in Part I. therefore, indicates that public relations must be a management function if it is to make organizations more effective. Chapter 4. therefore. sets forth a theory of levels of decision making in organizations and shows why public relations must be a function that operates at the highest levels in an organization for it to contribute to organizational effectiveness in the ways described in chapter 3.

Chapter 4 argues that excellent public relations departments contribute to decisions made by the dominant coalition of senior managers by providing information to that coalition about the environment of the organization, about the organization itself, and about the relationship between the organization and its environment. This chapter also proposes that excellent departments engage in environmental scanning, have access to the dominant coalition, and present information at an appropriate level of abstraction for different levels of management. The chapter concludes that organizations will be more likely to have excellent communication departments when they face a high level of environmental uncertainty.

Given this basic theory, the book then turns to the program level of communication management in Part 11: how the excellent public relations department should manage communication.

Question 8

Explain the program level: Effective planning of communication programs.

Answer 8

Part II of this book sets forth a normative theory, a theory that prescribes how to do public relations in an ideal situation, and contrasts that theory with our predictions of how public relations generally is practiced. We argue that excellent public relations departments will practice public relations in a way that is similar to our normative model, in contrast to the way that public relations is practiced in the typical, less excellent department.

Our normative model specifies that organizational communication should be practiced strategically-a type of communication management that Part I shows is necessary for public relations to make organizations more effective. An organization that practices public relations strategically develops programs to communicate with publics, both external and internal, that provide the greatest threats to and opportunities for the organization. These strategic publics fit into categories that many theorists have called stakeholders.

Chapter 6 begins with a review of theories of strategic management. Organizations use strategic management to define and shape their missions, but they do so through an iterative process of interacting with their environments. Most theories of strategic management do not suggest a formal mechanism in the organization for interacting with the environment and do not acknowledge the presence of public relations. Excellent public relations departments, however, provide the obvious mechanism for organizations to interact with their environments.

When public relations is part of the organization’s strategic planning function, it also is more likely to manage communication programs strategically. The senior public relations manager helps to identify the stakeholders of the organization by participating in central strategic management. He or she then develops programs at the functional level of public relations to build long-term relationships with these strategic publics. In this way, public relations communicates with the publics that are most likely to constrain or enhance the effectiveness of the organization.

Chapter 6 then moves on to review theories and techniques that have been used by public relations and marketing practitioners to segment markets and publics. These include demographics, psychographics, values and lifestyles, cultural analysis, geographic/demographic characteristics, and communication situations. We then ask whether these segmentation devices can identify strategic publics as defined by our normative theory. Chapter 7 adds to this discussion by reviewing the kinds of segmentation research, as well as other kinds of research, that practitioners can purchase from commercial firms.

Our review of the literature shows that the ideal segmentation device for strategic public relations places people into groups that have a similar response to an organization’s behavior or communication activity. The response of one public should be a differential response from that of other groups. We argue that the publics identified for public relations programs should respond differentially to problems that occur in the relationship between an organization and its internal or external publics.

Conflict occurs when publics move in a different direction from that of the organization, resulting in friction or collisions. Conflict also could occur when a potentially supportive public has not been motivated to move with the organization and, in a sense, “drags its feet” when it could accelerate the movement of the organization toward achieving its goals. When conflict occurs, publics “make an issue” out of the problem. Organizations use the process of issues management to anticipate issues and resolve conflict before the public makes it an issue. Organizations that wait for issues to occur before managing their communication with strategic publics usually have crises on their hands and have to resort to short-term crisis communication.

Strategic public relations, therefore, begins when communication practitioners identify potential problems in the relationship with the organization’s stakeholders and define the categories of stakeholders that are affected by the problem. The second stage in strategic public relations is the segmentation of publics that respond differentially to those problemspublics that arise within stakeholder categories. Chapter 6 maintains that a situational theory of publics provides the best set of concepts and techniques for identifying those publics.

We add, however, that many of the segmentation devices that have been borrowed from marketing-values and lifestyles, demographics, geodemographics, psychographics, and others-can supplement the situational theory by helping to identify the publics that respond differentially to issues. The segmentation techniques from marketing, however, are more useful in defining markets than publics. Organizations create markets for their products and services by segmenting a population into components most likely to purchase or use a product or service. Publies, however, create themselves when people organize to deal with an organization’s consequences on them.

After identifying problems, publics, and issues, strategic public relations identifies objectives for communication programs, uses these objectives to plan communication programs, and evaluates the effects of those communication programs-that is, whether they achieved the objectives set for them and as a result contributed to organizational effectiveness.

Chapter 7 examines studies of the effects of communication programs to provide an understanding of these last three steps in the strategic management of public relations. Strategic practitioners use these objectives to design communication programs and then measure them when they eval~ mate the effectiveness of those programs. Our conclusions about the effects of communication programs are based on studies of the effects of the mass media and from research on communication effects in cognitive and social psychology.

In our normative theory, we argue that objectives for communication programs should be chosen that maximize the extent to which an organization is able to manage its relationships with strategic publics. We then point out that most practitioners react to that challenge by choosing a powerful effect as an objective, especially a change in the behavior of a public or a change in attitude that they hope will result eventually in a change of behavior.

Our literature review shows, however, that communication programs seldom change behavior in the short term, although they may do so over a longer period. Communication programs change behavior in the short term only under very specific conditions. The behavior to be changed must be a simple one and the program must be aimed at a well-segmented public, supplemented by interpersonal support among members of the public, and executed almost flawlessly. The more significant, the more widespread, and the longer lasting the effect chosen as an objective, the longer it will take a communication program to achieve that effect.

The asymmetrical mind-set about public relations described in the previous section usually leads public relations practitioners to choose powerful effects as short-term objectives for their communication programs. Our literature review explains, therefore, why asymmetrical communication programs usually fail.

In contrast, chapter 7 shows why symmetrical programs usually work better. Practitioners of symmetrical public relations choose short-term cognitive effects rather than long-term behavioral effects. The choice of cognitive effects (changes in the way people think about and understand issues) makes it more feasible for practitioners to measure and evaluate the effects of communication program in the short term when evaluation makes it possible for them to make midcourse changes in the programs.

Yet the literature review also shows that achieving short-term cognitive effects through symmetrical communication programs maximizes the chances for long-term behavioral changes. Publics who are treated as equals of an organization and whose ideas are communicated to the organization-as well as the ideas of the organization being communicated to the publics-more often support or fail to oppose an organization than do publics whose behavior the organization tries to change directly in the short term.

