The handbook of public sector communication 9781119263142, 9781119263197, 9781119263173, 1391531671, 111926314X, 1119263174, 1119263190, 9781119263203, 1119263204

Citation preview

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication

Handbooks in Communication and Media This series aims to provide theoretically ambitious but accessible volumes devoted to the major fields and subfields within communication and media studies. Each volume sets out to ground and orientate the student through a broad range of specially commissioned chapters, while also providing the more experienced scholar and teacher with a convenient and comprehensive ­overview of the latest trends and critical directions. The Handbook of Children, Media, and Development, edited by Sandra L. Calvert and Barbara J. Wilson The Handbook of Crisis Communication, edited by W. Timothy Coombs and Sherry J. Holladay The Handbook of Internet Studies, edited by Mia Consalvo and Charles Ess The Handbook of Rhetoric and Public Address, edited by Shawn J. Parry‐Giles and J. Michael Hogan The Handbook of Critical Intercultural Communication, edited by Thomas K. Nakayama and Rona Tamiko Halualani The Handbook of Global Communication and Media Ethics, edited by Robert S. Fortner and P. Mark Fackler The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Social Responsibility, edited by Øyvind Ihlen, Jennifer Bartlett, and Steve May The Handbook of Gender, Sex, and Media, edited by Karen Ross The Handbook of Global Health Communication, edited by Rafael Obregon and Silvio Waisbord The Handbook of Global Media Research, edited by Ingrid Volkmer The Handbook of Global Online Journalism, edited by Eugenia Siapera and Andreas Veglis The Handbook of Communication and Corporate Reputation, edited by Craig E. Carroll The Handbook of Media and Mass Communication Theory, edited by Robert S. Fortner and P. Mark Fackler The Handbook of International Advertising Research, edited by Hong Cheng The Handbook of Psychology of Communication Technology, edited by S. Shyam Sundar The Handbook of International Crisis Communication Research, edited by Andreas Schwarz, Matthew W. Seeger, and Claudia Auer The Handbook of Financial Communication and Investor Relations, edited by Alexander V. Laskin The Handbook of Communication Engagement, edited by Kim A. Johnston, Maureen Taylor The Handbook of Organizational Rhetoric and Communication, edited by Øyvind Ihlen and Robert L. Heath The Handbook of European Communication History, edited by Klaus Arnold, Paschal Preston, and Susanne Kinnebrock The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication

Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho María‐José Canel

This edition first published 2020 © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.



All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in  any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as ­ permitted  by  law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions. The right of Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law. Registered Office John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA Editorial Office 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data Names: Luoma-aho, Vilma, 1977– editor. | Canel, María-José, editor. Title: The handbook of public sector communication / edited by Vilma Liisa   Luoma-aho, María-José Canel. Description: First edition. | Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, Blackwell 2020. |   Series: Handbooks on communication and media | Includes bibliographical   references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019026623 (print) | LCCN 2019026624 (ebook) | ISBN   9781119263142 (hardback) | ISBN 9781119263197 (adobe pdf) | ISBN   9781119263173 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Communication in public administration. Classification: LCC JF1525.C59 H364 2020 (print) | LCC JF1525.C59 (ebook) |   DDC 352.3/87–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019026623 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019026624 Cover Design: Wiley Cover Image: © DrAfter123/Vetta/Getty Images Set in 9.5/11.5pt Galliard by SPi Global, Pondicherry, India

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Contents

Notes on Contributors ix Acknowledgmentxvii

Introduction to Public Sector Communication  Vilma Luoma-aho and María-José Canel

1

Part 1  Public Sector Communication and Society

27

Introduction to Part I. Public Sector Communication and Society Michael X. Delli Carpini 1. Public Sector Communication and Democracy Michael X. Delli Carpini 2. Public Sector Communication and Organizational Legitimacy Arild Wæraas 3. Trust, Fairness, and Signaling: Studying the Interaction Between Officials and Citizens Nadine Raaphorst and Steven Van de Walle 4. Transparency and Corruption in the Public Sector Katerina Tsetsura and Vilma Luoma‐aho 5. Politics and Policy: Relationships and Functions Within Public Sector Communication Leanne Glenny

27

Part II  Public Sector Communication, Organizations, Stakeholders, and Employees

Introduction to Part II. Public Sector Communication, Organizations, Stakeholders, and Employees Magnus Fredriksson 6. Public Sector Communication and Publicly Valuable Intangible Assets María‐José Canel, Vilma Luoma‐aho, and Xabier Barandiarán 7. The Influence of Weber and Taylor on Public Sector Organizations’ Communication Jari Vuori, Kaidi Aher, and Marika Kylänen 8. Formal and Functional Social Exchange Relationships in the Public Sector Ben Farr‐Wharton, Yvonne Brunetto, and Kate Shacklock

31 45 59 71 81

97 97 101 115 127

vi

Contents

  9. How Does the Idea of Co‐Production Challenge Public Sector Communication? Sanna Tuurnas 10. Change Communication: Developing the Perspective of Sensemaking and the Perspective of Coworkers Charlotte Simonsson and Mats Heide 11. Public Sector Communication and Mediatization Magnus Fredriksson and Josef Pallas

139

Part III  Public Sector Communication and Practices

181

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

273

Introduction to Part IV. Public Sector Communication and Citizens 273 Karen B. Sanders Citizen Engagement and Public Sector Communication 277 Paloma Piqueiras, María‐José Canel, and Vilma Luoma‐aho Understanding the Role of Dialogue in Public Sector Communication 289 Karen B. Sanders and Elena Gutiérrez‐García Public Sector Communication and Citizen Expectations and Satisfaction 303 Vilma Luoma‐aho, Laura Olkkonen, and María‐José Canel Public Sector Communication and Social Media: Opportunities and Limits of Current Policies, Activities, and Practices 315 Alessandro Lovari and Chiara Valentini Citizen Communication in the Public Sector: Learning from High‐Reliability Organizations 329 Karen B. Sanders and María de la Viesca Espinosa de Los Monteros, Public Sector Communicators as Global Citizens: Toward Diversity and Inclusion 345 Marianne D. Sison

Part V  Public Sector Communication Measurement and Evaluation

167

Introduction to Part III. Public Sector Communication and Practices 181 Heidi Houlberg Salomonsen Public Sector Communication and Performance Management: Drawing Inferences from Public Performance Numbers 185 Asmus Leth Olsen Change Management and Communication in Public Sector Organizations: The Gordian Knot of Complexity, Accountability, and Legitimacy 197 Helle Kryger Aggerholm and Christa Thomsen Public Sector Organizations and Reputation 215 Jan Boon and Heidi Houlberg Salomonsen Public Sector Communication: Risk and Crisis Communication 229 Finn Frandsen and Winni Johansen Public Sector Communication and Strategic Communication Campaigns 245 Kelly Page Werder Public Sector Communication and NGOs: From Formal Integration to Mediated Confrontation? 259 Tine Ustad Figenschou

Part IV  Public Sector Communication and Citizens

153

Introduction to Part V. Public Sector Communication Measurement and Evaluation Jim Macnamara 24. The Fundamentals of Measurement and Evaluation of Communication Anne Gregory

361 361 367

Contents 25. Measuring and Evaluating Media: Traditional and Social Stefania Romenti and Grazia Murtarelli 26. Measuring and Evaluating Audience Awareness, Attitudes, and Response Glenn O’Neil 27. Aligning and Linking Communication with Organizational Goals Ansgar Zerfass, and Sophia Charlotte Volk 28. New Developments in Best Practice Evaluation: Approaches, Frameworks, Models, and Methods Jim Macnamara

vii 383 405 417 435

Part VI  Conclusion

455

29. Conclusion: A Vision of the Future of Public Sector Communication María‐José Canel and Vilma Luoma‐aho

457

Index467

Notes on Contributors Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel

Kaidi Aher is a doctoral student at the University of Jyväskyla, School of Business and Economics, Finland, where she researches public sector communication and change communication. She has previously published on public sector communication and change. She has been a public sector practitioner for 15 years and currently works as the head of the Communications Department of the Office of the President of the Republic of Estonia. Xabier Barandiarán  Irastorza holds a BA in Political Science and Sociology and a PhD in Sociology from the University of Deusto. He is currently a lecturer at the University of Deusto. He teaches BA courses in Communication and Social Work, specifically teaching the following subjects:  –  Institutional and Corporate Communication on BA courses in Communication.  –  Strategic Management of Business Communication on BA courses in Communication–Sociology on BA courses in Social Work, in Basque. His publications mainly focus on strategic communication and social capital. In recent years he has been working on subjects related to political culture and social capital. Jan Boon is a postdoctoral researcher within the Politics and Public Governance research group at the Department of Political Science, University of Antwerp, Belgium. He has a background in political communication, performed his PhD on issues of collaboration and coordination, and is currently involved in a large‐scale project on comparative research on r­eputation in government. Yvonne Brunetto  Professor Brunetto is a professor in Management/HR at Southern Cross University, Queensland, Australia. Since obtaining her PhD in 2000, she has undertaken research examining the individual and organizational drivers of employee performance across public/ NFP and private settings in Australia, England, Scotland, USA, Italy, Brazil, and Malta. She has a distinguished and contemporary record of international scholarly achievements, and has an extensive list of journal publications (comprising more than half at A/A* rank/high impact) and editorships of special issues providing evidence of an outstanding research record – ­approximately 90 journal papers (70 since 2011). María-José Canel,  PhD, is full professor in Political Communication and Public Sector Communication, University Complutense Madrid, Spain. Winner of the Victory Award in 2016 (Washington DC), she is a leading scholar on public sector communication (journals: Political Communication, European Journal of Communication, International Journal Press/Politics,

x

Notes on Contributors

Public Relations Review), and has published in Spain, the United States, the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina. She has a public s­ector practitioner background and experience in training public sector communicators. She has published nine books, including Public Sector Communication, Government Communication, and Political Scandals in Britain and in Spain. Michael X. Delli Carpini, PhD, is professor of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, serving as dean from 2003 to 2018. His research explores the factors influencing citizens’ engagement in democratic politics. He is author of Stability and Change in American Politics: The Coming of Age of the Generation of the 1960s; What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters; A New Engagement? Political Participation, Civic Life and the Changing American Citizen; Talking Together: Public Deliberation and Political Participation in America; and After Broadcast News: Media Regimes, Democracy, and the New Information Environment. María de la Viesca is a consultant in quality in the health sector and has extensive international experience as a manager and adviser in the field of health. She is the outgoing chief executive (CEO) of Rome’s Policlinico Università and member of its board of directors. In Spain, Maria was deputy director of the University Hospital of Navarra for 20 years and deputy director of its School of Nursing followed by 10 years as director of Quality and Safety for the Hospital. She was a pioneer in introducing the Joint Commission Accreditation process to Spain, which draws on many of the lessons of high reliability organizations. She is associate professor in the Department of Preventive Medicine and in the Department of Public Health and was also attached to the Quality Chair of the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration. Finn Frandsen,  PhD, professor of corporate communication, Department of Management, Aarhus University, Denmark. His primary research interests are organizational crisis management and crisis communication, meta‐organizations, stakeholders, intermediaries, and communicative institutionalism. His research has appeared in Corporate Communications: An International Journal, International Journal of Strategic Communication, Management Communication Quarterly, Public Relations Inquiry, Public Relations Review, and Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration. He is the co‐author and co‐editor of Organizational Crisis Communication; A Multivocal Approach (2017) and Crisis Communication (Handbooks of Communication Science no. 23) (2019). Magnus Fredriksson, PhD, is associate professor at the Department of Journalism, Media, and Communication, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. His research focuses on strategic communication and mediatization in general and in public sector contexts in particular. He is the co‐ editor of Public Relations and Social Theory and his work has been published in European Journal of Communication, International Journal of Strategic Communication, Organization Studies, Public Administration, Public Relations Inquiry, Public Relations Review, and elsewhere. Leanne Glenny, PhD, is a lecturer in post‐graduate communication studies at the University of South Australia, with general research interests in the fields of government communication, ethics, and social media. She currently leads two research projects examining traditional and new media discourses about PTSD and stigma in the military and emergency services. A third research project investigates the use of mixed reality technology to build mental health resilience in first responders. Prior to her first academic appointment, she served for over 17 years in the Australian Army. She is a fellow of the Public Relations Institute of Australia.

Notes on Contributors

xi

Anne Gregory, PhD, is chair of Corporate Communication at the University of Huddersfield. She runs executive education programmes for public sector clients such as the UK Government and the European Commission where she leads training on evaluation and has been an adviser on evaluation policy. She is an international researcher, directing the seven continent team in developing the Global Capability Framework for the profession. Anne is the author of over 80 books, book chapters, and academic and popular journal articles and is a member of the AMEC Academic Advisory Board. She was awarded the Sir Stephen Tallents Medal by the Chartered Institute of Public Relations for her outstanding contribution to the profession. Elena Gutiérrez‐García, PhD, is full professor of Corporate Communication at the University of Navarra, School of Communication, Spain. She is the principal investigator of a research project funded by Spanish Government on open innovation, communication, and stakeholders relationships. She has been a researcher of the international project A Global Capability Framework for Public Relations and Communication Management, supported by the Global Alliance on PR and Communication Management. She has published several papers and book chapters on strategic communication management and stakeholders relationships. She is currently member of the board of directors of the Spanish Association of Communication Directors. Mats Heide,  PhD, is professor in Strategic Communication at Department of Strategic Communication, Lund University, Campus Helsingborg. His research interests are strategic communication in general, and more specific crisis communication, change communication, and organizational learning. Heide has co‐authored 12 books (in Swedish) and 2 international books: Strategic Communication: An Introduction (with Jesper Falkheimer, Routledge, 2018) and Internal Crisis Communication (with Charlotte Simonsson, Routledge, 2019). Heide is also published in edited volumes such as Handbook of Critical Public Relations (2015), Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication (2018), Handbook of Communication Engagement (2018), and Public Relations and Social Theory (Sage 2019). Heidi Houlberg Salomonsen,  PhD, is associate professor at Department of Management, Aarhus University, Denmark. Her main research interests include public management, strategic communication in the public sector, in particular reputation ­management and leadership communication, as well as relationships between top civil servants, ministers, and political advisers. She has published on those topics in journals such as Public Administration, Public Administration Review, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Journal of European Public Policy, and Policy and Politics and International Journal of Strategic Communication Helle Kryger Aggerholm, PhD, currently holds a position as head of research at the Danish School of Media and Journalism. Her research examines the role of strategic communication in change processes in public and private organizations, strategy communication within a strategy‐ as‐practice context, organizational communication, and language as social interaction. Her most recent work in these areas has been published in Journal of Management Inquiry, the International Journal of Strategic Communication, Journal of Management Communication, Public Relations Review, Business Ethics: A European Review, and Corporate Communication: An International Journal. Winni Johansen, PhD, professor of Corporate Communication, Department of Management, Aarhus University, Denmark. Her research interests include crisis management and crisis communication, social media, communication consulting, environmental communication and the institutionalization of strategic communication in private and public organizations. She is the co‐editor of Organizational Crisis Communication: A Multivocal, Approach (Sage, 2017),

xii

Notes on Contributors

International Encyclopedia of Strategic Communication (Wiley‐Blackwell, 2018), Crisis Communication – Handbooks of Communication Science (Mouton de Gruyter, 2019). She has published articles in Management Communication Quarterly, CCIJ, International Journal of Strategic Communication, Journal of Communication Management, Public Relations Review, Public Relations Inquiry, Rhetorica Scandinavica, and Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration. Marika Kylänen is project manager at the National Institute for Health and Welfare in Finland. Currently, she leads the project for evaluating the best models and practices of health and welfare promotion and equity. Previously, she was country manager and principal investigator of the European PACE project that was comparing the effectiveness of palliative care systems in Belgium, England, Finland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and Switzerland. In addition, her research focuses on public management, organization theory, cultural theory, co‐production, and service design. She is rewarded researcher and her background is based on health sciences and management sciences. Asmus Leth Olsen,  PhD, is a professor with speciale responsibilities at the University of Copenhagen in the Department of Political Science. He specializes in behavioral public administration and studies how citizens make inferences about public services and the connection between micro‐level dishonesty and macro‐level corruption. His work has appeared in journals like American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, Journal of Politics, Public Administration Research and Theory, Public Administration Review, Judgment and Decision Making, Political Behavior and many more. Alessandro Lovari,  PhD, is an assistant professor of Sociology of Communication at the University of Cagliari (Italy). He was visiting research scholar at Purdue University, University of Cincinnati, and University of South Carolina. His research interests are public sector communication, public relations, and health communication. He also studies social media impact on organizations and citizens’ behaviors. He is member of the scientific committee of the Italian Association of Public Communication, and member of the committee of the European Project “Creative”. He has published in several books and international journals like Public Relations Review, International Journal of Strategic Communication, and Health Communication. Vilma Luoma‐aho,  PhD, is full professor of Corporate Communication, and Vice Dean of Research at University of Jyväskylä, School of Business and Economics, Finland. She currently leads major research projects related to young people and social media as well as strategic communication in the public sector. She has published widely in interdisciplinary journals ranging from Business History to Computers in Human Behavior, and her latest co‐authored book, Public Sector Communication – Closing Gaps between Citizens and Public Organizations (2019) deals with measuring intangible assets in the public sector. She has a public sector practitioner background and has helped develop public sector communication in Finland, Spain, and the European Commission. Jim Macnamara, PhD, is a distinguished professor of Public Communication at the University of Technology Sydney. He is also a visiting professor at London School of Economics and Political Science, Media and Communications Department. He is internationally recognised for his research into evaluation of public communication and organizational listening. Jim is the author of 16 books, including The 21st Century Media (R)evolution: Emergent Communication Practices (Peter Lang, New York, 2014); Organizational Listening: The Missing Essential in Public Communication (Peter Lang, New York, 2016); and Evaluating Public Communication: Exploring New Models, Standards, and Best Practice (Routledge UK, 2018).