On the basis of this literature review, we predict that excellent public relations departments will practice this strategic approach to organizational communication. The less excellent programs, in contrast, will expect direct and powerful effects on the behavior of vaguely defined publics in the short term. The less excellent departments also will justify communication programs historically rather than strategically. That is, communication programs will reflect what always has been done rather than what should be done to manage the relationships between an organization and its publics.

Excellent public relations programs, in summary, are managed strategically at the program level. We turn then to the departmental level to search for the characteristics of public relations departments whose parent organizations allow them to manage communication strategically.

Question 9

Explain the departmental level: Characteristics of excellent public relations/ communication departments.

Answer 9

Excellence in management has been the subject of many studies of successful organizations in recent years, studies that have defined successful organizations as profitable, innovative, or growing. Excellent organizations, these studies have found, have characteristics in common that managers can recognize and attempt to install in their organizations to make them more effective.

In Part III, we review management and public relations research in search management. We conducted that search to determine whether organizations identified an excellent overall also will have excellent communication programs. The review isolated 12 characteristics of excellent organizations, some of which suggest characteristics of excellent public relations departments and some of which suggest how communication contributes to excellence in overall management. The characteristics include:

1. Human Resources. Excellent organizations empower people by giving employees autonomy and allowing them to make strategic decisions. They also pay attention to the personal growth and quality of work life of employees. They emphasize the interdependence rather than independence of employees. They also emphasize integration rather than segmentation and strike a balance between teamwork and individual effort.
2. Organic Structure. People cannot be empowered by fiat. Organizations give people power by eliminating bureaucratic, hierarchical organizational structures. They develop what organizational theorists call an organic structure. They decentralize decisions, managing without managers as much as possible. They also avoid stratification of employees, humiliating some by having such symbols of status as executive dining rooms, corner offices, or reserved parking spaces. At the same time, they use leadership, collaboration, and culture to integrate the organization rather than structure.
3. lntrapreneurship. Excellent organizations have an innovative, entrepreneurial spirit-frequently called intrapreneurship. Intrapreneurship, too, is related to the other characteristics of excellent organizations: A spirit of internal entrepreneurship occurs in organizations that develop organic structures and cultivate human resources.
4. Symmetrical Communication Systems. Although studies of organizational excellence do not use the term symmetrical communication, they all describe it -with both internal and external publics. Excellent organizations “stay close” to their customers, employees, and other strategic constituencies.
5. Leadership. Excellent organizations have leaders who rely on net~ working and “management-by-walking-around” rather than authoritarian systems. Excellent leaders give people power but minimize power politics. At the same time, excellent leaders provide a vision and direction for the organizations, creating order out of the chaos that empowerment of people can create.
6. Strong, Participative Cultures. Employees of excellent organizations share a sense of mission. They are integrated by a strong culture that values human resources, organic structures, innovation, and symmetrical communication.
7. Strategic Planning. Excellent organizations strive to maximize the bottom line by identifying the most important opportunities and constraints in their environment.
8. Social Responsibility. Excellent organizations manage with an eye on the effects of their decisions on society as well as on the organization.
9. Support for Women and Minorities. Excellent organizations recognize the value of diversity by employing female and minority workers and taking steps to foster their careers.
10. Quality Is a Priority. Total quality is a priority not only in words or in the company’s philosophy statement but a priority when actions are taken, decisions are made, or resources are allocated.
11. Effective Operational Systems. Excellent organizations build systems for the day-to-day management of the organization that implement the previous characteristics.
12. A Collaborative Societal Culture. Organizations will be excellent more often in societies whose cultures emphasize collaboration, participation, trust, and mutual responsibility.

Of these 12 characteristics, we already have identified strategic planning and the practice of symmetrical communication as characteristics of excellent public relations departments. In addition, chapter 20 identifies the key role that a symmetrical system of internal communication plays in making an organization more effective. Social responsibility is an integral part of the symmetrical worldview of public relations defined in chapter 2. Most of the other characteristics emerge in Parts 111 or IV as characteristics of excellent public relations departments or of the organizations that foster excellent public relations: support for women and minorities, human resources, organic structures, intrapreneurship, leadership, participative organizational cultures, and collaborative societal cultures. The remaining chapters of Part 11, then, describe how excellent public relations departments should be organized to practice strategic planning, effective operational systems, and quality public relations programs.

Chapter 9 concludes that excellent public relations does not exist in isolation. It is a characteristic of an excellent organization. The characteristics of excellence in the organization as a whole provide the conditions that make excellent public relations possible. In addition, excellent communication management can be the catalyst that begins to make organizations excellent and continues to make them more excellent as time passes. With the framework provided by chapter 9. the rest of the book describes the characteristics of excellent public relations departments and of the organizations that house them.

Question 10

Explain optimal Decision Making in Public Relations

Answer 10

Chapter 10 reviews normative theories of operations research to show how excellent public relations departments should make strategic choices of communication programs. The chapter demonstrates how communication managers can use the mathematical theories of management science, decision theory, and operations research to make strategic decisions about public relations. It argues that excellent public relations departments plan and choose communication systems to minimize conflict and maximize cooperation between an organization and its strategic publics.

Question 11

Explain the models of public relations.

Answer 11

Chapter 11 reviews research on four Models of public relations, four typical ways of conceptualizing and practicing communication management. The press agentry model applies when a communication program strives for favorable publicity, especially in the mass media. A program based on the public information model uses “journalists in residence” to disseminate relatively objective information through the mass media and controlled media such as newsletters, brochures, and direct mail.

Both press agentry and public information are one-way models of public relations; they describe communication programs that are not based on research and strategic planning. Excellent public relations departments base their communication programs on more sophisticated and effective models. Press agentry and public information also are asymmetrical models: They try to make the organization look good either through propaganda (press agentry) or by disseminating only favorable information (public information).

The third model, the two-way asymmetrical model, is a more sophisti~ cated approach in that it uses research to develop messages that are most likely to persuade strategic publics to behave as the organization wants. Our research suggests, however, that two-way asymmetrical public relations-like press agentry and public information-is less effective than two-way symmetrical public relations.

Two-way symmetrical describes a model of public relations that is based on research and that uses communication to manage conflict and improve understanding with strategic publics. Our research suggests that excellent public relations departments, therefore, model more of their communication programs on the two-way symmetrical than on the other three models.

Most do not practice a pure symmetrical model, however. Excellent public relations departments serve as advocates both for their organizations and for strategic publics. Thus, excellent departments generally practice a mixture of the two-way symmetrical and two-way asymmetrical models-a mixed-motive model-although their practice is more symmetrical than asymmetrical.

Question 12

Explain the public relations roles.

Answer 12

Whereas models describe the mind-set and overall purpose of communication programs, roles describe daily behavior patterns of individual communication practitioners. Extensive research, which is described in chapter 12, has identified two major public relations roles: managers and technicians.

Communication managers conceptualize and direct public relations programs. Communication technicians provide technical services such as writing, editing, photography, media contacts, or production of publications. Technicians are found in all public relations departments, but managers are a necessary component of excellent departments. Less excellent departments consist mostly of technicians whose work is supervised by managers outside the public relations department, managers who usually have less potential for strategic management of public relations than managers trained in communication management.

Research shows that communication managers more often are found in organizations with threatening environments and that they engage in environmental scanning and evaluation research. Managers are found in organizations with an open-system mind-set. Managers also are more likely to practice the two-way symmetrical or asymmetrical models of public relations than the press agentry or public information models. Finally, technicians are more likely to see public relations as a creative, artistic endeavor than are managers.

Question 13

Explain public relations and marketing.

Answer 13

Chapter 13 addresses the relationship between public relations and marketing. In it. we argue that marketing and public relations are distinct conceptually. We predict that excellent public relations departments will be separate from marketing departments whereas less excellent ones will be sublimated to marketing.

In the past, marketing theory has been more advanced than public relations theory. Organizations that want to manage public relations strategically, therefore, have turned to marketing practitioners because strategic management has been part of marketing theory for some time. When marketing practitioners manage public relations, however public relations usually is reduced to technique rather than strategy. Public relations practitioners then are mere technicians working in support of marketing rather than public relations objectives.

We argue that marketing theory is inadequate for public relations for several reasons. First, we argue that the marketing function should communicate with the markets for an organization’s good and services. Public relations should be concerned with all of the publics of the organization. The major purpose of marketing is to make money for an organization by increasing the slope of the demand curve. The major purpose of public relations is to save money for the organization by building relationships with publics that constrain or enhance the ability of the organization to meet its mission.

Second, we argue that asymmetrical presuppositions work better in marketing than in public relations, even though marketing theorists often use such symmetrical concepts as bilateral exchange or a customer orientation. Customer markets, in contrast to publics, usually do not have to buy the products of a given organization. Publics, in contrast, often cannot avoid the consequences of an organization’s behavior: consequences such as pollution, discrimination, or chemical waste. Because these other publics are more involved with an organization, persuasive communication seldom will work well enough to keep them from being a threat to an organization’s mission.

Finally, the strategies used in marketing-such as product, price, and promotion-seldom are useful in public relations and thus provide a poor normative theory for public relations practitioners. And most of the segmentation techniques of marketing are only marginally useful in public relations; they are useful as supplements to public relations techniques rather than as replacements.

We believe, then, that public relations must emerge as a discipline distinct from marketing and that it must be practiced separately from marketing in organizations. Some organizations may choose to place both functions in the same department. That placement will not harm either function, unless one is sublimated to the other. If sublimation occurs, the organization will lose one of these valuable communication functions. Public relations can use concepts in marketing as analogies in developing its own theory, for example, the analogy of strategic public relations. Strategic public relations is not strategic marketing, however, and a separate theory must be developed-as we are doing in this book.

Question 14

Explain organisational of the communication function.

Answer 14

The studies of excellent organizations reviewed in chapter 9 identified an appropriate operational system as a characteristic of outstanding organizations. In chapter 14, we describe how excellent public relations departments should be structured as an operational system for delivering public relations programs.

A normative theory, open-systems theory, shows that organizations should have an excellent public relations department when they:

1. Locate the public relations department in the organizational structure so that the department has ready access to the managerial subsystem.
2. Integrate all public relations functions into a single department rather than subordinate them under other departments such as personnel, marketing, or finance. Only in an integrated department is it possible for public relations to be managed strategically.
3. Develop dynamic horizontal structures within the department, to make it possible to reassign people and resources to new programs as new strategic publics are identified and other publics cease to be strategic.

In contrast to these normative characteristics of excellent departments, however, chapter 14 hypothesizes that the structures of less excellent public departments develop historically rather than strategically. As a result, we predict that public relations structures in less excellent departments will reflect the preferences of senior managers who had the most power in the organization at the time public relations programs first developed and that the structure of the communication department will have changed little since.

Question 15

Explain gender Differences.

Answer 15

Chapter 15 reviews studies that have documented a trend toward a female majority in the public relations profession. It also reviews studies showing that women more often are found in the technician role and men in the manager role. Women in the communication field hold less prestigious positions and earn lower salaries than men.

‘ Feminization of organizational communication, therefore, could limit ‘the potential of public relations departments if organizations discriminate against women communicators. Chapter 15 documents the existence of discrimination against women, although it concludes that discrimination usually results from subtle processes rather than overt acts. The majority of students studying communication managementtoday are women. Therefore, organizations will lose the opportunity for their communication programs to contribute maximally to organizational effectiveness if they fail to promote women from the technician to the manager role and instead allow men from other fields to encroach upon communication management roles without proper training or experience.

We hypothesize, therefore, that excellent public relations departments will have women in communication management roles and that they will have mechanisms to help women gain the power they need to advance from the technician to the management role-mechanisms that also are described in chapter 15.

Question 16

Explain Academic Preparation and Professional Experience

Answer 16

Until recently, public relations has been a field without a body of knowledge, a field that has not required specialized training or experience. Chapter 16 maintains that excellent public relations departments will employ professionals who have learned a specialized body of knowledge. Chapter 16 describes the role of education in professionalization. It then describes the curriculum and body of knowledge recommended for public relations education by several professional organizations, which we believe provide a conceptual grounding that will enhance the potential of public relations practitioners to contribute to organizational effectiveness.

Question 17

Explain THE ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL: THE CONDITIONS THAT MAKE EXCELLENCE IN PUBLIC RELATIONS POSSIBLE

Answer 17

In Part II, we defined excellent public relations departments as departments that manage communication with strategic publics, publics that threaten or enhance the ability of the organization to pursue its goals. In Part III, we identified the characteristics of public relations departments that most often manage communication strategically. In Part IV, then, we explain why excellent public relations departments make organizations more effective and identify the characteristics of organizations and their environments that lead to excellent programs of communication.