Notes on Contributors

xiii

Grazia Murtarelli,  PhD, is an assistant professor of Corporate Communication at Università IULM in Milan (Italy), where she teaches Digital Communication Management and Web Analytics. Her research focuses on the analysis of online scenario and, more specifically, on the following issues: social media‐based relationship management, online dialogue strategies, digital visual engagement processes, and social media measurement and evaluation. She is a public relations student and early career representative at the International Communication Association. She is also a faculty affiliate of the Center of Research for Strategic Communication at Università IULM. Laura Olkkonen  is a postdoctoral researcher in the School of Business and Management at LUT University, Finland. She is an expert on stakeholder expectation mapping and CSR communication. She has published in international journals such as Journal of Public Relations Research, Journal of Communication Management, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, and Public Relations Review. She teaches sustainable business and stakeholder relations at LUT and acts as a local coordinator of the UN’s Principles for Responsible Management Education (PRME). Glenn O’Neil,  PhD, is founder of Owl RE, evaluation and research consultancy, Geneva, Switzerland. He has been involved in some 100 reviews and evaluations in over 50 countries with a specialisation in communications and advocacy for governments, UN agencies and NGOs. Dr O’Neil lectures on evaluation and research at the University of Geneva, Webster University, Geneva, and the London School of Economics. His work has been published in journals including Evaluation and Program Planning, PR Review and PRism. His PhD is in social research and methodology from the London School of Economics and has an Executive Masters in Communications Management. Kelly Page Werder, PhD, is an associate professor in the Zimmerman School of Advertising and Mass Communications at the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida, USA. Her research has been published in Journal of Public Relations Research, Public Relations Review, International Journal of Strategic Communication, and the Handbook of Strategic Communication. Werder has served as editor of the International Journal of Strategic Communication (Routledge/Taylor & Francis) since 2012. She has taught courses as an international visiting scholar at universities in Italy and Switzerland, and she has presented lectures and seminars in strategic communication management throughout Europe. Josef Pallas, PhD, Department of Business Studies, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. His research focuses on the expansion, dynamics, and consequences of mediatization in a context of governance of public sector organizations in general and universities and governmental agencies in particular. He is the co‐editor of Corporate Governance in Action (Routledge forthcoming 2018), Organizations and Media: Organizing in a Mediatized World (Routledge 2014), and Det styrda universitet? (Makadam 2017). His work has been published in journals such as European Journal of Communication, International Journal of Strategic Communication, Media, Culture and Society, Organization Studies, Public Administration, and many others. Paloma Piqueiras was graduated with a Bachelor of Journalism from Complutense University and she also holds a master of arts in Enterprise Communication. She currently works as predoctoral researcher at the Complutense University of Madrid, School of Communication, where she is completing her PhD thesis. Her main research line is focused on strategic communication in the public sector. More specifically, she studies the relationship between the intangible asset ­citizen engagement and the wealth of nations. She has participated in research projects and has published articles in specialized journals. Previously, she has worked in mass media and the ­private sector.

xiv

Notes on Contributors

Nadine Raaphorst,  PhD, is an assistant professor at the Institute of Public Administration, Leiden University, The Netherlands. Her research focuses on decision making by front line professionals, such as tax officials, prison guards, and nurses. Her research interests include uncertainty in decision making, stereotyping and categorization, and performance measurement in front line work. She is co‐editor of Inspectors and Enforcement at the Front Line of Government (ed., with S. Van de Walle; Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), and has published in journals such as Public Management Review, Public Administration, Administration and Society, and The American Review of Public Administration. Stefania Romenti,  PhD, is associate professor in strategic communication and PR at IULM university (Milan, Italy) and chair of the master of science in Strategic Communication (English Language). She is director of the Executive Master in Corporate Public Relations (IULM University) and adjunct professor at IE Business School (Madrid) in “Measuring Intangibles and KPI’s in Communication.” She is founder and director of the Research Center in Strategic Communication (CECOMS) and member of the board of the European Association of Public Relations Education and Research Association (EUPRERA). Dr. Romenti centers her research on strategic communication, corporate reputation, stakeholder management and engagement, dialogue, social media, measurement, and evaluation. Karen B. Sanders, PhD, is full professor of Politics and Communication and Dean of Research for St Mary’s University, UK. She is co‐editor of the Routledge Companion to Journalism Ethics (forthcoming 2020) and member of an international group of scholars researching populist communication. Karen has a special interest in understanding and fostering respectful, effective communication in high‐risk organizations, and has run training courses on these subjects for hospitals, charities, banks, and universities. She has published widely in interdisciplinary journals including the European Journal of Communication, the Public Relations Review and the International Journal of Press and Politics. She has authored key texts such as Ethics and Journalism (Sage) and Communicating Politics in the 21st Century (Palgrave Macmilllan). Kate Shacklock, PhD, was an associate professor at Griffith Business School’s Department of Employment Relations and Human Resources, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. Her research interests included the aging workforce, inter‐generational issues and human resource management generally. She was also a researcher at the Griffith University Research Centre for Work, Organization, and Wellbeing, and had over 20 years’ practice in human resource management. Prior to joining Griffith University, Dr. Shacklock consulted extensively, in both the public and private sectors, in the areas of staff selection and performance management, and assisted organisations to implement systems and train staff in both areas. Charlotte Simonsson,  PhD, is assistant professor in strategic communication. Charlotte has served several years as the head of Department of Strategic Communication at Lund University, and she has also a background as senior consultant within strategic communication. Her main research interests are change communication, crisis communication, leadership communication, and roles and practices of communication professionals. Together with Mats Heide, she has written the book Internal Crisis Communication that will be published by Routledge 2019. Simonsson is the author of several books in Swedish, and her work is published in journals such as International Journal of Strategic Communication, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Journal of Communication Management, Public Relations Inquiry, and Public Relations Review. Marianne D. Sison, PhD, is a senior lecturer and program manager of the undergraduate public relations program (and former Deputy Dean, International) in the School of Media and Communication at RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Her research interests include

Notes on Contributors

xv

diversity and inclusion, global public relations, cultural, and organizational values, corporate social responsibility, public relations education and international communication. She has published numerous journal articles, book chapters, and recently published a co‐authored book, Corporate Social Responsibility, Public Relations and Community Engagement: Emerging Perspectives from South East Asia with Routledge (2018). Marianne is convenor and founding chair of the Asia Pacific Public Relations Research and Education Network. Christa Thomsen, PhD, is a professor at the Department of Management, Aarhus School of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University. Her research is within the areas strategic communication and stakeholder relations, cross‐sector social interactions, and social change in a national and international context. Rooted in this theoretical field, she has investigated corporate social initiatives in large private and public sector companies and organizations, small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) and cross‐sector social partnerships. Her studies are based on qualitative data (written material, interviews, conversations, observations) combined with discourse and dialogue/interaction analysis and to some extent also statistical surveys. Katerina Tsetsura,  PhD, is Gaylord Family Professor of Strategic Communication at the University of Oklahoma, USA. Dr. Tsetsura is internationally known for her work in global public relations and media transparency. She is the author of over 80 peer‐reviewed publications and is a co‐author of Transparency, Public Relations, and the Mass Media: Combating the Hidden Influences in News Coverage Worldwide. Currently, she is a chair of the PR Division of ICA and serves on editorial boards of Communication Theory, International Journal of Strategic Communication, and Public Relations Review, among others. Periodically, she helps companies and NGOs to develop and implement measurement and evaluation campaigns. Sanna Tuurnas, PhD, comes from the field of public administration and management. Since 2018, she has been a research fellow at Public Governance Institute at KU Leuven, Belgium. Before that she worked in a cross‐disciplinary research collegium, Institute for Advanced Social Research and as a senior lecturer at the Tampere University, Finland. Her research focuses on public sector renewal, co‐production of public services and the “collaborative society.” She has published in journals such as International Journal of Public Sector Management, International Journal of Public Administration, International Review of Administrative Sciences, and European Journal of Social Work. Tine Ustad Figenschou, PhD, is full professor of Journalism at Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway. Figenschou has a journalistic background and training. Figenschou is currently involved in a number of cross‐disciplinary international research projects. She has published broadly in international journals such as The International Journal of Press/Politics, Journalism, Journalism Studies and Media, Culture, and Society. She has worked extensively on mediatization in public sector organizations and is currently working on media, lobbying, and interest groups. The present chapter is written as part of the Media Impact in the Public Service Sector (MIPS) project. Chiara Valentini, PhD, is full professor of Corporate Communication, at University of Jyvaskyla, School of Business and Economics, Finland. Her research interest focuses on strategic public relations, public communication, and crisis communication in the digital environment. Her work has appeared in several international peer‐reviewed journals, such as Public Relations Review, Corporate Communication: An International Journal, International Journal of Strategic Communication, and International Journal of Press/Politics, to name a few. She is the editor of the Handbook of Public Relations (de Gruyter Mouton, forthcoming) and is currently working on a project on artificial intelligence, big data, and strategic communication.

xvi

Notes on Contributors

Sophia Charlotte Volk, M.A., is research associate and PhD candidate as well as project manager in the research project “Value Creating Communication” of the Academic Society for Corporate Management and Communication at the Department of Strategic Communication at the University of Leipzig, Germany. In her doctoral dissertation, she is currently researching the state of the art of comparative communication research, with the objective of developing scientific quality standards for comparative research. She has received several awards for her research in Europe and the United States. Fields of research: communication management, value creation, evaluation and measurement of communication, and comparative and international communication. Jari Vuori  is currently Scientific Advisor of Headai Ltd, visiting professor Arizona State University, Center for Organization Research and Design and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Department of Health Services Research and Policy. His research focuses mainly on the differences between public and private organizations and sectors at macro‐ and micro levels. In particular, comparative issues concerning public, private, and hybrid service delivery, self‐service design, and dialog have been interested him for years. His educational and scientific background stems from public management, business administration, and economics. Steven Van de Walle,  PhD, is Professor of Public Management at the Public Governance Institute, KU Leuven. His research focuses on interactions between citizens and public services, public sector reform, and public service failure. His work has been published in most of the leading journals in Public Administration. Recent books are Inspectors and Enforcement at the Frontline of Government, Palgrave, 2019 (ed., with N. Raaphorst) and Public Administration Reforms in Europe: The View from the Top, Edward Elgar, 2016 (ed., with G. Hammerschmid, R. Andrews and P. Bezes). Arild Wæraas, PhD, is professor of organization studies at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences’ School of Economics and Business. He conducts research on the translation of strategies into practice and has published in national and international journals on the symbolic and expressive dimensions of branding and reputation management in the public sector. Recently, he has also taken an interest in the internal organizational consequences of reputation management and branding. Ben Farr‐Wharton, PhD, is a senior lecturer in the Management Department of University of Technology Sydney, Australia Business School and an associate professor in management at the School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University. His research centers on the mechanisms by which organizations and managers can improve employee performance through well‐being and stress reduction. Ben has worked with a number of health care (hospital and aged care providers) and public management organizations (police and army), within Australia and abroad. Ansgar Zerfass, PhD, is professor and chair of Strategic Communication at Leipzig University, Germany, and professor of Communication and Leadership (II) at BI Norwegian Business School in Oslo, Norway. He holds a doctorate in business administration and a habilitation (second doctorate) in communication science from the University of Erlangen‐Nürnberg, Germany. Ansgar Zerfass serves as editor of the “International Journal of Strategic Communication” (Routledge, USA) and lead researcher for the Global Communication Monitor series covering more than 80 countries. His published work includes 35 books and more than 330 journal articles on communication management, measurement and evaluation, and international communication.

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Tom Corkett for his extremely helpful and professional aid in the editing of the manuscript. The text is of higher quality after going through his hands.

Introduction to Public Sector Communication Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel

Public sector organizations exist to make society function effectively. These organizations govern, serve citizens, and run the public sector and its services according to principles set by the government. In their communication, public sector organizations must balance the democratic communication aims of engaging citizens with organizational and institutional goals, as well as with survival in the midst of budget restrictions. The ultimate goal of public sector communication is to enable citizen welfare, but how this can be achieved in practice is both academically and professionally debated. In fact, public sector organizations’ communication reflects the cultural and historical heritage of the society around them, and as such there is no one universal model of “good public sector communication.” Models and practices that are effective in one societal setting may actually be detrimental in another. Despite this diversity, there appear to be similar challenges emerging for public sector organizations globally, and there is thus a need for a deeper understanding of how communication might be used to address these challenges. The aim of this handbook is to provide a comprehensive look at public sector communication. It describes and analyzes the contexts, policies, aims, issues, questions, and practices that shape public sector communication in order to understand the complex communication environment as well as the changing citizen and stakeholder expectations that public sector organizations are facing today. These chapters provide a comprehensive overview of current public sector communication research. The structure of this introductory chapter is as follows. We first consider the relevance of the topic, discussing the specificities, relative to the conditions found in the private and third sectors, of the public sector as a subject of communication. We then introduce the issue of publicness in order to clarify and define public sector communication. Next, we position contributions from different research areas and disciplines to describe what we know so far about the topic. And finally, we explore the various changes that are affecting contexts and citizens, as well as how these shape public sector communication today, and present the structure of this handbook.

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

2

Vilma Luoma-aho and María-José Canel

Why Is Public Sector Communication Special? Public sector organizations are also known as public authority organizations. Authority can be characterized as legitimated power, and public sector organizations require public consent in democratic settings (or coercion in totalitarian regimes) to operate. Public sector organizations operate on several levels—national, regional, and municipal—and they have both politically elected and appointed officials and volunteers as public servants. Public sector organizations often provide public services funded by taxes or other forms of public funding. What makes public sector organizations’ communication special? Though there is much discussion of how the public sector is becoming more and more businesslike with its increased competition and satisfaction measures, there remain eight distinct traits of public sector communication: 1 The environment within which public sector organizations communicate is political, which affects resources, timing, personnel, and goals (Liu & Horsley, 2007). 2 As there is more public pressure for transparency, public sector organizations often have a symbiotic relationship with the media (Fredriksson, Schillemans, & Pallas, 2015), in which organizational actions and decisions are combined with negative media coverage (Liu, Horsley, & Levenshus, 2010), narrowing the options for actions. 3 Public sector structures are more complex, diverse, and uncertain in terms of objectives and decision‐making criteria (Bjornholt & Houlberg Salomonsen, 2015; Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2015; Canel & Sanders, 2012). Moreover, the public sector is less open to market competition than the private sector is, and it has fewer incentives to reduce costs and exhibits less concern about consumer preferences (Thijs & Staes, 2008). 4 Public sector organizations are more constrained by legal and regulatory frameworks than corporations are; they are subject to a greater level of public scrutiny and are required to have a high degree of accountability to their constituencies. Public sector organizations cannot choose whom they serve, and nor can they tailor their services to meet the needs of their favored customers (Luoma‐aho, 2008). 5 As their legitimacy depends on citizen approval, public sector organizations understand the important role of listening to citizens and how their success in listening can affect this legitimacy (Macnamara, 2016). 6 The diversity and multiplicity of publics and stakeholders exceed that of corporations (Sanders & Canel, 2013; Wæraas & Maor, 2015). 7 As the services that public sector organizations provide are mostly intangible, measuring their success and the impact of their final products is particularly challenging (Cinca, Molinero, & Queiroz, 2003). 8 The speed at which decision‐making occurs is slower for public sector organizations than it is for businesses. This difference is due to public procedures and bureaucracy, as public sector organizations often have limited budgets that are influenced by multiple stakeholders. Public sector organizations have to operate under a variety of constraints and are required to balance political guidelines, national guidelines, international cooperation, ideologies management, the bureaucratic culture of administration, and ongoing citizen and customer feedback. Communication has always been important, but public sector organizations have only begun to hire communication professionals in recent decades. These professionals operate in a dynamic and unpredictable environment, and they must combine organizational responsibilities with emerging citizen and employee needs: “As the end‐users represent a wide variety of individual needs and expectations, public sector organizations are often specialized into regions or areas of expertise, and must balance multiple goals” (Luoma‐aho & Canel, 2016, p. 598). Their vast

Introduction to Public Sector Communication

3

responsibilities cover diverse fields, such as infrastructure, livelihood, transportation, education, and health care. Priorities are constantly renegotiated in public sector communication, as unexpected issues may lead to the emergence of new and unexpected stakeholder groups (Luoma‐aho & Paloviita, 2010). It is possible to argue that public opinion and citizens’ views are more important for public sector organizations than they are for corporations, as they serve as distributors of democracy in practice. Despite the complex operating environment, almost all citizens have an opinion about public sector organizations or their reputation. These opinions are formed through the interplay of public organizations’ communication, achievements, expectations, and trust, and they are shaped by both the media and the cultural settings in which they emerge (James & Moseley, 2014; Liu et al., 2010). Moreover, although citizens may be able to assess services that they receive directly (Laing, 2003), several types of public services that produce social benefits require an understanding of complex interactions as well as professional knowledge, such as that held by analysts. Direct contact with public services and products helps citizens to evaluate these entities, but intangible products or services remain extremely challenging to understand (Van Der Hart, 1991).

Defining Public Sector Communication In order to understand the topic of this handbook, we first need to explore the meaning of “public” and examine how various scholarly definitions of “communication” help to delineate the meaning of the “public sector communication” binomial.

Degrees of Publicness: The Publicness Fan and Its Implications for Public Sector Communication As the environment around public sector organizations changes, one may question what counts as public within today’s hybrid forms of organization and collaboration. If services are outsourced, or if organizations are more project based and funding is only temporary, who is ultimately responsible for their success? And what exactly defines whether an organization is actually considered public? Elsewhere, we have discussed the issue of publicness (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019), reviewing scholarly contributions from political science and public administration studies about what has been called the “public puzzle” (Antonsen & Jørgensen, 1997; Bozeman & Bretschneider, 1994). The focus of the debate is the blurring boundaries between the private and public sectors, a process that further accelerated owing to the global economic and financial crisis, through which patterns of publicness have changed in unanticipated ways (Meier & O’Toole, 2011, p. 284). Publicness is relevant to the extent that differentiating the public from the private helps to establish criteria with which to conceptualize communication, as well as with which to compare and analyze its practice. The most commonly accepted criteria to define publicness include ownership (private firms are owned by shareholders, whereas public agencies are owned collectively by the state), sources of financial resources (public agencies are funded by taxation rather than by fees paid directly by customers), and control (political forces versus market forces) (Andrews, Boyne, & Walker, 2011; Rainey, 2011; Walker, Brewer, Boyne, & Avellaneda, 2011). Scholars have introduced the “public purpose” criteria to measure the degree to which organizations adhere to public sector values (democratic accountability, production of collective goods, compliance with due process, and so forth), and in doing so they have highlighted not only the tasks performed but the values that organizations feel obligated to uphold. Thus “publicness” is indicative of a process of public values as inputs, which results in public values as outcomes (Antonsen & Jørgensen, 1997; Bozeman & Moulton, 2011; Meier & O’Toole, 2011).

4

ual ivid Ind n gai

Inde pe con ndently stru cted

Vilma Luoma-aho and María-José Canel

ent

CON

HI

P

TRO

St

L

ate

Gove

rnme

Private

FUNDING

nt

Taxes, public funding

n mo Com good

RS

Set b soc y iety

E OS

NE

pend

VAL UES

RP

OW

Inde

rs, ne ers w O old h re ha

PU

Pr iva te

Public

(State, Government)

nd e a ities t a St thor au

Civil ns a serv

TUN O C Y AC ILIT AB

S

EE LOY

EMP

Nonprofit, self-sustaining

s

PROFIT

civil Non nts a v r se

For profit

Figure I.1  The publicness fan (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019, p. 29) showing the continuums of what is considered public.

We have illustrated the publicness of public sector organizations through the image of a fan (see Figure I.1), which shows a continuum of various degrees of publicness that are subject to change during the lifespan and evolution of a given public sector organization. The fan structure implies that actors involved in a specific communication situation or action can have different degrees of publicness. The center of the fan represents the “purely public” organizations, such as states or governments. The degree of publicness diminishes toward the outskirts of the fan. We suggest that publicness consists of several variables: funding, control, ownership, purpose, values, accountability, employees, and profit. We are aware that there is some overlap between these variables: for instance, “employees” (whether civil servants or otherwise) could arguably be considered a feature of “ownership”; “profit” (nonprofit versus for profit) is related to “funding”; and “accountability” relates to the “control” that an organization is subject to. The publicness fan separates these variables in order to give this tool the most analytical power possible. Finally, the variable “purpose” measures how oriented an organization or service is to the common good as opposed to individual gain. “Values” measures to what extent the values that guide an organization are set by society as opposed to their being independently constructed. This fan is a tool that facilitates investigation of the way in which communication is conceptualized and practiced in organizations, and it provides assistance in establishing cross‐sector research questions and hypotheses to explore whether publicness makes a difference. For instance, following Walker and Bozeman’s approach to cross‐sector comparative analysis (Walker et al., 2011, pp. 1–2), specific research questions about communication could include the following: • What are the specific constraints (in terms of strategies, structures, processes, and values) that affect the public sector’s communication management? • How do these compare with the private sector’s communication management? • Are achievements in terms of communication performance affected by these management differences? • What problems, challenges, and opportunities do these comparisons highlight?

Introduction to Public Sector Communication

5

An organization’s degree of publicness influences its communication. For instance, Gelders, Bouckaert, and Van Ruler argue that the greater the level of public funding that is available, the more uncertain public policies are, and in turn, the less certain the schedule for dissemination of public information becomes (Gelders, Bouckaert, & Van Ruler, 2007). Moreover, the more government control is exercised over an organization, the greater the extent to which effective communication is needed in order to overcome stakeholders’ negative judgments (Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012, pp. 186–187), the more public the organization’s ownership is, and the shorter term the basis for positioning the organization’s brand promise becomes (Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012). In terms of personnel, the larger the proportion of permanent civil servants among its employees is, the more rigid the legal framework in which the organization operates will be (Gelders et al., 2007). Finally, in the case of more public organizations, more specific criteria are set for recruitment, training, and promotion, as well as for the formulation of the values and principles that should prevail in government communication (Sanders & Canel, 2013). An organization’s degree of publicness is related to its degree of accountability, and this relationship has implications on communication. On the one hand, when organizations are more public, they are more accountable owing to stringent transparency demands (Sanders & Canel, 2013), a phenomenon that most democratic countries are experiencing through the development of transparency and freedom of information laws. These experiences may foster public sector communicators to look for new and innovative ways of establishing relations with citizens. On the other hand, and precisely because of these laws, organizations might become too rigid and thus less creative in their communication (Gelders et al., 2007; Graber, 2003; Liu et  al., 2010). This ongoing accountability is also present in the media, and it ­constrains communication strategies—for example, the timing and content of messages and the information released (Gelders et al., 2007). Negative media coverage might block governmental programs in practice, and in seeking positive news, public sector communicators run the risk of making their messages too technical or emotionless (Fredriksson et  al., 2015). Continuous public scrutiny can weaken the success of communication strategies (Vos & Schoemaker, 2006) and increase cynicism, regardless of how honest governmental messages might be in practice (Liu & Horsley, 2007). This scrutiny can also engender suspicions about governments’ intentions when they professionalize their communication (Sanders & Canel, 2013). Finally, the more an organization serves the common good, the more it has to deal with complex, multifaceted, and conflicting goals. Multipurpose organizations often have multiple publics, each of which places demands and constraints on managers (Gelders et  al., 2007; Luoma‐aho, 2008). In sum, the degree of publicness implies different specificities, constraints, and challenges for communication. These include: • Segmentation of messages according to different publics (Carpenter & Krause, 2012); • Implementation of internal communication programs with changing authorities (Canel, 2007; Garnett, 1992; Sanders & Canel, 2013) and organizational culture programs (Gelders et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2010); • The building of intangible assets such as reputation (Wæraas & Sataøen, 2015), brand, institutional social responsibility, and social capital; • Identification of the best formulae, methods, and techniques for measuring these intangible assets’ effects (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2015). This handbook is concerned with these challenges, but before we examine the current contexts in which they should be addressed and how different research fields contribute to the study of them, we will provide a definition of public sector communication.

6

Vilma Luoma-aho and María-José Canel

In Search of a Definition The first in its field, this handbook of public sector communication builds on previous work from organizational and administration studies, political communication, public relations, and organizational communication. Table I.1 summarizes the definitions of public sector communication from various fields. From these definitions, we can ask some critical questions. All of the definitions begin by asking who the subjects involved in public sector communication are. Most definitions mention only governments or public sector authorities and organizations, and they exclude other types of actors. Although public sector communication traditionally relates to governments and public agencies, today its scope also encompasses nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and companies that work together to cocreate public services—for example, through outsourcing. The subjects of public sector communication thus include not only governments, public foundations, agencies, authorities, and regulators but also any organizations involved in public–private joint operations, such as state monopolies and businesses. What they all have in common is their service to citizens, whether directly or indirectly (Canel & Luoma‐ aho, 2019). A second question is how communication is understood. Traditionally, communication is either seen as a management process or as the dissemination of information. These definitions are currently giving way to a more citizen‐oriented view, in which communication is seen as a vital process of building intangible assets for the public good (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019). Although citizens’ engagement with the public sector is central for public sector organizations, it is merely one part of citizens’ networks of societal relationships (Lay‐Hwa Bowden, Luoma‐ aho, & Naumann, 2016), and it should be approached as a more holistic structure through individual experiences instead of organizational control (Bourgon, 2009). What kind of impact does communication have on public sector management? In the previous definitions, communication is often understood as a management tool for successfully executing organizational functions. However, we suggest that communication plays a larger role; communication is about leadership and influence. It shapes and enables public sector management through intangible assets and cocreation (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2015). What is the rationale behind public sector communication? Many previous definitions explicitly or implicitly highlight a political rationale, which includes political purposes. We acknowledge that public sector communication’s scope extends beyond the political sphere, and it has an entwined political/public dimension. We propose that public sector communication includes both a political rationale and a policy one. Another question is what public sector communication’s relationship with the media is. Most of the existing definitions do not mention media use (Garnett & Kouzmin, 1997), and those that do refer to the categories of “legacy media” and “mass media.” Today, the mass media is not a monolithic entity; myriad media forms can be used to reach citizens. These outlets range from paid media formats to owned, earned, searched, shared, mined, borrowed, and even hacked ones. What is the direction of communication in the public sector? In our view, one‐way communication has been associated with an organizational gain in the definition of “political public relations” (Froehlich & Rüdiger, 2006) and of “government news management” (Pfetsch, 2008, p. 90). Interestingly, these definitions come from the political communication research field and highlight the purpose of influencing public opinion for organizational benefit (e.g., to gain or maintain political power). References to two‐way communication are rare (Canel, 2007; Lee, 2007). One such reference appears in Garnett’s definition of “administrative communication,” which explicitly includes both one‐way and two‐way communication (Garnett & Kouzmin, 1997). What are the goals of public sector communication? Allusion to the purpose of communication is found in the most thorough definitions of public sector communication, and they reflect

Table I.1  Definitions of Public Sector Communication and Related Terms.

Source

Term

Graber 1992, 2003

Public sector The use of symbols in public Only and purely communication organizations to coordinate public work in order to achieve organizations goals (elaborated from Graber’s texts) Administrative The communication taken by Only and purely communication public organizations, which public can be one‐way or two‐way, organizations intentional or unintentional, and can be functional or dysfunctional in impact in the management process (elaborated from Garnett’s text) Government news A strategic variant of public Governments management information whereby governments manage communication in order to influence public opinion by controlling the news media agenda Political public The use of media outlets to relations communicate specific political interpretations of issues in the hope of garnering public support for political purposes

Garnett (1997)

Pfetsch (2008), p. 90

Froehlich and Rudiger (2006)

Definition

Subjects

Process

Impact on Public Sector Management To coordinate work

Rationale

Media Use

Directionality of Communication

Apolitical

Goals and Purpose of Communication To achieve organizational goals

Intentionally or Can be functional unintentionally or dysfunctional for the management process

Can be one‐way or two‐way

Strategic variant of public information

Political

News media

Unidirectional

To influence public opinion

Media outlets

Unidirectional

To gain public support for political purposes

(Continued)

0004486657.INDD 7

11/25/2019 4:44:26 PM

Table I.1  (Continued)

Source

Term

Definition

Canel Public institutions Transactional process of (2007) communication symbols exchange between public institutions and their stakeholders Glenny Communication in Apolitical or nonpartisan (2008) the public sector communication activities of the executive arm of government (distinguished from the communication activities that serve the purpose of promoting a political party and/or politician in order to win electoral support) Lee Government Managing different kinds of (2007), public relations communication p. 6 relationships with different kinds of publics Strömbäck Political public The management process by and relations which an organization or Kiousis individual actor for political (2011), purposes, through purposeful p. 8 communication and action, seeks to influence and to establish, build, and maintain beneficial relationships and reputations with its key publics to help support its mission and achieve its goals

0004486657.INDD 8

Subjects

Process

Only and purely public organizations

Transactional process of symbols exchange

Impact on Public Sector Management

Rationale Political and policy

Executive arm of government

Media Use

Directionality of Communication

Goals and Purpose of Communication

Two‐way (transactional)

Only apolitical and non partisan

Governments and Communication different kinds relationships of publics

Acts

Organization or individual actor

Helps achieving goals

Management process, purposeful,

Two‐way (relationships)

Political

Two‐way (mutuality)

Political purposes to help support its mission and achieve its goals

11/25/2019 4:44:26 PM

Source

Term

Definition

Subjects

Process

Impact on Public Sector Management

Howlett Government Policy tool or instrument to Government Provision or Helps achieving (2009), communication give effect to policy goals; withholding of goals and p. 24 to influence and direct information or influences policy actions through the knowledge policies provision or withholding of information or knowledge from societal actors Canel and Government Communication directed and Executive Management Sanders communication seeking to influence key politicians and (2013); publics, in the pursuit of officials and Sanders both political and civic key publics and purposes, carried out by Canel executive politicians and (2014) officials, usually in a managed way, to establish and maintain beneficial relationships to build reputation, to gain support from and interact with citizens, using the tools and strategies of PR and corporate communication

0004486657.INDD 9

Rationale Policy

Media Use

Directionality of Communication

Goals and Purpose of Communication

Unidirectional

To gain public support for policy actions

Political and Using the tools Both policy and strategies of unidirectional public relations and two‐way and corporate communication

Political and civic purposes, beneficial relationships to build reputation, to gain support

11/25/2019 4:44:26 PM

10

Vilma Luoma-aho and María-José Canel

the evolution of communication that has taken place in tandem with the rise of a more multidisciplinary understanding. Thus, Strömbäck and Kiousis’s definition of “political public relations” introduces the idea of two‐way relationships, which involve establishing, building, and maintaining beneficial relationships. These relations also include the building of intangible assets. These relationships provide a vital benefit to the organization, as they “help support its mission and achieve its goals” (Strömbäck & Kiousis, 2011, p. 8). This idea of mutual benefit is perhaps best captured in Canel and Sanders’s definition of “government communication” (Canel & Sanders, 2010; Sanders & Canel, 2013) as: Communication directed and seeking to influence key publics, in the pursuit of both political and civic purposes, carried out by executive politicians and officials, usually in a managed way, to establish and maintain beneficial relationships to build reputation, to gain support from and interact with citizens, using the tools and strategies of PR and corporate communication. (Canel & Sanders, 2015)

We argue that the ultimate purpose and goal of public sector communication should be to maintain the public good (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019). We understand “public sector communication” to be a broader term than “administrative communication,” “government public relations,” or “government communication.” In previous research (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019, p. 33), we proposed public sector communication be defined as follows: goal‐oriented communication inside organizations and between organizations and their stakeholders that enables public sector functions, within their specific cultural/political settings, with the purpose of building and maintaining the public good and trust between citizens and authorities.

This definition depicts a multipurpose public sector with multiple stakeholders and organizations (including nonstate organizations), and it is open to descriptive, prescriptive, and normative approaches.

What Is Our Current Understanding of Public Sector Communication? The earliest sources that we could find regarding public sector communication go back to McCamy’s book chapter published in 1939, which focused on external communications (McCamy, 1939). Other early sources use the term “administrative communication” (Dorsey Jr., 1957; Redfield, 1958; Thayer, 1961), but here administrative refers to processes of decision‐ making and is not necessarily confined to political contexts. Highsaw and Bowen provide the first discussion that focuses specifically on public sector communication in their book Communication in Public Administration, published in 1965 (Highsaw & Bowen, 1965). In this book, they describe the problems, potentialities, and areas of development for communication in the public sector at the time when they wrote their work. On the whole, research on public sector communication is still limited. Despite the key role that communication might play in the provision of public services and goods, communication has not yet been thoroughly analyzed, and more research is needed to address the challenges that public sector organizations face in reaching and engaging citizens, as well as in maintaining their trust (Bourgon, 2009; Garnett, Marlowe, & Pandey, 2008; Gelders & Ihlen, 2010; Glenny, 2008; Grunig, 1992; Lay‐Hwa Bowden et al., 2016; Lee, 2010; Lee, Fairhurst, & Wesley, 2009; Luoma‐aho & Makikangas, 2014; Sanders & Canel, 2013; Strömbäck & Kiousis, 2011; Valentini, 2013; Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012). In fact, the term “public sector communication” has rarely been used, and there was only one book (Graber & Doris, 1992) that specifically dealt

Introduction to Public Sector Communication

11

with this topic until the year 2018, when Canel and Luoma‐aho published the first monograph specifically focused on how intangible assets help to rebuild and maintain trust in the public sector (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019). Research on public sector communication can be found under several different names, titles, and topics. Elsewhere, we map these according to the different levels of organization that are examined: the government, the public administration, and the public sector as a whole (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019). Under the umbrella of government, most of the studies use the term “­government communication” (We elaborate on this below.) A limited numbers of studies use the terms “government information management/provision” (Andersen & Dawes, 1991; Gelders & Van de Walle, 2005), “government public relations” (Grunig & Jaatinen, 1999; Hong, 2013; Lee, 2010; Sanders, 2011), “government policy communication” (Gelders & Ihlen, 2010), and “government news management” (Pfetsch, 2008). The label “public administration” is rarely used to refer to public sector communication. There is a small selection of studies on communication and public administration, most of which date back to the mid‐twentieth century (Bacharach & Aiken, 1977; Dorsey Jr., 1957; Highsaw & Bowen, 1965) or later (Canel, 2014; Garnett & Kouzmin, 1997; Garnett et al., 2008). The term “administrative communication” appears frequently (Garnett, 2009; Garnett et al., 2008), and it is used in studies that have looked at communication that extends beyond the unit of government. Interestingly, there are almost no studies on “public administration public relations” (named as much). Finally, the broader term “public sector” has been used to refer to its reputation (Luoma‐aho, 2008; Luoma‐aho & Canel, 2016), branding (Wæraas, 2008), public relations (Valentini, 2013), communication management (Gelders et al., 2007), and mediatization (Fredriksson et al., 2015; Schillemans, 2012; Thorbjornsrud, Ustad Figenschou, & Ihlen, 2014). The term “public sector communication” has only been used by Graber (1992), Pandey and Garnett (2006), Glenny (2008), and Canel and Luoma‐aho (2015, 2019). Next we will examine the major contributions from different research disciplines that contribute to public sector communication, specifically those found in political communication; public relations and strategic communication; corporate communication; government communication; and public administration and public management. Figure I.2 illustrates these fields. We also acknowledge that there are other areas—such as political marketing—that have contributed to understandings of public sector communication. However, these are not the most central or relevant disciplines for the purposes of this book.

Political Communication The most relevant review of this field is the exploration conducted by Canel and Sanders (2010, 2012) (Sanders & Canel, 2013), in which they elucidate the concepts, theories, and approaches available for government communication research. These authors identify several areas of contribution, including “chief executive communication,” a fertile field of studies on presidential communication; the development of the “permanent campaign” (Blumenthal, 1980), an approach that has stressed the competitive and adversarial nature of communication relationships and of the politics of government communication; the logistical and operational issues of how governments organize their communication, as well as the examination of government communication practices associated with the development of electronic technology; the study of the news media/government nexus, which has generated a rich body of concepts and theories such as the indexing hypothesis, primary definition, agenda setting, priming, and framing (Sanders & Canel, 2013, p. 6); the changing media environment and its implications for politicians’ performance and presentation and their effects (Brants & Voltmer, 2011; Williams & Delli Carpini, 2011); and finally, citizens’ interactions and civic culture (Dahlgren, 2009; Ekman & Amnå, 2012; Milner, 2010).

12

Vilma Luoma-aho and María-José Canel Public Relations and Strategic Communication Stakeholder relationship management, strategic aims, and messages

Political Communication

Corporate Communication

Political influence, systems, power, and democracy

Intangible assets and organizational reputation

Public sector communication

Public Administration & Public Management

Government Communication & Public Affairs

Organizational performance, citizen satisfaction, and citizen interaction

Political messages and citizen engagement

Figure I.2  Major fields contributing to the understanding of public sector communication.

Canel and Sanders conclude this review by stating that political communication research focuses more on theoretical concerns regarding relations between communication and democracy, emphasizing the exploration of institutional and social contexts as well as normative concerns about the role that communication plays in society (Canel & Sanders, 2012; Sanders & Canel, 2013). To the extent that public sector organizations and public services are led by politicians within an ongoing mediated environment, political communication research aids in addressing the various political constraints within public sector communication. Some scholars attempt to establish boundaries between what is political/party‐political communication and the more apolitical and apartisan communication utilized by civil servants when they provide public services (Gelders & Ihlen, 2010; Glenny, 2008). This issue becomes more complex when one applies the definition of public sector communication provided above, which demands concepts and approaches that better help to capture different degrees of publicness in relation to different variables and thus to observe complex relations generated among multipurpose, multiorganizations that operate in the public sector and within mixed public‐ private categorizations.

Public Relations and Strategic Communication In a more up‐to‐date review of public relations research, Heath (2010) highlights different subfields (communication studies, rhetoric, persuasion, and strategic management) from which the following key concepts are identified: meaning, discourse, dialogue, sensemaking, cocreation, complexity, relations, crisis communication, symmetry, reputation, and corporate branding. Public relations has also been associated with providing societal value and contributing to the common good (Ihlen, van Ruler, & Fredriksson, 2009), making studies on this field of particular value for public sector communication. One of the key points raised in the field of public relations that is valuable in public sector communication research is that communication should be oriented toward establish long‐standing relationships between the organization and its stakeholders. Relational theory takes the view that organization–public relationships are represented by patterns of interaction, transaction, exchange,

Introduction to Public Sector Communication

13

and linkage between an organization and its publics (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997; Broom, Casey, Ritchey, 2000). Under this approach, notions of stakeholder loyalty, the impact of time on the quality of the relationship, trust, openness, involvement, satisfaction, commitment, mutuality (mutual understanding), and symmetry become more significant (Ledingham & Bruning, 2000). (For further discussion of these points, see Sanders & Canel, 2013 or Strömbäck & Kiousis, 2011.) It is from this perspective that Liu and Horsley (2007) propose a model for analyzing the relationship between governments and publics via a process that compares government communication practices and corporate ones (Horsley, Liu, & Levenshus, 2010; Liu, Horsley, & Yang, 2012). Hong, Park, Lee, and Park (2012) focus on the segmentation of publics for the purpose of building government public relations, while Gelders and Ihlen (2010) have provided a “gap analysis” framework to analyze possible gaps between governments and citizens in communicating public policies. However, other authors, such as Waymer (2013), have warned that relationship management research should take into account that there are publics with no desire for a relationship (particularly governments’ publics) and argue for a broader understanding of what constitutes democratic public relations. We propose that this suggestion should be considered in public sector communication research as well. In their cross‐disciplinary comparative analysis on the meaning of “professional government communication,” Canel and Sanders (Canel, 2014; Sanders & Canel, 2013) posit that public relations research tends to stress the effective practice of communication. In attempting to identify and establish professional standards and values, public relations scholarship is engaged in seeking out precise and tangible measures of internal efficiency and external effectiveness that will help to consolidate the identity and legitimacy of public relations. Several studies support this focus through their consideration of what government communication is. For example, Gregory (2006) provides a competencies framework for government communicators, which is designed to improve performance and the consistency of the communications function across government; Luoma‐aho promotes a barometer for public sector stakeholder experiences and reputation (Luoma‐aho, 2007); and Vos (2006) develops a model to measure the efficiency of government communication and, together with Westerhoudt, applies it to the Netherlands in order to develop a picture of the practice of government communication (Vos & Westerhoudt, 2008). Krey (2000), Hong (2013), and Lee (2007) discuss the tools that are available to improve the practice of government public relations.