Chapter 17 reviews literature on the relationship between organizations and environments to show how organizations should interact with publics. Early theories of interorganizational relationships predicted that an environmental imperative would determine the structure and communication system of an organization. According to this theory, organizations with changing, turbulent environments should be forced to engage in two-way communication with the environment and to develop organic management structures in order to manage their environmental interdependencies successfully. Extensive research. hOWever, has failed to show a strong relationship between the nature of an organization’s environment, its structure, and the models of public relations it practices.

Chapter 17 concludes, therefore, that although public relations should make organizations more effective by helping them to interact successfully with their environments, organizations in reality seldom choose the most appropriate models of public relations for their environments. The reason is simple: Environments are not objective reality for the managers of organizations. Instead, managers choose, subjectively, to observe only parts of their environment. The parts they choose to observe are products of their mind-set and organizational culture.

Our research suggests, therefore, that a power-control theory explains why organizations practice public relations in the way they do better than an environmental theory does. A power-control theory states that organizations behave in the way they do-in our case they choose the public relations programs they do-because the people who have power in an organization choose that behavior. Organizations frequently do not choose the most rational type of communication behavior for their environment because the dominant coalition does not make a rational decision.

The flowchart in Fig. 1.1 depicts a power-control model of public relations that we have abstracted from the macrolevel literature on organizational behavior. The model answers three questions important to our quest for the predictors of excellence in communication management:
1. How organizations should use public relations to interact with their environments.

2. Why some organizations use public relations to interact effectively with their environments and others do not.
3. Why organizations with excellent public relations departments are more likely to manage communication strategically and therefore are more effective than organizations that do not have excellent departments.

The focal point of the model in Fig. 1.1 is the box labeled Choice of Public Relations Models as Strategies. We believe that the choice of the symmetrical model of public relations is the key choice made by effective organizations. Figure 1.1 shows, however, that the public relations department does not make that choice. The choice is made by the power holders of the organization, the dominant coalition.

The dominant coalition makes the choice of a model of public relations in two stages It first chooses what it perceives to be the strategic publics in its environment. Top public relations managers contribute to the choice of strategic publics only if they are part of the dominant coalition. Figure 1.1 shows that the top public relations manager will be in the dominant coalition only when public relations potential is high in the organization.

Public relations potential increases when the characteristics of an excellent public relations department identified in Part 3 are present: strategic management, managerial roles, education for the two-way models of public relations, lack of discrimination against women, and an integrated public relations function.

Chapter 18 describes power-control theories of organizations and elaborates on the concepts of power and the dominant coalition. It also reviews research showing that enhancing the potential of the public relations department increases the likelihood that the top public relations manager will be in the dominant coalition. This chapter and chapters 4, 11, and 14 show that the public relations director must be part of the dominant coalition or have ready access to it if public relations is to contribute maximally to organizational success.

The box labeled Worldview for Public Relations describes the mind-set for-the presuppositions about-public relations that are dominant in an organization. As depicted by a downward arrow, the schema limits or enhances the potential of the public relations department to practice sophisticated models of public relations. As depicted by three other arrows, the worldview for public relations is a product of the worldview of the dominant coalition, the potential of the public relations department, and the culture of the organization.

As chapter 18 shows, the arrow from Environmental Interdependencies to Power Holders indicates that managers who gain power in an organization do so in part because they have knowledge and skills relevant to a crucial problem in the organization’s environment. That conclusion also suggests that public relations managers gain power when they have knowledge and skills that help organizations manage crucial environmental interdependencies-such as skills in financial relations when stockholders are a key interdependency or skills in government relations when government is a key public.

As chapters 3 and 20 discuss, the arrow from Power Holders to Environmental Interdependencies indicates that the environment is in part at least the subjective perception of the dominant coalition. The power holders observe the parts of the environment that they think are crucial and then choose strategic publics for public relations programs from that perceived environment.

The arrow from Choice of PR Models as Strategies to the environment depicts the critical relationship between strategic management of public relations and organizational effectiveness that has been discussed several times in this chapter. If organizations choose the most appropriate public relations strategy for communication with strategic publics, then that strategy will help the organization to manage critical environmental interdependencies and make the organization more effective.

Chapter 19 reviews research on a crucial component of that environment for public relations programs: the behavior of activist groups. Chapter 19 argues that activists play the key role in limiting the organization’s ability to pursue its mission. But chapter 19 also shows that organizations seldom choose activist groups as strategic publics unless forced to by confrontation or litigation. When organizations do use public relations to respond to activist groups, they seldom choose the most apprOpriate model of public relations, the symmetrical model, as a way of responding to them.

The final two boxes in Fig. 1.1 depict the relationship among societal culture (chapter 22), organizational culture (chapter 21), and excellence in public relations. As the arrows in Fig. 1.1 show, organizational culture is created by the dominant coalition, especially by the founder of an organization. Yet managers do not gain power if their values and ideology differ substantially from that of the organization. Organizational culture also is affected by the larger societal culture and by the environment.

Organizational culture affects public relations in the long term by molding the worldview for public relations. In the short term, it influences the choice of a model of public relations. If culture is essentially authoritarian, conservative, segmented, and reactive, the dominant coalition generally will choose an asymmetrical model of public relations. If culture is participative. integrative, liberal, and interactive, the dominant coalition will be more likely to choose a symmetrical model of public relations.

Figure 1.1, in summary, pulls together most of the variables that we have identified as essential to excellence in communication management in this book. It describes how organizations should respond strategically to their environments. It shows why power holders often do not make the most appropriate choices of strategic publics and models of public relations. And it shows why organizations more often make correct choices for public relations programs when they have excellent public relations departments.

Part lV ends with chapters on internal communication and on cultural differences in public relations. Chapter 20 develops a model of the relationship between organizational structure, internal communication systems, and employee satisfaction that is similar to the model of external communication in Fig. 1.1.

This chapter argues that a symmetrical system of internal communication helps to increase employee satisfaction and organizational effectiveness. Most systems of internal communication are asymmetrical, however, and they do not increase morale or organizational effectiveness. A symmetrical communication system is one in which employees are provided mechanisms for dialogue with each other and with supervisors and top managers. Interpersonal communication is crucial in a symmetrical system, although employee media can complement it.

In addition, chapter 20 reviews literature showing that a communication system cannot be made symmetrical without concurrent changes in organizational structure, to make it more organic. As we saw in chapter 9, an organic organizational structure also helps the organization to cultivate its human resources. Employee morale, therefore, results from an organic structure, cultivation of human resources, and symmetrical communication.