Corporate Communication The key element of the field of corporate communication that appears to offer new perspectives for public sector communication research is the area of intangible assets and the ways in which these are developed and measured. This is a neglected area in public sector communication research if one makes a comparison with the attention paid to it in private sector communication research (Luoma‐aho & Makikangas, 2014), despite the fact that there may be a greater level of intangibility in the public sector (Queiroz, Callén, & Cinca, 2005). The changes that we understand to be shaping public sector communication today demand new inspirations about the value provided by the public sector for society. Orienting public sector communication to the development of intangible assets implies important transformations in the way communication is managed—in terms, for example, of determination of quality criteria, joint public–private partnerships, management of objectives, communication of results, and assessment of the quality of relations (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2015; Dahlberg & Holmberg, 2013; Garnett et al., 2008; Gelders & Ihlen, 2010; Luoma‐aho & Makikangas, 2014; Pollit & Bouckaert, 2011; Sanders & Canel, 2013; Wæraas, 2014; Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012). The most developed intangible assets in the public sector are intellectual capital, social capital (Burgman & Roos, 2004; Cinca et al., 2003; Luoma‐aho, 2005; Ramirez, 2010; Wall, 2005),

14

Vilma Luoma-aho and María-José Canel

and reputation (Luoma‐aho & Canel, 2016; Wæraas & Maor, 2015). With regard to reputation, some works focus on specific areas within the public sector. For instance, Carpenter (2014) examines the significance of reputation for the US Federal Drug Administration, while Evans and Hastings (2008) address the branding of public health messages and campaigns. In her comparison of corporate reputation and public sector reputation, Luoma‐aho (2007) distinguishes an additional element that shapes the reputation of public sector organizations but is not evident in corporations. She calls this element the “authority functions‐factor,” and it consists of views on how open an organization is to citizen engagement; how well it listens to citizen needs; how dynamic, conversation‐oriented, and flexible (or alternatively, how closed, dictating, and bureaucratic) it is; and how citizen‐oriented the organization is. All of these elements are believed to contribute to a public sector organization’s reputation. There appears to be a strong sector reputation (Luoma‐aho, 2008) attached to public sector organizations, and this reputation follows them even as organizations make improvements or positive changes (Luoma‐aho & Makikangas, 2014). In the public sector, organizations ­cannot build unique reputations, as they feel their legitimacy might suffer if they do so (Wæraas & Sataøen, 2015). Moreover, it has been argued that the ideals espoused in relation to public sector organizations’ reputations differ from those connected with corporations. It has been suggested that neutral reputational levels are ideal for organizations that cannot overpromise when it comes to performance and that have limited resources for managing reputation (Luoma‐aho, 2007). As reputation is an indicator of future behavior, public sector organizations’ reputations should be maintained at a sustainable level. Previous research has also underscored several challenges for reputation management in the public sector environment, such as the need to satisfy multiple stakeholders and the multitude of constituencies (Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012). In order to import the notion of intangible assets from the private sector to the public ­sector, we require new understandings about the conceptualization, classification, development, and evaluation of intangibility. These understandings include adjusting concepts and practices to public sector settings (for instance, moving from the notion of corporate social responsibility to that of institutional social responsibility); developing research on already imported assets, such as ideas about branding (Scammell, 2014; Wæraas, 2008); and opening lines of research to establish, coin, and build new intangible assets that better respond to the changing environments in which public sector communication operates today. Canel and Luoma‐aho build on an initial systematization (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2015) in their attempt to provide a systematic and thorough approach in order to focus critically on public sector organizations’ intangible assets, and in doing so they place emphasis on how these assets can help to close gaps between public sector organizations and their publics in order to rebuild trust (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019).

The Field of Government Communication Research Major scholarly contributions to public sector communication research at the level of government use the label “government communication.” This use is in fact a recent development, as until 2010 there was a dearth of empirical data on and little theoretical development of government communication. However, the situation improved in the following 5 years (Canel, 2014; Sanders & Canel, 2013). The most up‐to‐date source that provides a thorough and systematic analysis of government communication research is a book by Sanders and Canel (2013), in which government communication is taken as an object of study located at the crossroads of different areas and fields of research. The book includes a comparative analysis of communication research across 16 countries and highlights common trends as well as issues and challenges facing government communication worldwide. Its findings indicate that governments around the world are adopting new formulas

Introduction to Public Sector Communication

15

and spending more resources on communication, suggesting an implicit recognition of the importance of communication within their work. Governments are also being challenged to respond more rapidly to the development of digital media; to find adequate organizational charts to give communication more institutional weight; and to shift from a craft approach (which is more focused on the formal presentation) toward a strategic management function that aims to provide knowledge and skills for successful interaction between governments and stakeholders and that includes other activities such as reputation and relationship building, issues management, strategic communication planning, crisis communication, and ­public opinion research. Further challenges relate to a need to balance the work of policy and political communicators—a balance that should be reflected in institutional arrangements—and to define education and training programs that empower government communicators so that their work is oriented toward transparency, openness, participation, and trust building (Sanders & Canel, 2013). This work shows how interdisciplinary research involving political communication, public relations, and corporate and organizational communication research can produce both contrasting and complementary approaches that enrich the field of vision for the object of study. More specifically, while political communication research has quite rightly highlighted the political purposes of government communication, concepts developed within other research disciplines complement this perspective by providing new avenues of study directed toward what they have called the civic purposes of government communication: “Building long‐term relationships, mutual understanding and citizen engagement become part of what is understood to be government communication and understanding how they are helped and hindered then becomes part of the research agenda” (Canel & Sanders, 2014, p. 101). Thus, the systemic approach of political communication, which emphasizes systems and power, should incorporate a public relations approach, which throws the spotlight on practice, values, and occupational legitimacy to examine professionalism as an institutional process or as a dynamic “community of practice.” In this book, “communities of practice” were cross‐nationally compared to ascertain how the practice of central government communication is institutionally registered in structures at a mesolevel. A key conclusion was that the professionalization of government communication and government communication as a professional practice both involve an increase in strategic and civic capacities (Canel & Sanders, 2014).

Public Management and Public Administration Studies The most prolific author within public administration studies to develop a communication‐ oriented approach to the public sector is James L. Garnett. In 1992, he published Communicating for Results in Government: A Strategic Approach for Public Managers, a systematic work that provides interesting insights regarding both prescriptive and descriptive accounts of US public agencies’ communication. Together with Kouzmin, Garnett also edited the Handbook of Administrative Communication (Garnett & Kouzmin, 1997), an inspiring multidisciplinary handbook that encompasses organizational and public management theory and practice and explores the field of “administrative communication” research. This book remains the first and only of its kind to date. One of Garnett’s key assertions is that public administration studies have not yet fully reviewed the proposal endorsed in Osborne and Gaebler’s work Reinventing Government (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992) (and the related new public management [NPM] current), or what that proposal’s bearing on communication theory and practice is (Garnett, 2009, p. 245). NPM is a set of assumptions and value statements about public management that incorporates trends from the private sector, such as a focus on performance and efficiency, quality criteria, greater autonomy, deregulation, outsourced public services, private–public partnerships, fiscal‐transparency

16

Vilma Luoma-aho and María-José Canel

mechanisms, increased use of competitive mechanisms, management by objectives, results reporting, and technological modernization. Despite criticism about the achievements of NPM (Diefenbach, 2009; Goldfinch & Wallis, 2010; Luke, Kearins, & Verreynne, 2011), this field has several implications for public sector communication research and practice. The first implication is that NPM’s approaches to organizational structures and processes imply a more managerial focus on the communication function and emphasize the pervasiveness of communication within public administrators’ daily work duties. Scholars claim the need to rediscover the rigor, complexity, salience, diversity, richness, and centrality of communication (Garnett, 2009), and to present evidence about communication’s role in achieving organizational performance (Garnett et  al. 2008), as well as in building public sector organizational identities, culture, and leadership (Hansen, 2011; Horton, 2006). The second implication is that NPM’s approach also means conceptualizing the outcomes of public management as services rather than as products. This conceptualization in turn leads to challenges for researching citizens’ experiences and levels of satisfaction, as well as for understanding the attitude citizens have toward public sector communication (Bouckaert & Van de Walle, 2003; James & Moseley, 2014). The third implication for public sector communication research is the conceptualization of civil servants’ role and of their related responsibility to keep the public informed as well as to be informed by their publics (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2015; Garnett & Kouzmin, 1997; Preston & Donaldson, 1999). Scholars have introduced the concept of communication ethics for civil servants and have stressed the obligation of public administrators to be provided with insight relating to how publics think and react to government decisions in order to enhance democratic accountability, thus providing a counterbalance to the pejorative understanding of the “going public” strategy of public leaders (Kernell, 1986). Perhaps the furthest‐reaching implication of NPM for public sector communication pertains to the conceptualization of members of the public and leads to debates about whether they should be viewed as customers, taxpayers, partners, or citizens (Da Silva & Batista, 2007; Thomas, 2013). This debate will be further discussed in this volume, but here we wish to mention that major challenges for communication include determining new ways of interacting with citizens, sharing authority (Thomas, 2013, p. 794), establishing relations (Bell, Hindmoor, & Mols, 2010; Grunig, 1992), and conducting processes of dialogue in order to find the best way to process publics’ feedback (Garnett, 2009). Finally, a vital area of research relates to measurements and indicators and to finding the best ways of monitoring and assessing aspects of organizational and individual communication performance, as well as to measuring the impact of public programs on citizenship. The importance of measuring values such as transparency, trust, accessibility, and responsiveness is stressed in the literature (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2015; Fairbanks, Plowman, & Rawlins, 2007; Greiling & Spraul, 2010; Kim, Park, & Wertz, 2010; Pandey & Garnett, 2006; Roosbroek, 2006; Spencer & McGrath, 2006). In a recent appraisal of the current state of the science of public administration, Wright (2015) draws on three issues identified by Robert Dahl: the establishment—that is, definition, identification, and prioritization—of normative values; the development of a multidisciplinary understanding (drawn from psychology and sociology) of human behavior to better understand how public organizations perform and how citizens assess these performances; and a need to embrace various social and/or cultural settings. Wright concludes that although there have been advances in these three areas, there are further possibilities for progress and challenges to overcome in order to advance the science of public administration. In view of the fact that these three areas are crucially interconnected with communication developments, we end this section by concluding that the development of the science of public administration needs to integrate communication research as much as public sector communication research needs to build on the science of public administration.

17

Introduction to Public Sector Communication

Studying Public Sector Communication in Times of Change We end this introductory chapter by emphasizing that public sector communication is more vital than ever for public sector organizations due to changes in both the operating environment and society around public sector organizations, as well as to changes in individual citizens. There is a global expectation that public sector organizations will change from having power over citizens to sharing power with them (Thomas, 2013). A new focus on relationships is urgently required, as the previous focus on productivity has made public sector organizations increasingly dependent on the scientific management paradigm. Public sector organizations remain fragile as long as the following illusions persist: that their operating environment is predictable; that change can be controlled; and that ex post adaptations are sufficient (Bourgon, 2009; Bourgon, 2011). Change and reforms have become the new normal for public sector organizations (Pollit & Bouckaert, 2011). Many of these reforms focus on savings and efficiency (Kuipers et al., 2014). However, a better understanding of the values that citizens hold to be important is now required (Andrews, 2012; White, 2000). As citizens put it, “Public administrators need to know how to interact with the public” (Thomas, 2013, 786). The public sector’s dynamic of interaction is changing from one‐way feedback to real‐time dialogue within a variety of arenas. This and other factors, such as rise of private‐sector standards, have contributed to citizens’ increased expectations of service quality (Thijs & Staes, 2008). These expectations, in turn, are empowered by new technological developments and the rise of mass self‐communication (Castells, 2009), through which individual citizens are equipped to voice their personal experiences and opinions in real time to mass audiences and to do so without journalism’s traditional processes of fact checking, editing, or gatekeeping. This possibility of sharing experiences has potential to cause harm not only to individual organizations but also to entire sectors or cities. Public sector organizations’ values set the tone of communication within these organizations (Pollit & Bouckaert, 2011). As can be seen in Figure I.3, a recent study covering 34 countries

Public Sector Communication

Public sector PART III: PRACTICES - Performance management - Change management - Reputation management - Risk and crises communication - Strategic communication campaigns - NGO collaboration

PART I: SOCIETY - Democracy - Legitimacy - Trust and fairness - Transparency - Politics and policy

PART II: ORGANIZATIONS, STAKEHOLDERS AND EMPLOYEES - Intangible public value - Bureaucracy - Social exchange - Co-creation - Change and sensemaking - Mediatization

Citizens PART IV: CITIZENS AND STAKEHOLDERS - Citizen engagement - Dialogue - Expectations and satisfaction - Social media interaction - High-reliablity organizations - Diversity and inclusion

PART V: COMMUNICATION MEASUREMENT - Fundamentals - Media measurement - Audience attitudes - Goal alignment - Best practice development

Figure I.3  The topics covered in this handbook of public sector communication.

18

Vilma Luoma-aho and María-José Canel

suggests that when it comes to citizen satisfaction, the ways in which government and public sector services operate in practice are more important than the quality of democracy (Dahlberg & Holmberg, 2013). This finding highlights the role of public sector organizations, as they have the power to affect this satisfaction; citizen experiences are shaped by how these organizations communicate and function. Although there is a range of influences that shape citizens’ perceptions and experiences (Thijs & Staes, 2008), the role played by individual public sector organizations’ communication is central. Despite the fundamental public value of providing public services, citizens’, and public servants’ experiences and expectations are often overlooked in public sector development (Pekkarinen, Hennala, Harmaakorpi, & Tura, 2011), and change management continues to be a topic of interest in this field. In fact, within earlier literature on public sector change, the microview of individuals has been overshadowed by the overwhelming attention paid to change outcomes and processes (Kuipers et al., 2014). There is common agreement that public sector organizations and services should be “more responsive to society’s needs and demands” (Thijs & Staes, 2008, p. 8), yet simultaneously the publics that they serve are more complex than ever (Thomas, 2013). Public sector organizations are often a target of citizen criticism. There is currently a sense of citizen dissatisfaction throughout the Western world, which is causing a global trend of downsizing of public sector organizations and moves toward privatized service provision. Moreover, many public sector organizations are products of the time when they were established. As time goes by, they undergo constant political and organizational reforms and mergers to better meet citizens’ changing needs. Behind the demand for better service and for active public sector organizations is a shift in citizens’ self‐perceptions; they now see themselves as “customers” and “stakeholders” who expect to be involved and to get value for their money. The role and title that citizens receive are of central importance, as they shape public sector organizations’ strategies for communicating with this group. Today, there are new roles that citizens fulfill beyond that of traditional citizen. When they receive information about a benefit or a public sector service, for example, they are often termed “beneficiaries,” “clients,” or “customers.” These roles give a voice to citizens, but they also serve to overemphasize the role of active citizens as mere receivers of public goods. These roles emphasize demands for exchange and quality: citizens now tend to take the view that if they contribute money to a service, its quality should be higher (Thijs & Staes, 2008). Citizens are also often considered “users” and “producers” of public services, and they at times contribute to their own services and goods. Despite these new roles, many public sector communication plans merely focus on communication devices associated with legacy media—for example, press releases and information campaigns—and in doing so, they miss out on the potential for reaching citizens on their own terms and in other arenas (Luoma‐aho, Tirkkonen, & Vos, 2013). There is an urgent need to shift from a “culture of controls” toward citizen‐centered engagement (Bourgon, 2011; Lay‐Hwa Bowden et al., 2016). Citizen‐centered engagement refers to participation and to the intensity of interaction and experiences on emotional, cognitive, and behavioral levels (Brodie, Ilic, Juric, & Hollebeek, 2013). It has both scientific and societal value, as engaged individuals contribute to democracy and to the innovation of public services. However, citizen‐centered engagement does not only manifest itself in positive forms; there are negative forms of citizen engagement, and levels of disengagement are also increasing (Lay‐Hwa Bowden et al., 2016). Previous research suggests that citizen expectations are formed based on a combination of previous experiences, personal needs, word of mouth, and both implicit and explicit public service communication (Thijs & Staes, 2008). However, more research is needed to better understand the complex dynamic that results from an absence of direct causal relationships between citizens’ expectations, public organizations’ achievements, public policy results, communication performance, and citizens’ satisfaction and trust (James, 2009, 2011; James & Moseley, 2014).

Introduction to Public Sector Communication

19

Moreover, communication itself is changing. As traditional mass communication is becoming outdated (Castells, 2009), organizations face the challenge of reaching individual citizens within their cultural bubbles (Sloterdijk, 2011). These bubbles let in the communication that citizens actively choose for themselves, and instead of traditional mass media content, that communication consists of streams and feeds that citizens select from an array of potential messages. Moreover, as citizens are able to communicate their needs and experiences online and in real time to mass audiences, individual experiences are considered to be of increased importance. There is no longer a mass audience, but rather a “superdiversity” of citizens (Vertovec, 2007). “Superdiversity” in this context refers to the wide scale of variance available in today’s multigroup relationships (Vertovec, 2007). Public sector organizations and their stakeholders are globally interconnected, and single policies or actions may result in new and unexpected multicultural impacts (Luoma‐ aho & Paloviita, 2010). A shift is taking place from citizen categorization to temporal and dynamic citizen roles and identities, as well as to the profiling of citizens in terms of their being different types of service users.

Outline of This Handbook This book provides a thorough account of the theories, concepts, fields, problems, and challenges that converge in public sector communication research, and it takes into account the changing environments of the world. The volume features five parts, which cover different aspects of public sector communication: society, organizations, practices, citizens, and measurements. A cross‐chapter concern is to explore how a specific concept is both affected by and shapes public sector communication. Figure I.3 illustrates how the chapters of this handbook cut across the different “bubbles” of public sector organizations and citizens. Part 1 of this book introduces an overall perspective on the relationship between public sector communication and society, and it examines the following concepts: democracy, legitimacy, trust, transparency, politics, and policy. Part 2 delves into specific organizational issues, such as intangible value, bureaucracy, employee–organization relations, coproduction, organizational change, and mediatization. Part 3 reviews a number of ways in which public sector communication is seen in the context of performance, change, and reputation management, and it discusses risks, crises, campaigns, and NGO collaboration. Part 4 centers on citizens and stakeholders by focusing on the following topics: engagement, expectations, satisfaction, dialogue, citizen empowerment and engagement, social media interactions, high‐reliability organizations, and diversity. Finally, Part 5 addresses questions of evaluation and valuation. The fundamentals of evaluation (concepts, frameworks, and models), evaluation of traditional and digital media content, evaluation of audiences (awareness, attitudes, and responses), evaluation of outcomes, and finally, new best‐practice developments for evaluations are presented. The chapters follow a common structure and attempt to cover the following considerations. In discussing why the specific topic is of central importance for public sector communication today, each chapter defines the topic (and its development over time and across disciplines) and describes current theories, frameworks, conceptual tools, and research methods. Each chapter also looks at how the specific topic shapes and views the relationship between citizens and the public sector within different national contexts and cultures. Communication is thus explored (with its various prerequisites, constraints, practices, outcomes, and examples) from different perspectives throughout the chapters. Finally, each chapter highlights debates, controversies, and challenges, and each one indicates new directions and uncharted territory for public sector communication research and practice. The concluding chapter attempts to plot out a future research agenda for what we consider to be an emerging and challenging topic for the development of society.