Symmetrical communication, as a result, contributes to organizational effectiveness in two ways. When communication helps to improve morale, employees are more likely to enhance rather than constrain the organization’s ability to achieve its goals. And in a decentralized, organic organization, symmetrical communication is necessary for the organization to coordinate the behavior of its relatively autonomous subsystems. Such coordination is necessary for the organization to be effective.

Chapter 22 explores the possibility that the theory of public relations developed in this book might not apply outside the United States. Studies of public relations practice in Great Britain and Canada suggest that the theory works well in other Western democracies. Research on the effect of culture on management suggests that public relations will be practiced differently in non-Western cultures. Chapter 22, therefore, explores concepts from cultural anthropology that we will use in later stages of the IABC project develop such comparative research.

Question 18

Explain the economic level: How public relations contributes to the bottom line.

Answer 18

In the final chapter of the book, chapter 23, we explore literature that might suggest whether and how a monetary value can be placed on the contribution that public relations makes to organizational effectiveness. Our theory states that communication programs that are managed strategically help organizations to manage relationships with strategic publics that have the power to constrain the ability of the organization to achieve its goals.

When organizations manage these interdependencies poorly, the strategic publics protest, boycott, go to court, or ask for government regulation to constrain the autonomy of the organization. All of these activities cost the organization money. If strategic communication is successful, it should help to save the organization money even though it often may not help it to make money. _

Chapter 23 explains a technique, taken from literature on evaluation research, that researchers can use to estimate the value of communication programs in managing interdependencies. Top managers, members of the dominant coalition, can be asked to estimate what it is worth to them to avoid or manage conflict with strategic publics. Through a series of iterations (Would you pay $X? If not, would you pay $Y?), researchers can place a value on the benefits of communication programs that can be compared with their costs in a cost-benefit analysis.

Research must be done, however: first to test the premises of the theory we have outlined and second to place a value on the benefits of public relations.

Question 19

What is communication excellence?

Answer 19

Excellence in public relations and communication management takes many forms, yet a few key characteristics underlie all excellent communication programs. Look for the common thread of excellence in these diverse examples:

0 The medical director at a blood, bank could see the impact of effective media relations at the peak of the AIDS crisis. Often, the deadly HIV virus passes through blood transferred from an infected person to someone not infected with the virus. In the mid-19803,. many people feared that donating blood was risky. In nearby cities, blood donations dropped 15% to 25%, but donations at this blood bank dropped only 3%. The blood bank’s chief financial officer estimated the savings in revenues not lost at $986,000 to $2.1 million. Senior management credits the tOp communicator with a big part of this success, because her extensive media contacts helped contain and combat unfounded misinformation about donating blood. Another communicator at the blood bank learned research techniques in college. The blood bank uses informal media. contacts as well as focus groups, surveys of volunteers who organize blood drives, and survey evaluations of each blood drive to track community perceptions, trends, and issues affecting blood donations and the blood bank. The blood bank built communication excellence, in part, on the knowledge that both communicators bring to the organization.

• The director of corporate communications in a large chemical manufacturing company explained that he plays an active role in strategic man agement. “If there are strategic issues that require planning,” he said,
“communication is involved.”

Why involve communicators so intimately in strategic management? “Every thing you do strategically in a company has to do with relations with the outside world.“ his boss explained, noting that communication is more than simply transmitting information. “It’s a two-way function.” He also noted that the Bhopal tragedy in India pushed all chemical manufacturers to change. to become “willing to be more open to the public.”

As with many organizations in the Excellence Study. crises and turbulence pushed this organization toward communication excellence. The chemical manufacturing company has built excellence, partly because the organization‘s sophisticated managers demand excellence from corporate communications. The top communicator understands those expectations and has the expertise to deliver.

0 A woman runs a one-person communication department in a small economic development agency in the southern United States. Armed with a master’s degree in environmental science with a concentration in community relations, she had been with this organization about six months when we interviewed her. We wanted to talk to people in this organization because it scored low in overall communication excellence among those participating in the 1990-1991 survey. Although only a newcomer at the time of the interview, she already played an important role in strategic management. She was developing programs to monitor the impact of communication programs on the agency’s clients. This progress occurred in an organizational culture that the chief executive officer (CEO), a man, described as “traditionally male.” Why had there been a change in attitudes toward women?

“Part of the reason I was hired was because I had a much different background from the clerical types [who previously handled communication],” she explained. “Females [communicators] were expected to not only write the press releases but type the envelopes, get the stamps, when we could be spending our time doing management work.”

Are stereotypes of women changing?

“The president is rethinking [my role],” she replied. “Others in the organization look at me as a resource for other things . . . other than just writing or editing.”

The economic development agency is taking the first steps toward communication excellence by empowering the woman who manages communication for the organization.

0 A not-for-profit organization that conducts research and promotes health issues illustrates another side of communication excellence: the culture of the organization itself. “No one is left out,” the CEO said of the extensive consultation system at the organization. Department heads share information at weekly liaison meetings. The organization uses its universal voice mail system extensively.

“It’s simple,” the top communicator said of the organization’s highly participative culture, “we talk to each other.” In addition, she often spends days with field staff “doing what they do.” The top communicator stressed “keeping in touch with the real world” by “working in the trenches” to gather valuable feedback from volunteers and local affiliated associations. This not-for-profit health organization built communication excellence, partly because the nurturing character of the organization encourages participation, teamwork, and two-way communication.

These four organizations provide snapshots of different qualities of communication excellence. We picked them from the organizations that participated in both the initial survey and the case study follow-ups to the Excellence Study. This is the largest, most intensive investigation ever conducted of public relations and communication management. Nearly a decade in the planning, execution, and reporting of results, this $400,000 study will affect communication practices and scholarship well into the 21th century.

In 1990-1991, top communicators, their bosses, and a sampling of employees in 321 organizations in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States completed questionnaires. These questionnaires provided over 1,700 separate pieces of information about communication practices in these organizations. In 1994, 24 organizations from the original 321 participated in case studies. These case studies included face-to-face interviews, phone interviews, and an examination of communication materials.

The Excellence Study continues to spawn new research in other nations. Translated versions of all or parts of the questionnaires have been administered in Greece, India, Slovenia, and Taiwan.

Question 20

Explain the key characteristics of communication excellence.

Answer 20

By sifting and organizing information from the study and by examining it from various perspectives, the research team identified a set of key characteristics that distinguish excellent from less-than-excellent programs.1 This book provides communicators with powerful tools to pursue communication excellence in their organizations.“ This is not a cookbook or manualyou will not find “10 easy steps to communication excellence.” It runs deepcr. with a compelling logic that is at once more elegant and less cluttered than any 10-step, how-to guide.
To fully appreciate what it is, communication managers should understand what communication excellence is not. Some aspects run counter to our gut-level expectations.

Question 21

Name and explain the surprises about excellent communication.

Answer 21

At speaking engagements in a dozen nations around the world, the research team has discovered four recurring communicator expectations about what the Excellence Study would or should show. After we present our findings, audiences often pose questions or make statements about excellence. Let’s address those first.

‘Yes. But What About MY Industry?“

Many people expect concepts of excellence to be different, depending on the industry. types of organization, or nationality. Instead, we found that communication excellence is universal-It is no different in Canada, the United Kingdom. or the United States. It is the same for corporations, not-for-profit organizations, government agencies, and trade or professional assocmtxons. That is because communication excellence involves knowledge or expertise that transcends any particular public, organizational division or unit. industry, organizational type, or national setting. The traditional communicator crafts that a practitioner needs to communicate with employees in a large manufacturing corporation may differ from the specific communicator crafts that a trade association needs to communicate with legislators or regulators. Specialized, traditional communicator crafts do not define excellence. Although excellent communication programs do have strong traditional crafts, communication excellence is something more than technique.

’Can You Name the Organization with Perfect Communacation?‘

As mentioned in the introduction, communication excellence represents an ideal or perfect state that no organization can reasonably expect to achieve fully. There is no one organization that the Excellence research team can pomt to and say. “Communication in that organization is fully excellent in all regards, so go copy it!” In fact, when we looked at how the study’s t0p dozen organizatious performed on all of the indicators that made up their overall excellence scores, several measures were only somewhat better than average. Why? Each organization has multiple measures that, when appropriately weighted and combined, provide an overall measure of communication excellence. If we think of these multiple measures of excellence as an organization’s report card, then even the tap performers had some 85. None had “straight As.” The statistical tools used to generate report cards for organizations isolated important qualities of excellence from actual organizations studied. Then these qualities were extrapolated to determine what perfection would mean for each one. Although every organization studied had some elements of communication excellence, and some achieved higher levels than others, none was perfect. Think of perfect communication as you would think of perfect parenting: a lofty goal to pursue, but probably not fully achievable in the real world.

“Can Our Communication Department Be Excellent When Our CEO Isn’t?”

No. We found we could not separate excellence from the role that communication management plays in running organizations. We communicators award gold quills and silver anvils to our outstanding peers. Indeed, such recognition for outstanding performance is an important function of professional associations. But the very phrase communication excellence suggests an artificial separation of communication from all the other organizational contributors to overall effectiveness. As discussed later in the chapter, you can not have communication excellence if you don’t have a shared understanding with senior management about communication and its function in organizations. You may have the potential for excellence in your communication department, but unless senior management values communication and supports it, and unless communicators and senior management share a common understanding of communication’s function and role, you cannot establish an excellent program.

“Why Are My Writing and Editing Skills Devalued?”

Findings from the Excellence Study do not devalue the traditional skills of professional communicators. Chapter 4 provides a detailed analysis of the important contribution that traditional communicator crafts make to excellence. The study does show that such traditional skills, no matter how highly developed, are alone not enough for communication excellence. Excellence is not an “either/or” choice between traditional skills and new expertise.

Excellence is a matter of “both together,“ the organic integration of the old and new.

For example. in the chapters that follow, we make distinctions between one-way and two-way models of communication practices, and between the technician and manager roles that communicators play in organizations. Such distinctions are very powerful, because they help us isolate key underlying characteristics of communicator models and roles. In making these distinctions, however, remember that no program is purely one way or two way. No communicator plays the manager or technician role exclusively. In the textured. multilayered complexity of real-world practices, one-way and two-way models of communication practices work in tandem. Most communicators play both manager and technician roles to varying degrees each day.

In case studies of organizations with excellent communication programs, we found that strategic planners worked side by side with highly skilled, artistic specialists in the communication department, individuals who played the technician role predominantly. This synergism was perhaps best described by Lester Potter, communication account manager for the American Red Cross, at the 1994 IABC conference, when he said, “It’s not just doing things right; it’s also doing the right things.” In less-than-excellent communication programs, communicators often do things right: for example, an award-winning photograph or an attractive annual report. The Excellence Study shows that communication excellence will not be achieved by simply improving how you do things right. For example, new desktop publishing software may help a less-than-excellent employee communication program get the newsletter out faster, but that alone will not make a less-thanexcellent employee communication program excellent. Excellent programs integrate “doing things right” with “doing the right things.” As we indicate in chapter 4, excellence means doing the right things right.

Question 22

Explain what the Excellence Study discovered.

Answer 22

Imagine a mountain of questionnaires-some 100 pages of questionnaires from each of 321 organisations studied in Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, with over 1,700 pieces of information from each organization’s CEO, its top communicator, and a sampling of other employees. How do you fmd the essential attributes of communication excellence in all this information?

The research team needed to answer that question when we first faced just such a mountain of information in late 1991, as the survey phase of the study drew to a close. All the information was entered into computers and analyzed. The research team successfully isolated 20 key characteristics of communication excellence in organizations. These key characteristics of communication excellence are diSplayed in Table 1.1, from the most important at the top of the list to the least important at the bottom.

The 20 items in Table 1.1 fall into three rough groupings. The top three items, the best indicators of communication excellence, involve departmental expertise in sophisticated communication practices, as reported on the top communicator questionnaire. The next 15 items involve shared expectations about communication, as reported by the top communicator and the CEO. The final two items measure qualities of organizational culture: The first measures the support that organizations provide to female employees; the second measures teamwork, shared decision making, and common goals, as reported by samplings of employees in each organization.

Before examining the Excellence Factor in more detail, let us first consider an important question: How do we know that this particular grouping of questionnaire items is, indeed, a measure of communication excellence?

First, measures were compared to what the theory of communication excellence suggested.5 The most compelling argument about the Excellence Factor is that the interpretation makes sense, both by the logic of theory and through observation of what communicators, CEOs, and employees reported.

Second, we examined return on investment for communication expendi~ tures for “most-excellent” and “least-excellent” programs.6 In the survey, CEOs were asked to estimate benefits that their organizations received from the dollars or pounds invested in communication. If the CEO said the organization received one dollar back for each dollar spent on communica~ tion, then communication benefits were even with costs. If two dollars in benefits were received for each communication dollar spent, then communication provided the organization with a positive return on investment.