20

Vilma Luoma-aho and María-José Canel

References Andersen, D. F., & Dawes, S. S. (1991). Government information management: A primer and casebook. Eaglewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall. Andrews, R. (2012). Social capital and public service performance: A review of the evidence. Public Policy and Administration, 27(1), 49–67. Andrews, R., Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2011). Dimensions of publicness and organizational performance: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl 3), i301–i319. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur026 Antonsen, M., & Jørgensen, T. B. (1997). The ’publicness’ of public organizations. Public Administration, 75(2), 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9299.00064 Bacharach, S. B., & Aiken, M. (1977). Communication in administrative bureaucracies. Academy of Management Journal, 20(3), 265–377. Bell, S., Hindmoor, A., & Mols, F. (2010). Persuasion as governance: A state‐centric relational perspective. Public Administration, 88(3), 851–870. Bjornholt, B., & Houlberg Salomonsen, H. (2015). Contracting and performance in agencies: A question of control, dialogue or autonomy? Public Organization Review, 15(4), 509–530. Blumenthal, S. (1980). The permanent campaign: Inside the world of elite political operations. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Bouckaert, G., & Van de Walle, S. (2003). Comparing measures of citizen trust and user satisfaction as indicators of ‘good governance’: Difficulties in linking trust and satisfaction indicators. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 69(3), 329–343. Bourgon, J. (2009). New directions in public administration: Serving beyond the predictable. Public Policy and Administration, 24(3), 309–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076709103813 Bourgon, J. (2011). A new synthesis of public administration: Serving in the 21st century. Washington, DC: McGill Queen’s Press, MQUP. Bozeman, B., & Bretschneider, S. (1994). The “publicness puzzle” in organization theory: A test of alternative explanations of differences between public and private organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(2), 197–223. Bozeman, B., & Moulton, S. (2011). Integrative publicness: A framework for public management strategy and performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl 3), i363–i380. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur031 Brants, K., & Voltmer, K. (2011). Political communication in postmodern democracy: Challenging the primacy of politics. London, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 105–114. Broom, G., Casey, R., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization‐public relationship. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(2), 83–89. Broom, G., Casey, R., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Toward a concept and theory of organization‐public relationships: An update. In J. A. Lendingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to public relations (pp. 3–22). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Burgman, R., & Roos, G. (2004). Measuring, managing and delivering value performance in the public sector. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 1(2), 132–149. Canel, M. (2007). Comunicación de las instituciones públicas. (Communicating public institutions). Madrid, Spain: Tecnos. Canel, M. (2014). Reflexiones sobre la reputación ideal de la administración pública (thoughts on the ideal reputation for the public administration). In M. Herrero, A. Cruz, R. Lázaro, & A. Martínez (Eds.), Escribir en las almas. Estudios en honor de Rafael Alvira (pp. 69–88). Pamplona, Spain: Eiunsa. Canel, M., & Luoma‐aho, V. (2015). Building intangible assets in the public sector: An introduction. In Introductory Paper for the ICA Preconference “Public Sector Communication – the Challenge of Building Intangible Assets,” Sponsored by Political Communication Division & Public Relations Division, San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 21, 2015 (pp. 1–13). Puerto Rico: International Communication Association. https://www.academia.edu/12432865/Building_Intangible_assets_in_the_public_sector_An_ Introduction_ICA_Preconference_2015_ Canel, M., & Luoma‐aho, V. (2019). Public sector communication. Closing gaps between public sector organizations and citizens. Boston, MA: Wiley.

Introduction to Public Sector Communication

21

Canel, M., & Sanders, K. (2010). Para estudiar la comunicación de los gobiernos. un análisis del estado de la cuestión. Comunicación y Sociedad, 23(1), 7–48. Canel, M., & Sanders, K. (2012). Situating government communication research on the map of political communication. In H. Semetko & M. Scammell (Eds.), Handbook of political communication (pp. 85–96). London, UK: Sage. Canel, M., & Sanders, K. (2014). Is it enough to be strategic? Comparing and defining professional government communication across disciplinary fields and between countries. In M. Canel & K. Voltmer (Eds.), Comparing political communication across time and space: New studies in an emerging field (pp. 98–116). London, UK: Palgrave. Canel, M., & Sanders, K. (2015). Government communication. In G. Mazzoleni, K. Barnhurst, K. Ikeda, R. Maia, & H. Wessler (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of political communication. Boston, MA: Wiley. Carpenter, D. (2014). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Carpenter, D. P., & Krause, G. A. (2012). Reputation and public administration. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐6210.2011.02506.x Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Cinca, C. S., Molinero, C. M., & Queiroz, A. B. (2003). The measurement of intangible assets in public sector using scaling techniques. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(2), 249–275. Da Silva, R., & Batista, L. (2007). Boosting government reputation through CRM. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 20(7), 588–607. Dahlberg, S., & Holmberg, S. (2013). Democracy and bureaucracy: How their quality matters for popular satisfaction. West European Politics, 37(3), 515–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2013.830 468 Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and political engagement. Cambridge, UK: University Press Cambridge. Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2015). The new public service revisited. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 664–672. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12347 Diefenbach, T. (2009). New public management in public sector organizations: The dark sides of managerialistic enlightenment? Public Administration, 87(4), 892–909. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467‐9299.2009.01766.x Dorsey, J. T., Jr. (1957). A communication model for administration. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2(3), 307–324. Ekman, J., & Amnå, E. (2012). Political participation and civic engagement: Towards a new typology. Human Affairs, 22(3), 283–300. Evans, W. D., & Hastings, G. (2008). Public health branding: Applying marketing for social change. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Fairbanks, J., Plowman, K. D., & Rawlins, B. L. (2007). Transparency in government communication. Journal of Public Affairs, 7(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.245 Fredriksson, M., Schillemans, T., & Pallas, J. (2015). Determinants of organizational mediatization: An analysis of the adaptation of Swedish government agencies to news media. Public Administration, 93(4), 1049–1067. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12184 Froehlich, R., & Rüdiger, B. (2006). Framing political public relations: Measuring success of political communication strategies in Germany. Public Relations Review, 32(1), 18–25. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.10.003 Garnett, J. L. (1992). Communicating for results in government. A strategic approach for public managers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. Garnett, J. (1997). Administrative Communication: domains, threats, and legitimacy. In Handbook of Administrative Communication, Public Administration and Policy (Vol. 63, pp. 1–20, CRC Press). Boca Raton, FL. Garnett, J. L. (2009). Administrative communication (or how to make all the rest work): The concept of professional centrality. In R. J. Stillman (Ed.), Public administration: Concepts and cases (pp. 242–256). Boston, MA: Wadsworth. Garnett, J. L., & Kouzmin, A. (Eds.) (1997). Handbook of administrative communication. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker. Garnett, J. L., Marlowe, J., & Pandey, S. K. (2008). Penetrating the performance predicament: Communication as a mediator or moderator of organizational culture impact on public organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐6210.2007.00861.x

22

Vilma Luoma-aho and María-José Canel

Gelders, D., Bouckaert, G., & van Ruler, B. (2007). Communication management in the public sector: Consequences for public communication about policy intentions. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 326–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.06.009 Gelders, D., & Ihlen, Ø. (2010). Government communication about potential policies: Public relations, propaganda or both? Public Relations Review, 36(1), 59–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.pubrev.2009.08.012 Gelders, D., & Walle, S. V. D. (2005). Marketing government reforms. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 14(1–2), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1300/J054v14n01_09 Glenny, L. (2008). Perspectives of communication in the Australian public sector. Journal of Communication Management, 12(2), 152–168. Goldfinch, S., & Wallis, J. (2010). Two myths of convergence in public management reform. Public Administration, 88(4), 1099–1115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9299.2010.01848.x Graber, D. (1992). Public sector communication: How organizations manage information. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Graber, D. A. (2003). The power of communication: Managing information in public organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Gregory, A. (2006). A development framework for government communicators. Journal of Communication Management, 10(2), 197–210. Greiling, D., & Spraul, K. (2010). Accountability and the challenges of information disclosure. Public Administration Quarterly, 3, 338–377. Grunig, J. E. (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, J., & Jaatinen, M. (1999). Strategic, symmetrical public relations in government: From pluralism to societal corporatism. Journal of Communication Management, 3(3), 218–234. Hansen, M. B. (2011). Antecedents of organizational innovation: The diffusion of new public management into Danish local government. Public Administration, 89(2), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1467‐9299.2010.01855.x Heath, R. (2010). Introduction: Mind, self and society. In R. Heath (Ed.), The Sage handbook of public relations (pp. I–XV). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Highsaw, R. B., & Bowen, D. L. (1965). Communication in public administration. Bureau of Public Administration, University of Alabama. Hong, H. (2013). Government websites and social media’s influence on government‐public relationships. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 346–356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.07.007 Hong, H., Park, H., Lee, Y., & Park, J. (2012). Public segmentation and government–Public relationship building: A cluster analysis of publics in the United States and 19 European countries. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2012.626135 Horsley, J. S., Liu, B. F., & Levenshus, A. B. (2010). Comparisons of U.S. government communication practices: Expanding the government communication decision wheel. Communication Theory, 20(3), 269–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468‐2885.2010.01363.x Horton, S. (2006). New public management: Its impact on public servant’s identity: An introduction to this symposium. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(6), 533–542. https://doi. org/10.1108/09513550610685970 Howlett, M. (2009). Government Communication as a policy tool: A framework for analysis. Canadian Political Science Review, 3(2), 23–37. Ihlen, Ø., van Ruler, B., & Fredriksson, M. (2009). In Ø. Ihlen, B. van Ruler, & M. Fredriksson (Eds.), Public relations and social theory (1st ed.). London, UK: Routledge. James, O. (2009). Evaluating the expectations disconfirmation and expectations anchoring approaches to citizen satisfaction with local public services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 107–123. James, O. (2011). Managing citizens’ expectations of public service performance: evidence from observation and experimentation in local government. Public Administration, 89(4), 1419–1435. James, O., & Moseley, A. (2014). Does performance information about public services affect citizens’ perceptions, satisfaction and voice behaviour? Field experiments with absolute and relative performance information TION. Public Administration, 92(2), 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/ padm.12066 Kernell, S. (1986). Going public: New strategies of presidential leadership. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Introduction to Public Sector Communication

23

Kim, S., Park, J.‐H., & Wertz, E. K. (2010). Expectation gaps between stakeholders and web‐based corporate public relations efforts: Focusing on Fortune 500 corporate web sites. Public Relations Review, 36(3), 215–221. Krey, D. (2000). Delivering the message: A resource guide for public information officials. Sacramento, CA: California Association of Public Information Officials. Kuipers, B. S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J., & Van Der Voet, J. (2014). The management of change in public organizations: A literature review. Public Administration, 92(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12040 Laing, A. (2003). Marketing in the public sector: Towards a typology of public services. Marketing Theory, 3(4), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593103042005 Lay‐Hwa Bowden, J., Luoma‐aho, V., & Naumann, K. (2016). Developing a spectrum of positive to negative citizen engagement. In R. J. Brodie, L. Hollebeek, & J. Conduit (Eds.), Customer engagement contemporary issues and challenges (1st ed., pp. 257–277). London, UK: Routledge. Lee, M. (2007). Government public relations: A reader. Washington, DC: CRC Press. Ledingham, J., & Bruning, S. (2000). Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lee, M. (2010). Government public relations during Herbert Hoover’s presidency. Public Relations Review, 36(1), 56–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.10.009 Lee, M. Y., Fairhurst, A., & Wesley, S. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: A review of the top 100 US retailers. Corporate Reputation Review, 12, 140. Liu, B. F., & Horsley, J. S. (2007). The government communication decision wheel: Toward a public relations model for the public sector. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(4), 377–393. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10627260701402473 Liu, B. F., Horsley, J. S., & Levenshus, A. B. (2010). Government and corporate communication practices: Do the differences matter? Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(2), 189–213. https://doi. org/10.1080/00909881003639528 Liu, B. F., Horsley, J. S., & Yang, K. (2012). Overcoming negative media coverage: Does government communication matter? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(3), 597–621. https:// doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur078 Luke, B., Kearins, K., & Verreynne, M.‐L. (2011). The risks and returns of new public management: Political business. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 24(4), 325–355. https://doi. org/10.1108/09513551111133489 Luoma‐aho, V. (2005). Faith‐holders as social capital of finnish public organisations. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä. Luoma‐aho, V. (2007). Neutral reputation and public sector organizations. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(2), 124–143. Luoma‐aho, V. (2008). Sector reputation and public organisations. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(5), 446–467. Luoma‐aho, V., & Canel, M.‐J. (2016). Public sector reputation. In Sage encyclopedia of corporate communication (pp. 597–600). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Luoma‐aho, V. L., & Makikangas, M. E. (2014). Do public sector mergers (re)shape reputation? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 27(1), 39–52. Luoma‐aho, V., & Paloviita, A. (2010). Actor‐networking stakeholder theory for today’s corporate communications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(1), 49–67. https://doi. org/10.1108/13563281011016831 Luoma‐aho, V., Tirkkonen, P., & Vos, M. (2013). Monitoring the issue arenas of the swine‐flu discussion. Journal of Communication Management, 17(3), 239–251. Macnamara, J. (2016). Organizational listening: The missing essential in public communication. New York, NY: Peter Lang. McCamy, J. L. (1939). Public relations in public administration. In C. B. Joeckel (Ed.), Current issues in library administration (pp. 31–39). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press. Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2011). Comparing public and private management: Theoretical expectations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl 3), i283–i299. https://doi. org/10.1093/jopart/mur027 Milner, H. (2010). The internet generation: Engaged citizens or political dropouts. Medford, MA: Tufts University Press.

24

Vilma Luoma-aho and María-José Canel

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York, NY: Adison‐Wesle. Pandey, S. K., & Garnett, J. L. (2006). Exploring public sector communication performance: Testing a model and drawing implications. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 37–51. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540‐6210.2006.00554.x Pekkarinen, S., Hennala, L., Harmaakorpi, V., & Tura, T. (2011). Clashes as potential for innovation in public service sector reform. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 24(6), 507–532. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551111163639 Pfetsch, B. (2008). Government news management: Institutional approaches and strategies in three western democracies reconsidered. In D. Graber, D. McQuail, & P. Norris (Eds.), The politics of news the news of politics (pp. 71–79). Washington, DC: CQ Press. Pollit, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Preston, L. E., & Donaldson, T. (1999). Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 619–620. Queiroz, A. B., Callén, Y. F., & Cinca, C. S. (2005). Reflexiones en torno a la aplicación del capital intelectual en el sector público. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting, 34(124), 211–245. Rainey, H. G. (2011). Sampling designs for analyzing publicness: Alternatives and their strengths and weaknesses. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl 3), i321–i345. https:// doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur029 Ramirez, Y. (2010). Intellectual capital models in Spanish public sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(2), 248–264. Redfield, C. E. (1958). Communication in management: The theory and practice of administrative communication. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Roosbroek, S. (2006). Comparing trust in government across countries: What role for public administration? Leuven, The Netherlands: Public Management Institute. Sanders, K. (2011). Political public relations and government communication. In J. Strömbäck & S. Kiousis (Eds.), Political public relations: Principles and applications (pp. 254–273). New York, NY: Routledge. Sanders, K., & Canel, M. (Eds.) (2013). Government communication cases and challenges (1st ed.). London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. Scammell, M. (2014). Consumer democracy: The marketing of politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press. Schillemans, T. (2012). Mediatization of public services. How organizations adapt to news media. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang. Sloterdijk, P. (2011). Bubbles, spheres I. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Spencer, T., & McGrath, C. (Eds.) (2006). Challenge and response: Essays on public affairs and transparency. Brussels, Belgium: Landmarks. Strömbäck, J., & Kiousis, S. (2011). Political public relations. Principles and applications. New York, NY: Routledge. Thayer, L. O. (1961). Administrative communication. Homewood, IL: R.D. Irwin. Thijs, N., & Staes, P. (2008). European primer on customer satisfaction management. (Primer). The  Netherlands: EUPAN/EIPA. Retrieved from http://www.eupan.eu/files/repository/ 20101215131727_EU_Primer_English__FINAL_LR.pdf Thomas, J. C. (2013). Citizen, customer, partner: Rethinking the place of the public in public management. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 786–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12109 Thorbjornsrud, K., Ustad Figenschou, T., & Ihlen, Ø. (2014). Mediatization in public bureaucracies: A typology. Communications ‐ the European Journal of Communication Research, 39(1), 3–22. Valentini, C. (2013). Public relations in the public sector. The role of strategic communication in the Italian public administration. Sinergie Rivista Di Studi E Ricerche, 93–113. Van Der Hart, H. (1991). Government organisations and their customers in the Netherlands: Strategy, tactics and operations. European Journal of Marketing, 24(7), 31–42. Vertovec, S. (2007). Super‐diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701599465 Vos, M. (2006). Setting the research agenda for governmental communication. Journal of Communication Management, 10(3), 250.

Introduction to Public Sector Communication

25

Vos, M., & Schoemaker, H. (2006). Monitoring public perception of organizations. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Boomonderwijs. Vos, M., & Westerhoudt, E. (2008). Trends in government communication in the Netherlands. Journal of Communication Management, 12(1), 18–29. Wæraas, A. (2008). Can public sector organizations be coherent corporate brands? Marketing Theory, 8(2), 205–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593108093325 Wæraas, A. (2014). Beauty from within: What bureaucracies stand for. The American Review of Public Administration, 44(6), 675–692. Wæraas, A., & Byrkjeflot, H. (2012). Public sector organizations and reputation management: Five problems. International Public Management Journal, 15(2), 186–206. Wæraas, A., & Maor, M. (Eds.) (2015). Organizational reputation in the public sector. London, UK: Routledge. Wæraas, A., & Sataøen, H. (2015). Being all things to all customers: Building reputation in an institutionalized field. British Journal of Management, 26(2), 310–326. Walker, R. M., Brewer, G. A., Boyne, G. A., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2011). Market orientation and public service performance: New public management gone mad? Public Administration Review, 71, 707. Wall, A. (2005). The measurement and management of intellectual capital in the public sector. Public Management Review, 7(2), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030500091723 Waymer, D. (2013). Democracy and government public relations: Expanding the scope of “relationship” in public relations research. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 320–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.pubrev.2013.07.015 White, L. (2000). Changing the “whole system” in the public sector. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(2), 162–177. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810010321481 Williams, B. A., & Delli Carpini, M. (2011). After broadcast news. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wright, B. E. (2015). The science of public administration: Problems, presumptions, progress, and possibilities. Public Administration Review, 75(6), 795–805. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12468

Part I

Public Sector Communication and Society Michael X. Delli Carpini

Introduction In his 1742 book, Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary, the Scottish philosopher David Hume reflected on “the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers.” This despite the fact that “force is always on the side of the governed, [while] the governors have nothing to support them but opinion.” He concludes that it is “on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular” (p. 28). One can debate how easily the many submit to the few, as well as whether force is always unequivocally on the side of the governed, though recent populist stirrings across the globe, and the variety of ways they have manifest themselves certainly suggest that Hume’s observations remain relevant today. And the importance of “public opinion” for polities ranging from democratic to authoritarian is indisputable. These opinions can range from deep‐seated attitudes and beliefs about the ways in which the public sector operates—what might be called “procedural justice”—to more specific views on the tangible outcomes produced by this process, or ­“distributive justice” (Lind & Tyler 1988; Thibaut & Walker 1975). If one accepts the importance of public opinion to governance, it follows that communication is equally important. This is true at several levels. At a minimum, those in power need to have some sense of what the prevailing and discordant opinions are, and who holds them. They often also need to respond to and/or influence public opinions in order to govern effectively, or at least stay in power. These are all forms of information exchange, and so are quintessentially communicative processes. That said, how opinions matter, what opinions matter, whose opinions matter, when they matter, and why they matter can vary greatly, as can the role of communication in the expression, monitoring, influencing, and responding to citizens’ opinions. These variations are ultimately determined by the structure of the public sector, and its relationship to the larger society in which it is embedded. And as Hume reminds us, this is true even when comparing systems