The CEO’s evaluation of return on investment is, admittedly, subjective. But consider this: The CEO’s judgments about costs and benefits are the very judgments that will determine if your budget and staff increase or decrease next year! Further, no other manager in the organization has the same vantage point as the CEO.

The average return on investment from the CEOs in organizations with most-excellent communication programs was $2.66 for every dollar invested in communication. In contrast, CEOs of organizations with least-excellent communication programs reported only a $1.46 average return on investment for each dollar spent on communication. CEOs with most-excellent communication programs-as defined by the Excellence Study and as isolated in the Excellence Factor-sec greater return on investment for communication expenditures than do CEOs with least-excellent programs.

Exhibit 1.1 briefly describes how the research team isolated the Excellence Factor. (The appendix provides a more detailed treatment of theresearch design and execution of the Excellence Study.) The three groupings of items on the Excellence Factor displayed in Table 1.1 are considered in detail next.

Question 23

Name and explain the 3 spheres of communication excellence.

Answer 23

Think of communication excellence as three spheres, one inside another. These spheres, which graphically represent and summarize the essence of the Excellence Factor, are displayed in Fig. 1.1. Viewed this way, the structure is quite simple.

At the core-the sphere at the center-is the knowledge base of the communication department. Surrounding the core is a larger sphere in which the core knowledge base is embedded.

This middle sphere represents a set of shared expectations about communication between top communicators and senior managers in organizations. These shared expectations create linkages between the communication department and those powerful people who run organizations and make strategic decisions. One linkage is the demand for communication excellence from senior management. A second reciprocal link is the delivery of such excellence {mm the communication department.

Both the knowledge core and the sphere of shared expectations are embedded in a larger sphere of organizational culture. Generally, participative cultures based on teamwork and broad-based decision making tend to nurture communication excellence. One important quality of organizational culture is the support that organizations provide to female employees. Organizations that support such employees also nurture communication excellence.

The Core Sphere of Communicator Knowledge

Most communication departments have creative technicians7 who can write and edit, handle technical aspects of production, and know about photography and graphics. These communicators are often asked to edit, for grammar and spelling, the writing of others in the organization. Both excellent and less than-excellent communication programs have such creative, skilled technicians. In itself, enhancing these technical skills does not lead to excellence.

Rather, the core knowledge base that distinguishes excellent from lessthan-exeellent communication involves management role playing, especially strategic management. Does your communication department have the expertise to contribute to strategic planning? Do you all have the knowledge base to make communication policy decisions and then be held accountable for program success and failure? Can you outline communication program alternatives and guide senior management through a logical problem-solving process? Does the top communicator in your department consider himor herself to be the organization’s communication expert? How do other managers regard the expertise of the top communicator? More important than anything else that contributes to communication excellence, the communication department’s expertise to play the communication manager role is paramount.

In most communication departments, there are technicians who know how to generate publicity for the organization. There are those who know how to handle media inquiries, provide sources and collateral materials, deflect potentially damaging news about the organization, and “get our side of the story out there.” These are essentially one-way communication strategies, with the communicator providing information from the organization to various publics, but not the other way around. Both excellent and lessthan-excellent communication programs have such expertise. Improving one-way communication expertise, by itself, does not lead to communication excellence.

The knowledge that distinguishes excellent from less-than-exeellent communication programs involves two-way communication. Does anyone in your department know how to moderate a focus group and interpret the information collected? Does your department have the expertise to put together an unbiased questionnaire that will provide the information needed to make decisions? Do you know how to sample publics, administer the questionnaire, and analyze the results? Can anyone in the communication department help other managers make sense of the survey results? Do communicators know how to monitor phone and mail complaints as a tool to keep senior management posted about emerging trends and issues that affect the organization? Do the communicators know how to act as your organization’s eyes and ears?

Most forms of two-way communication involve specialized knowledge about formal and informal research. However, two-way communication may be either symmetrical or asymmetrical, reflecting two distinctly different assumptions or worldviews about the nature of relationships between organizations and publics.

At one extreme, two-way asymmetrical communication can help organizations persuade publics to think and behave as your organization desires. Using this model, the scope of the communication function does not include persuading senior management to change its thinking and behavior about a particular policy or issue. In terms of game theory, organizations play asymmetrical communication as a “zero-sum” game: Your organization “wins” only if the public or publics “lose.”

On the other extreme, two-way symmetrical communication serves as a tool for negotiation and compromise, a way to develop “win-win” solutions for conflicts between organizations and publics. Specifically, senior management may change what it knows, how it feels, and the way the organization behaves as a result of symmetrical communication. In game theory, organizations play symmetrical communication as a positive sum game. Both your organization and the publics involved can win as a result of negotiation and compromise.

Arguably, symmetrical communication provides one foundation for ethical practices, because communicators play an active role as advocates of the publics’ interests in strategic decision making. When symmetrical communication practices prevail, communication and public relations make valuable contributions to society as a whole.

In the rough-and-tumble, everyday world, however, communicators alternately negotiate and persuade, depending on the situation. The excellent communicator advises senior management and knows how to use both the symmetrical and asymmetrical models of communication. Indeed, game theorists suggest that public relations and communication management is more practically viewed as a mixed motive game. The organization and its publics realize that pursuing a strict zero sum game strategy is destructive to the interests of all parties. At the same time, all parties will seek to better their own special interests when situations permit.

To practice two-way communication, communicators need a body of knowledge about research methods and interpretation derived from the social sciences. Research (the other half of two-way communication) can serve both symmetrical and asymmetrical outcomes. Deciding when to persuade publics and when to negotiate and compromise with publics is more art than science. Given this, you and your department might benefit from the Communicator’s Serenity Prayer: “Grant us the serenity to compromise with publics we cannot change, the courage to persuade publics we can change (when it is socially responsible to do so), and the wisdom to know the difference.”

Middle Sphere of Shared Expectations

At its core, the communication department must have communicators With the knowledge to play the manager role, contribute to strategic decision making, and execute two-way communication programs.lo Communicator expertise, the necessary foundation of excellence, cannot build excellence in isolation. To build excellent programs, communicators must forge partnerships with the organization’s dominant coalition. The dominant coalition is the group of individuals in organizations with the power to set directions. Exhibit 1.3 provides a brief explanation of dominant coalitions as examined in the Excellence Study.

Communicators are linked to dominant coalitions in organizations with excellent programs by a specific set of shared understandings or expectations about the following questions: What is communication management? What should communication do for this organization? What role does communication play in the overall management of this organization? In what ways can communication benefit this organization? In the Excellence Study, CEOs with excellent communication programs answered these questions differently than did CEOs with less-than-excellent programs.

In organizations with excellent communication programs, dominant coalitions value communicators for their input before decisions are made. In this strategic role, the communicator acts as boundary spanner, environ

mental scanner, and an “early warning system.” Such communicators tell the dominant coalition what publics know, how they feel, and how they may behave relevant to strategic decisions under consideration. In a sense, communicators act as advocates for publics, articulating those external points of view as they counsel dominant coalitions. When decisions are made, excellent communicators design programs and craft messages to effectively communicate in a fashion that achieves the dominant coalition’s desired outcomes among targeted publics. To play this role as a two-way commumcator, the top communicator sits at the decision-making table with other senior managers, either formally or informally. That is, the top communicator plays the manager role. After all, how could informed strategic decisions be made that affect relationships with key publics, if the organization’s expert on relations is not at the table? The top communicator contributes to strategic management and planning.

In organizations with less-than-excellent communication programs, dominant coalitions see communication essentially as one way: from top management to publics. Communicators, hired largely for their technical expertise as writers and such, are brought in after decisions are made. Their expertise is sought solely to help disseminate information in support of dominant coalition objectives. The dominant coalition sees no value in sitting a skilled craftsperson such as the top communicator at the decision-making table. After all, they reason, what could such a technician or tactician in a support iunction like communications contribute to strategy?11 If the dominant coalition understands the meaning of communication excellence, and if the communicators have the knowledge base to provide such excellence, then critical linkages evolve between the communication department and the dominant coalition. We can think of the dominant coalition as demanding excellence from the organization’s communicators. When communicators understand that demand and are able to deliver excellence in response, a demand-delivery linkage is established. This demand-delivery linkage, which is displayed in Fig. 1.2, describes an ongoing relationship between communicators and dominant coalitions. Over time, expectations and performance reinforce each other. When dominant coalitions expect communicators to think strategically to solve a problem or conflict with a key public, that reinforces the knowledge or expertise in the communication department to deliver communication excellence. When communicators respond strategically to help solve a problem important to the dominant coalition, that reinforces the strategic view of communication in the dominant coalition. The dominant coalition comes to value and support the communication department. Such political support from the dominant coalition is integral to the set of shared expectations that lead tr communication excellence.

The Outer Sphere of Participative Culture

Every organization has its own history, its own approach to decision making, its own way of treating its employees, and its own way of dealing with the world outside. Despite this uniqueness, the character or culture of organizations is not idiosyncratic. Indeed, regular patterns underlie seemingly di~ verse organizations and their cultures. In the Excellence Survey, 4,620 employees in the participating organizations answered questions about their organization’s culture. The research team based the measures of organiza~ tional culture on a thorough review of prior research.12 Two basic forms of organizational culture emerged from our analysis: participative and authoritarian. Each organization has attributes of both participative cultures and authoritarian cultures. However, the values of one culture-participatory or authoritarian-typically predominate in each organization.

Organizations with predominantly participative cultures infuse their employees with shared values, pulling employees together as a team to accomplish a common mission. Open to outside ideas, these organizations favor innovation and adaptation over tradition and domination.

Participative cultures provide a superior setting for excellent communication. Such cultures provide nurturing conditions for excellent programs. Organizations that value teamwork, widely involve employees in decision making, and are open to ideas from outside the organization are more likely to have excellent programs. A participative culture is one of the characteristics that make up the Excellence Factor.

Theory suggests that authoritarian organizations-closed to outside ideas, with worldviews favoring asymmetrical communication-would place little value on excellent public relations and communication management. The degree to which an organization‘s culture is authoritarian, however, does not seem to make much difference to communication excellence. Participative organizational cultures provide a favorable environment for excellent communication, but excellent communication departments and programs sometimes occur in organizations with predominantly authoritarian cultures. Fig. 1.3 provides a graphic representation of the participative and authoritarian cultural values that exist in varying degrees in every organizationWhat sense an we make of this? Communicators build excellent communication programs when they have the knowledge base to do so. Dominant coalitions help them build such programs by sharing an understanding of the communication function and by demanding excellence. The performance of communicators-the delivery of two-way communication in a department managed strategically-completes the linkage. As noted previously, participative culture is more conducive to excellence than is an authoritarian culture. But organizational culture is more peripheral to communication excellence, the outer sphere in our model in Fig. 1.1. The nurturing environment of a participative culture cannot create sophisticated expertise in communication departments, nor cause dominant coalitions to demand strategic, two-way programs from communicators.

Professional communicators should pay special attention to one aspect of an organization’s culture and values: the treatment of women and related issues of ethnic diversity. In 1994, the US. Department of Labor reported that about 60% of American communicators and public relations practitioners are women, up from 25% in the 19605. Similar shifts are occurring in Canada and the United Kingdom. Reflecting a profession in which the majority are women, the status and power of communication departments in organizations are closely linked to the status of women in those organizations. Theoretically, progressive organizations take steps to make optimum use of all human resources. including women and those from culturally diverse backgrounds. When organizations actively support the advancement of women and those from culturally diverse groups, they are more likely to build excellent communication programs.

Data from the Excellence Survey support this logic. The treatment of women, from basic support (flex time, child-care assistance) to nondiscrimination policies to advancement programs (mentoring. training), is part of the Excellence Factor. Organizations that provide basic support and enhance the professional growth of female employees posted higher overall communication excellence scores than organizations that did not.

The Excellence Factor, as represented in Fig. 1.1, provides a concrete measure of the theory of communication excellence described in chapters 1 and 3 of Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management. The theory of excellence in that book only suggested the right questions to ask. The research team in the Excellence Study uncovered and extracted the Excellence Factor from patterns in the answers provided by communicators, CEOs, and other employees in the organizations that participated. In short, the Excellence Factor was constructed by the participants in the study. The representation of communication excellence in Fig. 1.1 simply restates what study participants told us about excellence.

This chapter provides a terse summary of communication excellence. In part I of this text, the core sphere of communication excellence-the expertise or knowledge in the communication department-is analyzed in greater detail. Part II analyzes the complex set of shared understandings and expectations about communication between top communicators and dominant coalitions in organizations. Part III examines the role that organizational culture plays in communication excellence. Related to culture and communication excellence is the support and opportunities for women and culturally diverse groups as employees of organizations. In part IV, the three spheres of communication excellence are linked to the execution of specific programs for specific Dublics.