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

28

Michael X. Delli Carpini

that are nominally the same—for example, “advanced democracies”—let alone those that differ more dramatically in the rights and responsibilities granted to citizens. The chapters in this section explore the relationship between the public sector and society, with a particular focus on the nature and implications of communication between citizens and the state. In the first chapter, I “unpack” key terms such as the public sector, the public sphere, public sector communication, and democracy, discuss the complex relationships among these concepts, and point to relatively recent efforts to experiment with more direct ways for citizens to be meaningfully involved in the public sector’s authoritative allocation of goods, services, and values. In Chapter 2 Arild Waeraas moves us from the “meta‐level” of democratic theory to the “meso‐level” by focusing on the organizations that collectively constitute the public sector and how they are perceived by citizens. In his chapter, Waeraas distinguishes “organizational reputation” from “organizational legitimacy,” addresses the crucial and often underconsidered importance of the latter for the viability of public sector organizations, and makes the case that an overemphasis on communication designed to enhance an organization’s reputation can ultimately hurt its legitimacy. Chapter 3, authored by Nadine Raaphorst and Steven van de Walle, takes us yet deeper into the relationship between the public sector and society through a more “micro‐level” examination of public sector communication. They do so by focusing on the places where citizens and the state most frequently interact—the bureaucratic encounters where civil servants and citizens actually meet. In their chapter, they make the case that public sector communication is a particular type of ritualized interpersonal communication; one in which power relations are often ­unequal and information on one or both sides is often incomplete. As such, the “signals” sent through these interactions are ripe for misinterpretation, with serious consequences for citizens’ trust in the public sector. In Chapter 4, Katerina Tsetsura and Vilma Luoma‐aho return to the meso‐level by exploring transparency and corruption in public sector organizations. They argue that public sector nontransparency and corruption are deeply intertwined, with nontransparency providing the cover that allows for individual, intra‐organizational, and inter‐organizational corruption in the form of quid‐pro‐quo interactions designed primarily for personal or organizational gain rather than the public good. They also argue that both nontransparency and corruption are more common in nondemocratic and, to a lesser extent, emerging democratic regimes, and that they are most widespread and deeply embedded in organizations and systems where nontransparency and corruption go beyond isolated acts to being part of the larger societal and public sector culture. And in ways that connect to the chapter by Raaphorst and van de Walle, they argue that public mistrust is both an outcome of nontransparency and corruption, and a real and perceptual barrier to any efforts for reform. Finally, in Chapter 5 Leanne Glenny takes us back to the meta‐level by exploring the complex and often problematic nature of public sector communication resulting from the need to simultaneously serve the needs of two “masters”—elected officials and citizens. This inherently political relationship can limit the ability of the public sector to meet its core goal: the making and implementation of policies designed to reflect and enhance the public good. She argues that understanding these challenges, and addressing them in ways that bring the public more meaningfully into the process, can limit the more corrosive and divisive effects of partisan politics, create a more autonomous public sector, and ultimately contribute to a more democratic system. Taken together, several important themes emerge from these chapters. First is the role of communication in the complicated interconnection between performance and perception. As argued in Chapter 1, the state’s central role is the authoritative allocation of goods, services and values, and, as Glenny notes, this allocation should be in service of the public good. But to be effective, policy both depends on and influences public opinion. In a well‐functioning society, this iterative process is a tight one; that is, policies reflect the priorities of the public, and public perceptions

Public Sector Communication and Society

29

are based on a thoughtful and reasoned assessment of the effectiveness of policy. However, for a variety of reasons highlighted in these chapters—from organizations’ focus on reputation over legitimacy, to miscommunications between public servants and the publics they serve, to outright corruption, to the problematic intersection of the policy process and politics—performance and perceptions can become decoupled, often with disastrous short and long‐term effects. A second theme is the numerous moments in which citizens and the state can interact. The policy process runs from problem identification and prioritization to implementation and assessment, and while we often see the public as “client,” their role, especially though not exclusively in democracies, is much more than that. Citizens are directly or indirectly involved in every stage of the process, and these interactions are crucial for both how the public sector performs and how it is perceived. The third theme emerging from these chapters is the importance of both institutional structures and individual behaviors. Citizen‐state interactions are often informal and unplanned. They also depend on the motivations and abilities of the actors involved. But the opportunities for such interactions, as well as their nature, quality, and impact, ultimately depend on how a public sector is designed. Indeed it is the extent to which an authoritative role for citizens is formally integrated into the various activities of the public sector that distinguishes truly democratic states from those that are less so, that helps assure that the state is trusted and that its actions are viewed as legitimate, and that increase the likelihood that the policies produced are reflective of the public will and the public good. Finally, the chapters in this section collectively reflect the duality of our current circumstances, as scholars, practitioners, and as citizens. Extent theory and research tells us a lot about the importance of public sector communication, its integral relationship to policy and public opinion, what the pitfalls are, and how these pitfalls might be avoided. But it is also clear that these dynamics are context dependent and complex, and that there is much more we need to know. Practitioners have made great advances on a number of fronts to improve their communications with the public, and to formally integrate these communications into the substance of agenda setting, policy formation, implementation and service provision, and assessment. But at the same time, efforts at bringing the public into dialogue can be superficial or backfire, miscommunication remains common, and marketing can substitute for meaningful engagement, creating unacceptable gaps between what the state actually does and how it is perceived by the public. And while citizens’ motivations, abilities, and opportunities to engage appear to be on the rise in many places across the globe, trust in the public sector and faith in its legitimacy are declining, often precipitously, reminding us that the line between effective democracy and problematic forms of populism is a thin one.

References Hume, D. (1854/1742). Essays: Moral, political, and literary (Vol. 1). Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Company. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Berlin, Germany: Springer Science & Business Media. Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. New York, NY: L. Erlbaum Associates.

1

Public Sector Communication and Democracy Michael X. Delli Carpini

Introduction This chapter explores the various ways that citizens communicate with the state, and the relationship of these forms of communication to the theory and practice of democracy. I say “to democracy” rather than “in democracy” because communicative practices do not simply follow from the type of government or public sector, but rather are inextricably intertwined with it; as much cause as result. This mutual dependence is what John Dewey had in mind when he wrote that people “live in a community in virtue of the things they have in common and communication is the way they possess things in common” (1916, p. 7). Because of this, the relationship between communication and democracy is as relevant to non‐democracies and emerging democracies as to established ones. The central argument of this chapter is threefold. First, that citizens’1 primary role in the public sector is a discursive one; that is, to communicate with the state. Second, that states vary dramatically in the authority granted to citizens’ public sector voices. And third, that the substance, participants, and structures that shape public sector communication define how more or less democratic a state is. To make this argument, the chapter begins by defining the “essentially contestable” concepts (Gallie, 1955) of “the public sphere,” “the private sphere,” and the “sphere of public authority,” and their connections to “the public sector.” The next two sections then define “public sector communication” and the distinction between democratic public sector communication and public sector communication in a democracy. The chapter then turns to the ways that citizens’ public sector communication can indirectly and directly influence the policy‐making process. This is followed by a closer look at the relationship between citizens’ discursive participation in the public sphere and in the public sector, and the important role of institutions in facilitating this relationship, using the United States as a case study. Finally it concludes with thoughts on the relationship between the public sector, citizens, and democracy, and suggests avenues for future research.

  I use the term citizens and the public interchangeably in this chapter, though by citizen I mean more than those with legal status within a state.

1

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

32

Michael X. Delli Carpini

Defining and Distinguishing the Public Sector What is the public sector? How does it differ from the public sphere? In Habermas’s (1989) conception, the public sphere is a “discursive space” (Hauser, 1999, p. 61) simultaneously distinct from and encompassing both the private sphere of civil society and the “sphere of public authority” (Habermas, 1989, p. 30) embodied in the state. As defined by Habermas, the public sphere is a place (in both the physical and metaphysical sense) that, “through the vehicle of public opinion… put the state in touch with the needs of society” (p. 31). While public spheres exist in polities of various stripes, the normative assumption underlying most public sphere theory is that the legitimacy of the state depends on whether it listens and responds to views that are formed and expressed in the public sphere (Benhabib, 1992). The Habermasian conceptualization of the public sphere allows us to distinguish it from “the public sector,” with the latter defined as the institutions of “public authority,” “the state,” or most simply, “government.” It is within the public sector that the policy process—that is, the identification of public issues, the consideration of alternative ways of addressing these issues, the selection, design, and implementation of specific policies, and their monitoring, evaluation and revision—takes place. In addition, the ambiguity in Habermas’s theory regarding whether the public sphere is distinct from and/or encompassing of the state and the private sphere can prove useful, in that, as Vilma Luoma‐aho and Maria‐Jose Canel make clear in their introduction to this handbook, the lines between public and private have always been, and are increasingly, blurred. The notion of the public sphere as a discursive space for the formation and expression of public opinion also foregrounds the crucial, even defining, role of communication, both among citizens and between citizens and the state. Lastly, the normative dimension of public sphere theory allows us to distinguish the larger concepts of the public sphere and public sector from more specific conceptualizations of a democratic public sphere and/or public sector; that is, one in which citizens have the opportunity to engage each other (in the public sphere) and the state (in the public sector, or in Habermas’s term, the sphere of public authority) in the formation and expression of public opinion about pressing societal issues, and in which the state is responsive to these opinions. On this latter point, however, it is important to keep in mind the numerous critiques that problematize the notion of a single public sphere through the concept of “counter‐publics” (Fraser, 1990). These critiques remind us that normative assessments of state legitimacy require a nuanced understanding of the distinct dominant and subaltern publics (and notions of the public good) that inevitably exist in a polity.

Defining Public Sector Communication What constitutes public sector communication can be understood by focusing on three dimensions: substance, participants, and structures. By substance is meant the issues or concerns being talked about. By communicators is meant who is speaking and who is listening. And by structures is meant the institutions, processes, and norms through which this communication occurs.

Substance Adapting David Easton’s (1965) definition of politics, public sector communications is defined here as those about the “authoritative allocation of goods, services, and values by the state.” This definition is intentionally broad in that the specific goods, services, and values that are deemed open to state involvement can vary widely over time and across political cultures. Key to distinguishing public sector communication from private or public sphere communication, however, is the notion that it is about “authoritative allocation” “by the state.”

Public Sector Communication and Democracy

33

Participants To be “public sector communication” it is also necessary that one of the participants be the state. The specific role played by the state, as well as the specific state officials or entities involved, can vary, however. In any system there needs to be communication within and across the various people and organizations that comprise the state (most simply, the institutions of government, the elected and appointed leaders of those institutions, and the large number of public sector employees who do the bulk of the state’s work). While obviously important, this intra‐ and inter‐organizational communication is not the main focus of this chapter. More central is communication to and from the state by dominant and subaltern publics. Here as well the public’s specific roles, and the segments of the public that are involved, can vary. At a minimum, the public serves as consumer, receiving information, suggestions, requests, and commands from the state. In contrast is the public as producer, with the state receiving citizens’ information, suggestions, requests, and commands. Of course just as communication can occur within and across various state actors, so too can it occur among various segments of the public. Such communication, especially when it is about public issues or services, is clearly relevant to the public sector. Without state involvement, however, this citizen‐to‐­citizen communication is best seen as important to, but distinct from, public sector communication. Building on the distinctions between the public sphere, the private sphere, and the sphere of public authority, “public sphere communication” is defined here as citizen‐to‐citizen exchanges about the authoritative allocation of goods, services, and values by the state, “private sphere communication” as citizen‐to‐citizen exchanges on other topics of conversation and debate, and “public sector communication” as exchanges between citizens and the state. While the focus of this chapter is “public sector communication,” it is important to note that the boundaries distinguishing these three discursive spheres are porous. Indeed, one of the most interesting and important aspects of communication writ large is the ways in which certain topics and speakers migrate across them (Hallin, 1986, pp. 115–118).

Structures Communication does not occur in a vacuum. At a minimum it requires a medium (from the air that carries our voices to the Web). It also requires informal norms and formal rules. And it requires institutions and organizations that, to varying degrees, facilitate or hinder communication. In the case of public sector communication, these structures and processes can be determined by the state (as part of its authoritative allocation of goods, services, and values), or emerge from other segments of the public and even the private spheres. They can also vary over time and across polities. But regardless of their form, they are instrumental in determining the discursive relationship between the state and the public.

Democracy and Public Sector Communication While there are numerous models of democracy (Held, 2006), all are based on the notion that the authority to allocate goods, services, and values ultimately (even if indirectly) resides with citizens; that citizens have the opportunity to engage each other (in the public sphere) and the state (in the public sector) in the formation and expression of public opinion about pressing societal issues (again, even if indirectly); and that the state is, by design, responsive and accountable to these opinions. It follows that in a democracy, the public sector provides and/or encourages the institutional structures that allow citizens to be information producers in the interactive processes by which goods, services, and values are authoritatively allocated.

34

Michael X. Delli Carpini

In their introduction to this handbook, Vilma Luoma‐aho and Maria‐Jose Canel unpack the complicated concept of “publicness,” noting that, especially in the contemporary era, the lines between public and private, and the public sector and the public sphere, have become increasingly blurred. As a result they treat these terms as endpoints on a series of continua rather than as fixed and mutually exclusive spheres. This insight can be extended to the relationship between democracy and the public sector. Polities can be more or less democratic. It follows that so, too, can public sector communication. In this regard it is useful to distinguish democratic public sector communication from public sector communication in a democracy. The former can be found, in theory and to varying degrees, in any form of government, but need not be a constitutive part of the public sector, as it is by definition in a democracy. While the presence of free and fair elections is often used as a demarcation line, how much and in what ways the public is sufficiently involved in the authoritative actions of the state to be considered a democracy is inherently contestable. There is no simple “tipping point.” Nonetheless, we can identify and assess core structures of a state, the substantive issues it authoritatively addresses, and the extent to which the public is a meaningful participant in this process.

Public Sector Communication and the Policy‐Making Process Simplifying, the policy process involves six stages (Linsky, 1986): setting a policy agenda, developing, and debating policy alternatives, selecting among these alternatives, implementing the chosen policy, monitoring and evaluating its intended and unintended consequences, and making adjustments as needed. Public sector communication (both within the state and between the state and the public) is critical at each of these stages, though the public’s active involvement varies across issues, stages, and polities. Determining both the broad parameters and the specific issues of public sector intervention— i.e., identifying “problems” and adding them to the policy agenda—is one of the primary responsibilities of the state. However, with few exceptions, what constitutes legitimate areas for state involvement can vary across polities, as well as within them over time. These choices are as much an issue of culture and politics as of objective significance. Consider, for example, how issues such as abortion, sexual preference, health care, retirement security, workplace safety, environmental protection, immigration, and so forth vary in their “locations” in the private sphere, the public sphere, or the public sector across polities and time. At a minimum, states must communicate enough with their publics to identify issues of import (something more akin to surveillance than dialogue in totalitarian regimes) and to inform and/or direct citizens as to which issues are now subject to government action. There is, of course, no guarantee that the state’s agenda will match that of the public’s in such systems. In representative democracies, periodic elections serve as the primary mechanism by which the public influences the policy agenda. Candidates and parties campaign on more or less developed platforms identifying their priorities. Other organized political actors work to influence these priorities in exchange for their support. Public opinion polls serve as an indirect voice of the people, articulating their central concerns and interests as well as how these concerns and interests translate into support for those vying for office. Much of this exchange occurs through the legacy and newer forms of digital and social media, with both serving, to varying degrees, as conduits, public spaces, and political actors with interests of their own (Protess & McCombs, 2016). Elections are also relevant to the evaluation stage of the policy process, in that it is here that citizens reward or punish incumbents for their performance (Fiorina, 1981; Kousser, 2004). But campaigns and elections are indirect, blunt, and often unreliable (Conley, 2001; Healy & Malhotra, 2013; Stokes, 2001) and inequitable (Gilens, 2012) forms of public engagement in the policy process. In addition, the real work of policy‐making occurs between elections,

Public Sector Communication and Democracy

35

when specific policy alternatives are developed, debated, selected, implemented, and monitored. At these stages “experts” and “advocates” (both within and outside of the public sector) take center stage. The public can, of course, still be engaged, but doing so requires avenues for communication, and how democratic this communication is depends on the structures and processes through which it occurs, and the participants engaged in it. In nondemocratic regimes, the involvement of “average citizens” is typically limited to unlawful protest and resistance, and the risks associated with them. In more democratic regimes, citizens are provided with enough protections of speech, the press, and assembly to voice their preferences to the state without fear of reprisal. More democratically still, the state provides citizens with institutionalized channels of communication that are integrated in meaningful ways into the policy‐making process. Such institutionalized channels can be indirect as in the periodic elections mentioned above, as well as through lobbying (Baumgartner, Berry, Hojnacki, Leach & Kimball, 2009; Berry, 2015; Coen & Richardson, 2009), the use of public opinion polls (Burstein, 2003; Jacobs & Shapiro, 2000; Page & Shapiro, 1983), and the media (Linsky, 1986; Wolfe, 2012). Or they can be more direct, as in the use of initiatives and referenda (Kaufmann & Waters, 2004; Matsusaka, 2015; Zimmerman, 2014), public hearings (Adams, 2004; Cole & Caputo, 1984), and more innovative techniques such as citizen panels, various types of deliberative forums (Fiorino, 1990; Fishkin, 2009; Gastil & Levine, 2005; King, Feltey, & Susel, 1998), and even the use of digital technologies and social media for crowdsourcing (Noveck, 2015). It is to these more direct— and arguably more democratic—approaches that I now turn, focusing specifically on those that involve citizens’ discursive engagement with the state.2

Citizens’ Discursive Engagement in Public Sector Policy‐Making Processes As Stivers (1990, p. 88) notes, “A key question in the history of the U.S. administrative state has been the extent to which the administration of a representative government can accommodate citizens actively involved in public decision making.” While, as Stivers makes clear, the idea of public involvement in the development, implementation, and assessment of public policy is not new, the extent and nature of this involvement has evolved in advanced democracies, becoming more direct, deliberative, authoritative, and state‐facilitated. As Roberts (2015), building on the question asked by Stivers observes: What makes this question even more intriguing for administrative theory and practice is the “social experiment” that has been underway over the course of the last century, especially since 1950. Citizen participation has been mandated in many public policies and programs. Citizens have been included more directly (either by law or administrative discretion) into administrative practice (U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1979)…. Although the federal government did not pursue one policy toward participation (Stenberg, 1972), through its interventions, direct citizen participation became more of a feature in urban renewal, juvenile delinquency, poverty, manpower training, model cities, neighborhood health centers, and community mental health programs. There appeared to be a two‐level process: The national level provided funds and guidelines and the local level executed plans and programs. The locus of implementation was in the neighborhood with ordinary citizens exercising varying degrees of control depending on the community and its citizens.   Of course, citizens can engage in ways that bypass the state entirely, through such mechanisms as neighborhood watch groups or voluntary associations that directly take on the task of authoritatively allocating goods, services, and values. However, such forms of participation, while clearly important, would not, by my definition, constitute “public sector” engagement or communication (instead being more representative of the public sphere), since it does not directly involve the state.

2

36

Michael X. Delli Carpini This trend was compatible with the ever‐broadening power of the citizen in the electoral process through political parties and their conventions, the direct primary, initiatives, referenda, and recalls, boards and commissions, and public opinion polls that are considered to be unofficial referenda in the minds of elected officials. (Roberts, 2015, pp. 4; 9)

The question raised by Stivers and elaborated on by Roberts has become even more pressing as new forms of digital technologies have increased the ability of citizens to engage in both public sphere (i.e., citizen‐to‐citizen) and public sector (i.e., citizen‐to‐government) communications, and to do so at unprecedented volume and speed (Williams & Delli Carpini, 2011). These technologies also afford public sector institutions new ways to include citizens in the policy‐making process (Macintosh, 2004; Noveck, 2015). And similar state‐facilitated or sanctioned “experiments” addressing an expanding range of local, national, regional, and global issues can be found in other countries. Unsurprisingly, most of these efforts to increase citizens’ discursive involvement have occurred in advanced democracies (see, e.g., Goldfrank, 2007; Hadzi‐Miceva‐Evans, 2010; Lewanski, 2013; Peters & Savoie, 1998; Worthington, Rask, & Minna, 2013). But citizen engagement initiatives can also be found in emerging democracies, and even in polities considered otherwise undemocratic (see, e.g., Brinkerhoff & Goldsmith, 2003; Chugunov, Kabanov, & Zenchenkova, 2016; Cornwall & Coelho, 2007; Helbig, Dawes, Dzhusupova, Klievink, & Mkude, 2015; Heller & Rao, 2015; King & Hickey, 2016; Kornreich, Vertinsky, & Potter, 2012; Youngs, 2015). These public sector efforts to increase direct citizen involvement in policy selection, implementation, and assessment vary widely in their ambition, form, and success. Nonetheless, collectively they share several overarching characteristics (or more accurately aspirations) that distinguish them from more common communications among citizens in the public sphere, as well as from other forms of state‐citizen communication found in the public sector (e.g., constituent letters or protests). First, they are state‐sponsored or sanctioned; that is, they are designed as formal parts of the policy process. Second, they are structured; that is the goals, roles, responsibilities, communication channels and other supporting infrastructures, timelines, resources, etc., are institutionalized by and within the state (though often in partnership with public sphere organizations). Third, they are dialogic and deliberative; that is, outcomes are not (in theory at least) preordained, but are expected to emerge from the process of citizen‐to‐ citizen and, ultimately, citizen‐to‐state interactions. Fourth, they are instrumental; that is they are designed to identify and address specific, tangible problems through state policy‐making. And fifth, they are authoritative; that is the decisions reached through citizen‐state interactions are intended to at least influence and ideally determine subsequent state action. Of course, not all forms of citizen engagement in the policy‐making process align perfectly with these characteristics, not all achieve their goals, and some are arguably designed to provide a democratic veneer on less than democratic institutions. Why is this the case? As Roberts (2015) reminds us, “Citizenship participation is the cornerstone of democracy, but there is a deep ambivalence about citizens participating directly in their government” (p. 3). This ambivalence has roots in doubts about citizens’ individual and collective ability and motivation to discern what is in their own and the public interest (see, for example, Achen & Bartels, 2016; Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996), as well as in skepticism regarding the ability and motivation of those in power to share it with the public in meaningful ways. At their worst, efforts to increase the direct involvement of citizens can be little more than placebos, devolve into problematic forms of populism, and/or lead to the “democratization of inequalities” (e.g., Lee, McQuarrie, & Walker, 2015). These critiques are sobering, and suggest the need for being careful in designing ways for citizens to discursively engage, being pragmatic in deciding when such efforts are appropriate, and being realistic in one’s expectations regarding outcomes. But they also suggest that to be effective, efforts to increase the meaningful engagement of citizens may ultimately require a more holistic approach, involving the democratization of both the public sector and the larger public sphere.

Public Sector Communication and Democracy

37

The Public Sphere Foundations of Public Sector Engagement: The US Case3 What should be clear is that regardless of its particular form, citizens’ engagement in both the public sphere and the public sector are fundamentally communicative acts. In the public sphere such “discursive participation” (Jacobs, Cook, & Delli Carpini, 2009) can take many forms— from brief exchanges over the phone, via e‐mail, or on social network sites; to informal conversations at work or home; to participation in online or face‐to‐face public forums. As noted earlier, these citizen‐to‐citizen exchanges are conceptually and pragmatically distinct from public sector communication, which by definition requires participation by representatives of the state. But the former are relevant to the latter in three important ways. First, public sphere exchanges allow citizens to develop their own individual and collective policy priorities, preferences, assessments, and so forth. Second, they can create a political culture that encourages and models citizen engagement in public issues. And third, they can encourage and even become part of more formal mechanisms connecting citizens and their views to the state, linking the public sphere to the public sector through, for example, state‐sponsored or endorsed initiatives designed to authoritatively address specific issues of public concern. A democratic public sphere is not sufficient for guaranteeing a democratic public sector. Nor is it necessary in order for a state to engage in specific experiments with democratic public sector engagement. However, it is hard to imagine a sustainable democratic public sector without an equally sustainable democratic public sphere. Of course sustained and meaningful engagement in the public sphere and/or public sector can be costly, requiring individuals who are willing and able to deliberate collectively with each other (and, in the case of the public sector, with representatives of the state), to devote time and effort to addressing sometimes complex issues, and to interact with individuals who may not understand or support their views. And a good deal of research suggests that citizens lack the motivation, ability, and opportunity to pay these costs, perhaps even more so today than in the past (Putnam, 2000; Skocpol, 2003). But how then do we explain findings (e.g., Jacobs et al., 2009) indicating that, despite these individual and organizational constraints, a substantial percentage of Americans regularly engage in some form of deliberation about public issues? The answer lies in part in institutions designed to increase the opportunities and lower the costs of discursive participation. Consider the US case. A variety of institutions exist that provide opportunities for citizens to engage in formal and informal discussions about public matters. Many are traditional community organizations that act locally and independently of each other (Leighninger, 2006). These associations have been a mainstay of American political culture since its founding (De Tocqueville, 2003), but in recent decades their influence has arguably waned, raising concerns about the state of American public life (Putnam, 2000; Skocpol, 2003). In response, a loose network of government and nongovernmental organizations, designed to encourage, facilitate, and revitalize the deliberative aspects of the public sphere and its relationship to the public sector, has emerged. This network is motivated by a belief in the importance of citizen’s discursive involvement in public life, both as an instrument to achieve other goals (i.e., to promote policy change) and as an end in and of itself (i.e., to enhance the civic and democratic fabric of society). It also includes the emergence of a profession devoted to the participation of ordinary citizens in discussions of issues affecting their local, national, and global communities. As such it serves as an organizational infrastructure that provides citizens with the ability, motivation, and opportunity to engage discursively with each other and with representatives of the state about public issues. It also serves as a gateway linking the private and public spheres with the public sector.   This section is based in part on an updated version of portions of Chapter 7 of Jacobs, Cook, & Delli Carpini, 2009.

3

38

Michael X. Delli Carpini Public Sector The State

Umbrella Groups & Professional Associations

Public Sphere

National Deliberation Organizations

Local Civic Organizations and Associations

Individual Citizens Private Sphere

Figure 1.1  The organizational infrastructure of public sector engagement.

Simplifying, this network consists of five layers (see Figure 1.1). At the base are individual citizens, interacting with each other in informal and unstructured ways on issues of private ­concern. Of course these individual citizens can also engage discursively with each other about matters of public import (i.e., enter the public sphere), and even communicate directly or indirectly with the state (i.e., enter the public sector), but doing so as atomized individuals in a way that is sustainable and effective is difficult. One layer up are the thousands of local organizations such as church groups, civic associations, businesses, schools, libraries, and the like that encourage, facilitate, and structure this more public‐oriented communication, acting as bridges between the private and public spheres, and—to varying degrees—between the public sphere and the public sector. In some cases these are free‐standing entities with no formal affiliations to regional or national organizations (e.g., a local reading group); in others they are connected to regional, national or international organizations (e.g., a local chapter of a union, voluntary association, or political party). Some have long‐standing presences in their respective communities (e.g., a Rotary club) while others are more spontaneous and/or ephemeral (e.g., an ad hoc group organized in response to a recent racial incident or a community development plan). Some engage in a wide range of issues and activities (e.g., a local library) while others are more issue specific (e.g., a neighborhood crime watch association). Despite this variation, however, they share a common feature—they are all nongovernmental entities with the local social capital and grassroots connections to bring members (of an organization or the larger community) together to address public issues.

Public Sector Communication and Democracy

39

One layer above are a smaller number of national organizations, some of which (e.g., national political parties, unions, or religious institutions) have long if arguably shrinking traditions of facilitating public engagement (Putnam, 2000; Skocpol, 2003). But others have formed more recently to explicitly encourage and facilitate community dialogue and deliberation (see Ryfe, 2002), most often by working with the local institutions (and at times government agencies and offices) described earlier. These more recent national organizations tend to be supported by foundations, are steeped in various and often competing theories and practices of dialogue and deliberation, and are centrally committed to the processes of public participation rather than to particular issues or communities. One example of such an organization is the National Issues Forums (NIF), begun in 1981 and supported by the Kettering Foundation.4 NIF is “a network of civic, educational, and other organizations… whose common interest is to promote public deliberation in America.” The organization does not advocate specific solutions or points of view but provides citizens the opportunity to consider a broad range of choices, weigh the pros and cons of those choices, and meet with each other in a public dialogue to identify the concerns they hold in common.

NIF forums, led by trained moderators, have been organized around dozens of public issues, including health care, immigration, social security, ethnic, and racial tensions, education, sustainable growth, and energy use. A similar organization is Everyday Democracy (formerly the “Study Circles Resource Center”) founded in 1989 with the support of philanthropist Paul Aicher.5 Everyday Democracy describes its mission as helping “communities work equitably and inclusively in order to build a strong democracy and improve the quality of life for everyone.” Like NIF, it organizes deliberative gatherings of citizens on a host of topics. And like NIF, its goal is to help “local communities create and sustain equitable and inclusive public dialogue that leads to positive change,” and that ultimately can serve as “the cornerstone of a vibrant national democracy.” However, in recent years, Everyday Democracy has become more explicit than NIF in linking these deliberations to the formal policy‐making process,6 serving as a bridge not only between the private and public spheres but also between the public sphere and the public sector. This additional bridging function is clear in Everyday Democracy’s description of the kind of local and national democracy they envision, in which “elected officials have many opportunities to hear from everyday people,” and “people have ways to work with decision‐makers to create public policy.” This bridging function is also clear from their explicit goal of building a “civic infrastructure” that provides “routine opportunities for people of many backgrounds to dialogue with each other and with public officials, and to have a voice in decision making.”7 The fourth layer of this organizational infrastructure consists of umbrella groups or professional associations. Members of these groups and associations include national organizations such as the NIF and Everyday Democracy, as well as numerous organizations, firms, and individual consultants that specialize in facilitating public deliberation projects. Importantly, they also include mid‐level government employees tasked by law to include citizen participation

  All descriptions and quotes drawn from the NIF website over the past 10 years: http://www.nifi.org/.   All quotes and descriptions drawn from the Everyday Democracy website over the past 10 years: http:// www.everyday-democracy.org/en/Index.aspx. 6  In recent years even NIF has been exploring ways to link its public deliberations to the state, either through dissemination of its reports or by including government officials in their deliberative processes. 7  All italics included in direct quotes in this section have been added by the author for the sake of emphasis. 4 5

40

Michael X. Delli Carpini

in the development and/or implementation of public policy initiatives, and, to a lesser degree, researchers interested in the issue of public deliberation from a more scholarly perspective. One such umbrella association is the National Coalition for Deliberative Democracy (NCDD). NCDD emerged from the Hewlett‐funded 2002 National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation.8 Starting from the premise that “dialogue and deliberation are powerful group processes that help people bridge gaps, make better decisions, take collective action, resolve conflict and become more active citizens,” the purpose of the NCDD is to address “a growing, vibrant, but inchoate field of public deliberation in which practitioners are versed in completely different terminology, techniques and resources, and emphasize different outcomes—despite the similarity of their basic values and principles.” To address these concerns NCDD: (a) “brings together people and groups who actively practice, promote, and study inclusive, high quality conversations;” (b) works to develop “a common knowledge base in the dialogue and deliberation community;” (c) provides practitioners and researchers with “important resources, information, news and tools;” (d) initiates and runs “collaborative projects with other dialogue and deliberation programs to build knowledge in the field;” and (e) provides “members of the dialogue and deliberation community with the means to collaborate on projects.” One of the most important tools used by NCDD is its website, which contains “3,000 carefully described and referenced resources (discussion guides, methods, evaluation tools, articles, books, videos, etc.)” as well as “more than 2,000 posts about funding and job opportunities, events and trainings, new articles and tools.” As of 2015, NCDD had nearly 2,200 organization and individual members, and over 35,000 email subscribers. A second example of an umbrella association—the Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC)—has an even clearer and more explicit focus on public sector communication as defined in this chapter.9 Founded in 2002, DDC’s mission is “to bring together practitioners and researchers to support and foster the nascent, broad‐based movement to promote and institutionalize deliberative democracy at all levels of governance in the United States and around the world.” Composed of more than 50 member organizations, DDC’s goals include: (a) giving “local government managers and other leaders the big picture of public engagement and help them start to make plans and decisions on engagement;” (b) “help[ing] public leaders find the examples and resources they need to engage citizens;” (c) “integrat[ing] research and practice in the field,” (d) “integrat[ing] online and face‐to‐face approaches [to deliberation];” and (e) “help[ing] to build a permanent infrastructure for deliberative democracy.” To achieve these goals, the DDC engages in a number of activities, including the promotion “of the philosophy and methods of deliberative democracy to all levels of government.” A third example, and one that, like the DDC, is explicit in its goal of connecting citizens to government and the policy‐making process, is the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2).10 Founded in 1990, IAP2 seeks “to promote and improve the practice of public participation in relation to individuals, governments, institutions, and other entities that affect the public interest in nations throughout the world.” It has over 4,000 organization and individual members (including many from within government) from 26 different countries, and 16 worldwide chapters that provide professional training and other services. It also cosponsors (with DDC) the Journal of Public Deliberation. The IAP2’s first goal is promoting citizen and stakeholder participation both as a value in itself and as “indispensable input for decision makers.” The Association’s assumption is that “those who are affected by a decision have a right to be involved in the decision making process” and to  All quotes and descriptions are drawn from the NCDD website over the past 10 years: http://www. thataway.org/. 9   All quotes and descriptions are drawn from the DDC website over the past 10 years: http://icma.org/en/ results/management_strategies/leading_practices/civic_engagement/deliberative_democracy_consortium. 10   All quotes and descriptions are drawn from the IAP2 website over the past 10 years: http://www.iap2.org/. 8

Public Sector Communication and Democracy

41

“influence the decision.” IAP2 links its efforts to stimulate public participation in community decisions with a commitment to “educat[ing] decision makers about the value of public participation.” Its devotion to helping “the public play an effective role in public participation processes” is reflected in the Association’s awards to local and city governments for seeking out the “community’s shared views,” and in its efforts, as demonstrated in a collaboration with the Kettering Foundation, to “bridge the gap between the public and formal institutions of government.” The IAP2’s second, related goal is to “encourage and enhance the professional development of people working in public participation,” including those within government. To do so, the Association offers certified training programs in the tools and skills needed to organize and facilitate the process of public participation. Through 2015 IAP2 had trained over 17,000 individuals from the private and public sectors in public participation methods. Finally, the uppermost layer in Figure 1.1 is “the state,” here defined as the institutions and people of government. The state plays three key roles in the public sector communication process: informing citizens; listening to citizens; and responding to citizens. How they do this, and the authoritative role that citizens play, determines how democratic the process is. For example, legislation that requires meaningful public input in policy development, implementation, or assessment is evidence of a more democratic process. So too are agency websites that encourage public input, or government participation in deliberative forums organized by non‐ state organizations. In sum, connecting the private sphere, public sphere, and sphere of public authority (i.e., the public sector) requires efforts that enhance the motivation, ability, and (most importantly) the opportunity to do so. In the United States, this occurs through a network of civil, civic, and governmental efforts, some long‐standing and others more recent in their formation. It is important, however, not to overstate either the extent, embeddedness, cohesiveness, or influence of this public engagement network. Structured deliberation about policy issues (among citizens and between citizens and the state), while more common than sometimes realized, are still atypical of the policy formation, making, and implementing process. Organizations dedicated to deliberative processes often struggle to support themselves, as demonstrated by the recent closing of AmericaSpeaks (a national organization that had directly engaged hundreds of thousands of people in deliberation) after 20 years in operation. Too often citizens’ voices in the public sphere remain disconnected from the public sector. And outcomes—whether in terms of increases in citizens’ ability and motivation to engage in policy debates, the creation of a culture of public engagement, or the quality and perceived legitimacy of policy decisions— remain something of an open question. Nonetheless, there are lessons to be learned that are instructive to our understanding of the relationship between the public sphere, the public sector, and democracy.

Concluding Thoughts: From Democratic Public Sector Communication to a Democratic Public Sector All governments authoritatively allocate goods, services, and values—that is, make public policy—and doing so requires that they communicate with their citizens. This is true regardless of the form of government. What differs is the substance of what is communicated, who communicates it, how and when it is communicated, and ultimately what role this communication plays in the policy process. Public sector communications become more democratic as citizens move from passive givers and receivers of information to active and authoritative participants in the selection of public issues to address, the debate over and selection of solutions to public problems, the implementation of chosen solutions, and the assessment and reconsideration of these solutions. This more active role for citizens in the work of the public sector can occur

42

Michael X. Delli Carpini

sporadically, as when less than democratic regimes “experiment” with public engagement in some aspect of the policy process (e.g., the use of deliberative polling to decide which of thirty infrastructure plans should be implemented by a local city government in China. See Fishkin, 2009). Or it can be integrated more fully and deliberately (in both senses of the word) into the policy‐making process writ large (e.g., the explicit inclusion of “community participation” in the “construction, implementation, and evaluation” of local development planning in the South African constitution. See Williams, 2006). It is in the latter cases that one can begin to speak meaningfully about a democratic public sector, as opposed to isolated acts of democratic communication. This definition of democracy is both different from and more stringent than the more typical yardsticks based on the ability of citizens to monitor the actions of the state, and to periodically reward or punish its representatives through elections (Schudson, 1998). It is also more suspect, given the demands it places on citizens and doubts about their ability and motivation to meet these demands. To be sure, the decision to engage with fellow citizens in the public sphere, and with the state in the public sector, is ultimately made by individuals, and personal resources and traits play an important role in this decision. Individual choices to participate are shaped, however, by the broader organizational context of discursive practice, and the opportunities or roadblocks this context provides. It is here that the structure of both the public sphere and the public sector become important. The presence of institutions—both within and outside of the state—designed to promote and facilitate meaningful and informed public participation, can lower the costs and increase the benefits to both individuals and the publics of which they are a part. The brief case study of efforts to maintain such an institutional structure in the United States reveals a complex, interactive mix of independent and coordinated activities led by a coalition of local, regional, and national foundations, civic groups, nongovernmental organizations, mid‐ level civil servants, academics, and professional associations; a “bottom up” and “top down” effort that is linked to a growing number of local, state, and national requirements for public input into the policy process. And while this case study focuses on the United States, similar efforts are occurring, to different degrees and in ways tailored to different contexts, across the globe (see, e.g., Cornwall & Coelho, 2007, for examples drawn from Brazil, Bangladesh, India, South Africa, Canada, Argentina, Angola, and the United Kingdom). That said, it is important not to romanticize these initiatives. While a good amount of research exists (largely in the form of descriptive case studies or normative arguments), many questions remain unanswered. How extensive are formal initiatives to include citizens in the policy‐making process? What conditions lead to their formation? Have they taken enough root to become stable features of public life? What factors help immunize them from abuse? Can they counteract the more pernicious effects of a deteriorating public sphere evident in many advanced democracies? And ultimately, are they effective mechanisms for improving the substance, effectiveness, and perceived legitimacy of the public sector and the policies produced by it? These are crucial questions best answered through a combination of a systematic inventory or meta‐analysis of existing research; more comparative research (across cases as well as across polities); greater collaboration among deliberative and public administration scholars, as well as among scholars and practitioners; greater attention to the affordances provided by digital technologies; and, perhaps most importantly, more systematic and generalizable research on the impact of different forms of public sector and public sphere communications on both public attitudes and on public policy.

References Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2016). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Adams, B. (2004). Public meetings and the democratic process. Public Administration Review, 64, 43–54.

Public Sector Communication and Democracy

43

Baumgartner, F. R., Berry, J. M., Hojnacki, M., Leech, B. L., & Kimball, D. C. (2009). Lobbying and policy change: Who wins, who loses, and why. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Benhabib, S. (1992). Models of public space: Hannah Arendt, the liberal tradition, and Jürgen Habermas. Berry, J. M. (2015). Lobbying for the people: The political behavior of public interest groups. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Goldsmith, A. A. (2003). How citizens participate in macroeconomic policy: International experience and implications for poverty reduction. World Development, 31(4), 685–701. Burstein, P. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 29–40. Chugunov, A. V., Kabanov, Y., Zenchenkova, K. (2016). Russian e‐petitions portal: Exploring regional variance in use. In International conference on electronic participation (pp. 109–122). Basel, ­ Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. Coen, D., & Richardson, J. (2009). Lobbying the european union: Institutions, actors, and issues. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Cole, R. L., & Caputo, D. A. (1984). The public hearing as an effective citizen participation mechanism: a case study of the general revenue sharing program. American Political Science Review, 78(02), 404–416. Conley, P. H. (2001). Presidential mandates: How elections shape the national agenda. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Cornwall, A., & Coelho, V. S. (Eds.) (2007). Spaces for change: The politics of citizen participation in new democratic areas. New York, NY: Zed Books. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New York, NY: Yale University Press. De Tocqueville, A. (2003). Democracy in America (Vol. 10). Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: The Free Press. Easton, D. (1965). A framework for political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐Hall. Fiorina, M. (1981). Retrospective voting in American presidential elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Fiorino, D. J. (1990). Citizen participation and environmental risk: A survey of institutional mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values, 15(2), 226–243. Fishkin, J. S. (2009). When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25(25), 56–80. Gallie, W. B. (1955). Essentially contested concepts. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (Vol. 56, pp. 167–198). Aristotelian Society/Wiley. Gastil, J., & Levine, P. (Eds.) (2005). The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the twenty‐first century (pp. 308). San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. Gilens, M. (2012). Affluence and influence: Economic inequality and political power in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Goldfrank, B. (2007). Lessons from Latin American experience in participatory budgeting. In A. Shah (Ed.), Participatory budgeting (pp. 91–126). Washington, DC: The World Bank. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere, trans. Thomas Burger. Cambridge: MIT Press, 85, 85–92. Hadzi‐Miceva‐Evans, K. (2010). Comparative overview of European standards and practices in regulating public participation. In European Center for Not‐for‐Profit Law & OSCE. http://www.icnl.org/ research/resources/ngogovcoop/compover.pdf (dostęp: 20.05. 2013) Hallin, D. C. (1986). The uncensored war. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hauser, G. A. (1999). Vernacular voices: The rhetoric of publics and public spheres. Columbia, SC: Univ of South Carolina Press. Healy, A., & Malhotra, N. (2013). Retrospective voting reconsidered. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 285–306. Helbig, N., Dawes, S., Dzhusupova, Z., Klievink, B., & Mkude, C. G. (2015). Stakeholder engagement in policy development: Observations and lessons from international experience. In Policy practice and digital science (pp. 177–204). Springer International Publishing. Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy. Cambridge, MA: Polity.

44

Michael X. Delli Carpini

Heller, P., & Rao, V. (Eds.) (2015). Deliberation and development: Rethinking the role of voice and collective action in unequal societies. Washington, DC: World Bank Publications. Jacobs, L. R., Cook, F. L., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2009). Talking together: Public deliberation and political participation in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Jacobs, L. R., & Shapiro, R. Y. (2000). Politicians don’t pander. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kaufmann, B., & Waters, M. D. (Eds.) (2004). Direct democracy in Europe: A comprehensive reference guide to the initiative and referendum process in Europe. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. N. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 53, 317–326. King, S., & Hickey, S. (2016). Building democracy from below: Lessons from Western Uganda. The Journal of Development Studies, 53, 1–16. Kornreich, Y., Vertinsky, I., & Potter, P. B. (2012). Consultation and deliberation in China: The making of China’s health‐care reform. China Journal, 68, 176–203. Kousser, T. (2004). Retrospective voting and strategic behavior in European parliament elections. Electoral Studies, 23(1), 1–21. Lee, C. W., McQuarrie, M., & Walker, E. T. (Eds.) (2015). Democratizing inequalities: Dilemmas of the new public participation. New York, NY: NYU Press. Leighninger, M. (2006). The next form of democracy: How expert rule is giving way to shared governance‐‐ and why politics will never be the same. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Lewanski, R. (2013). Institutionalizing deliberative democracy: The’Tuscany laboratory’. Journal of Public Deliberation, 9(1), article), 10. Linsky, M. (1986). Impact: How the press affects federal policymaking. New York, NY: WW Norton. Macintosh, A. (2004). “Characterizing e‐participation in policy‐making.” Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. Matsusaka, J. G. (2015). The Precarious Link between Legislators and Constituent Opinion: Evidence from Matched Roll Call and Referendum Votes. USC CLASS Research Paper No. CLASS15‐18. Noveck, B. S. (2015). Smart citizens, smarter state: The technologies of expertise and the future of governing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political Science Review, 77(01), 175–190. Peters, B. G., & Savoie, D. J. (1998). Taking stock: Assessing public sector reforms (Vol. 2). Montreal, Canada: McGill‐Queen’s Press‐MQUP. Protess, D., & McCombs, M. E. (2016). Agenda setting: Readings on media, public opinion, and policymaking. New York, NY: Routledge. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster. Roberts, N. C. (2015). The age of direct citizen participation. New York, NY: Routledge. Ryfe, D. M. (2002). The practice of deliberative democracy: A study of 16 deliberative organizations. Political Communication, 19(3), 359–377. Schudson, M. (1998). The good citizen: A history of American civic life. New York, NY: The Free Press. Skocpol, T. (2003). Diminished democracy: From membership to management in American civic life. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma press. Stivers, C. (1990). The public agency as polis: Active citizenship in the administrative state. Administration & Society, 22(1), 86–105. Stokes, S. C. (2001). Mandates and democracy: Neoliberalism by surprise in Latin America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Williams, B., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2011). After broadcast news: Media regimes, democracy, and the new information environment. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Williams, J. (2006). Community participation: Lessons from post‐apartheid South Africa. Policy Studies, 27(3), 197–217. Wolfe, M. (2012). Putting on the brakes or pressing on the gas? Media attention and the speed of policymaking. Policy Studies Journal, 40(1), 109–126. Worthington, R., Rask, M., & Minna, L. (2013). Citizen participation in global environmental governance. New York, NY: Routledge. Youngs, R. (2015). Exploring “non‐western democracy”. Journal of Democracy, 26(4), 140–154. Zimmerman, J. F. (2014). The initiative: Citizen lawmaking. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

2

Public Sector Communication and Organizational Legitimacy Arild Wæraas

Introduction Organizational legitimacy concerns the fundamental right to exist and conduct operations over time (Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975; Suchman, 1995). It generally implies a perceived congruence between the goals, actions, and values of an organization and those of the larger social system of which an organization is part. If there is no such perceived congruence, the result is a “deviant organization” (Parsons, 1956, p. 67) and “stranger,” not acknowledged as “one of us” (Czarniawska & Wolff, 1998, p. 37). For public sector organizations, which are accountable to society at large, suffering from a lack of legitimacy could have severe consequences: They could face claims that their contribution within the political‐administrative system is difficult to recognize and, as a result, that they are unnecessary and should be merged into other agencies, have their budgets cut, or be eliminated altogether. As public sector organizations are becoming increasingly aware of the benefits of strategic communication, it seems pertinent to address the issues that could arise if the need for legitimacy is left unattended. It is also important to consider the type of communication that could allow public organizations to maintain and even boost their legitimacy. Although the legitimacy of public organizations generally depends on more than communication, the reputation‐­ oriented society—with its strong emphasis on strategic communication—could induce public organizations to focus on communication in a way that ultimately is more designed to benefit themselves than their constituents. This is because reputation management involves strategic communication intended to impress, making the organization “look good,” while public sector communication in a democratic, transparent society is intended to benefit the greater good (see Chapter 1). The challenge is to balance these concerns by communicating for a favorable reputation without jeopardizing legitimacy, and vice‐versa. This chapter engages with this dilemma. It first outlines the concept of organizational legitimacy, explains how public organizations depend on legitimacy, and presents three perspectives on legitimacy. It then discusses how communication relates to organizational legitimacy in a public sector context and how strategic communication could interfere with legitimacy requirements. It closes with some remarks on potential avenues for future research.

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

46

Arild Wæraas

Organizational Legitimacy Two important features of legitimacy are foundational in the literature on organizational legitimacy. First, writing from a sociological and political perspective, Max Weber ([1922] 1968a, 1968b) observed that every system must justify its privileged position by engaging in legitimation activities. Second, writing more specifically about formal organizations, sociologist Talcott Parsons (1956) noted that legitimacy implies congruence between the goals and actions of an organization and the values of the larger system of which the organization is part. In the study of formal organizations in general, almost all writings on legitimacy build on these principles. Following Parsons, legitimacy requires accordance between an organization’s actions and the environments’ values. Following Weber, legitimacy implies some sort of justification intended to foster the belief that the organization has an accepted right to exist and conduct operations. As a result, legitimacy is not an objective assessment; it is a subjective interpretation of how well an entity is adapted to important social values. Furthermore, because legitimacy is a belief, it must be cultivated through legitimation activities, which are strategic and deliberate. This cultivation may occur in various ways, including communication.

Defining Legitimacy Multiple academic disciplines rely on the concept of legitimacy to analyze the relationship between formal organizations and their constituents, including organization studies (Bitektine, 2011; Bitektine & Haack, 2015; Deephouse & Suchman, 2008; Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005; Suddaby, Haack, & Scherer, 2017), corporate communication and public relations (Holmström, 2005; Merkelsen, 2011; Metzler, 2001; Veil, Sellnow, & Petrun, 2012), public administration (Christensen, Lægreid, & Rykkja, 2016; Grimmelikhuijsen & Meijer, 2015; Verhoest, Verschuere, & Bouckaert, 2007), and criminology (Tankebe, 2013), to mention a few.1 The bulk of the theoretical work and debates on organizational legitimacy is conducted within organization studies. Works commonly refer to texts by Suchman (1995), Dowling and Pfeffer (1975), or Meyer and Richard Scott (2003), all building on Weber and Parsons, if not invoking Weber’s or Parsons’ formulations directly. Texts addressing the relationship between communication and legitimacy are also published mainly by organizational researchers (Golant & Sillince, 2007; Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005; Vaara & Tienari, 2008), as are papers analyzing the differences between legitimacy and reputation (Bitektine, 2011; Deephouse & Carter, 2005; Deephouse & Suchman, 2008; King & David Whetten, 2008). On the basis of a comprehensive review of the organizational literature on legitimacy, Bitektine (2011) proposes an enumerative definition. An enumerative definition is different from other definitions in that it details all relevant objects or phenomena that fall under the definition of the concept in question. In Bitektine’s definition, multiple legitimacy typologies and subtypes from previous definitions of legitimacy are integrated and connected, including Weber’s and Parsons’ conceptualizations. The definition encompasses elements of scope, ­evaluating audience, perceived dimensions, analytical processing, benefit diffusion, and compliance mechanism:

  It should be noted that definitions of legitimacy are somewhat different in many contributions in the public administration and criminology literatures, emphasizing constitutional and democratic rather than organizational aspects of legitimacy. Of interest in this chapter are contributions relying on the concept of organizational legitimacy.

1

Public Sector Communication and Organizational Legitimacy

47

The concept of legitimacy relates to (Bitektine, 2011, p. 159): • “perceptions of an organization or entire class of organizations, judgment/evaluation based on these perceptions, and behavioral response based on these judgments…” (scope) • “…rendered by media, regulators, and other industry actors (advocacy groups, employees, etc.), who…” (evaluating audience) • “…perceive an organization’s processes, structures, and outcomes of its activity, its leaders, and its linkages with other social actors and…” (perceived dimensions) • “…judge the organization either by classifying it into a preexisting (positively evaluated) cognitive category/class or by subjecting it to a thorough sociopolitical evaluation, which…” (analytical processing) • “…is based on the assessment of the overall value of the organization to the individual evaluator (pragmatic legitimacy), his or her social group, or the whole society (moral legitimacy), and…” (benefit diffusion) • “…through the pattern of interactions with the organization and other social actors, the evaluating actor supports, remains neutral, or sanctions the organization depending on whether the organization provides the benefit(s) prescribed by the prevailing norms and regulations.” (compliance mechanism) First, the definition outlines the scope of the concept. It differentiates between the perceptions of an organization or entire class of organizations and the judgments and evaluations performed by evaluating audiences based on these perceptions, ultimately resulting in evaluators’ acceptance and endorsement. The first part of the definition thus integrates the notion that legitimacy is a perception (Weber, 1922 [1968a, 1968b]; Suchman, 1995) while at the same time establishing that legitimacy involves a judgment by someone of something (Meyer & Richard Scott, 1983; Parsons, 1956). Second, the definition highlights the need to consider the evaluating audience, that is, those actors rendering the judgment of the organization. Important actors are the media, regulators, and the general public, but also investors, advocacy groups, and employees. The judgments rendered by these groups allow for the differentiation between different legitimacy types. For example, an organization’s media legitimacy may not be the same as its legitimacy with regulators (Deephouse, 1996). One type of legitimacy may be more important to the organization than other types in terms of long‐term survival, due to the nature of the organization’s business and the groups to which it relates. Third, the definition draws attention to the organizational features or dimensions that are evaluated; that is, those features that are deemed to be of such critical importance that the outcome of the judgments determines the organization’s legitimacy. The literature distinguishes between multiple features including the organization’s core technology, quality of services, qualifications of employees, procedures, processes, activities, formal structures, the charisma of leaders, linkages to other legitimate social actors, and efficiency in management and operations (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Ruef & Scott, 1998; Suchman, 1995). These features give rise to different legitimacy types. For example, an organization’s procedural legitimacy may be different from—and more important than—its structural legitimacy, and its managerial legitimacy may be different from its technical legitimacy and judged differently by different evaluating audiences (Ruef & Scott, 1998). Fourth, there is a need to address the question of how evaluators process analytically the perceived organizational features. Two types of legitimacy judgments; cognitive and sociopolitical, are dominant (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994). When legitimacy is judged cognitively, organizations are evaluated on the basis of a large repertoire of types of organizations whose core features are already known. If they are recognized as members of one of these types (e.g., as a “bank,” a “hotel,” or a “public agency”) they become linked to a known and taken for granted social

48

Arild Wæraas

c­ ategory. According to King and David Whetten (2008, p. 195), this is “the principal means whereby organizations gain legitimacy.” Conversely, when legitimacy is judged sociopolitically, the frame of reference is not categories but prevailing social norms and values, in accordance with Parsons (1956) formulations. If an organization’s outcomes, processes, and products, and so on, are found to be in accordance with these norms, the organization is deemed socially acceptable, and sociopolitical legitimacy is conferred on the organization. Fifth, the definition underlines that legitimacy depends on the provision of benefits for groups of social actors. Social actors award legitimacy to the extent that they judge the organization and its activities to be beneficial to them. If the most immediate audiences believe that the organization provides specific favorable exchanges or is responsive to their larger interests, the organization has pragmatic legitimacy (Suchman, 1995). If the organization is perceived to be beneficial to the evaluator’s social group or society as a whole, involving assessments of whether the organization’s activities are “the right thing to do,” the result is moral legitimacy (Suchman, 1995, p. 579). Finally, the definition draws attention to compliance mechanisms. Normative legitimacy results from compliance with important social norms (Parsons, 1956), while regulative legitimacy requires compliance with the explicitly stated requirements of the regulatory system. Normative legitimacy thus implies “cultural support” for an organization (Meyer & Richard Scott, 1983), while regulative legitimacy involves the support of a particular agent, e.g., a government agency or a professional association (Greenwood, Suddaby, & Hinings, 2002; Ruef & Scott, 1998). On the basis of these compliance mechanisms, the evaluating audiences support, remain neutral, ignore, or challenge the organization’s legitimacy. This enumerative definition of legitimacy is complex and unlikely to be operationalized in a straightforward fashion. However, it is beneficial because it provides theoretical insights into the formation of legitimacy judgments. It incorporates assessments not only of legitimacy but also legitimation (Weber 1922 [1968a, 1968b]), both of which are of importance for understanding how public organizations acquire and maintain legitimacy through communication. In the following I consider the research methods that have been applied in empirical studies of legitimacy and some of the findings that have resulted from this research.

Organizational Legitimacy Research Despite the wide academic theoretical interest in organizational legitimacy, much of the literature has a “heavy skew toward theory development versus theory testing” (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008, p. 49). Accordingly, relatively few studies have sought to find an appropriate measure for legitimacy. Those that attempt this task do so in rather different ways. In organizational research, legitimacy is usually measured as some form of endorsement by a government entity (Deephouse, 1996; Deephouse & Carter, 2005; Singh, Tucker, & House, 1986), professional association (Ruef & Scott, 1998), or the media (Aerts & Cormier, 2009; Bansal & Clelland, 2004; Deephouse, 1996; Deephouse & Carter, 2005; Pollock & Rindova, 2003).2 These studies tend to operationalize legitimacy as a numerical variable. This is similar to public administration research, where legitimacy (not necessarily organizational legitimacy) has been measured on scales denoting levels of judgments about efficacy, trustworthiness, and fairness (Ricucci, Van Ryzin, & Lavena, 2014), perceived duty to obey the agency in question (Bradford, Huq, Jackson, & Roberts, 2014; Levi, Sacks, & Tyler, 2009), perceived moral congruence with the agency in question (Bradford et al., 2014), and level of confidence, trust, or

  There are several exceptions: Staw and Epstein (1997) use reputation as a proxy for legitimacy. Population ecology research treats the number of a specific type of organization as an indicator for legitimacy (Hannan & Carroll, 1992).

2

Public Sector Communication and Organizational Legitimacy

49

support (Andrews, 2008; Grimmelikhuijsen & Meijer, 2015). In most of these studies, the evaluating and legitimacy‐granting audience is the general public. The research can further be divided into studies of factors enhancing and reducing legitimacy, and effects of legitimacy on other variables. As for effects on legitimacy, studies generally report the legitimizing effects of conforming to others concerning strategies, missions, structures, names, and total quality management (TQM) practices (Deephouse, 1996; Deephouse & Carter, 2005; Glynn & Abzug, 2002; Ruef & Scott, 1998; Westphal, Gulati, & Shortell, 1997). Studies also find that organizations effectively use various forms of communication, symbolic management, impression management strategies, and rhetoric to influence legitimacy (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990; Barros, 2014; Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Elsbach, 1994; Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005; Vaara, Tienari, & Laurila, 2006). These legitimation activities concur with the observation made by Weber (1922 [1968a, 1968b]) that legitimacy is a subjective interpretation in need of cultivation and/or manipulation. Studies have reported similar findings concerning the legitimacy‐enhancing strategies of public organizations (Aggerholm & Thomsen, 2016; Blomgren, Hedmo, & Waks, 2016; Grimmelikhuijsen & Meijer, 2015; Sillince & Brown, 2009; Yeung, 2009), leaving little doubt that communication is a relevant and potentially potent tool for public agencies in building and maintaining their legitimacy. As for the effects of legitimacy, studies have observed the long‐term survival benefits of legitimacy (Baum & Oliver, 1991; Hannan & Carroll, 1992; Ruef & Scott, 1998; Singh et al., 1986) and its positive impacts on financial performance (Bansal & Clelland, 2004; Cohen & Dean, 2005; Lamin & Zaheer, 2012; Pollock & Rindova, 2003). Studies conducted specifically on public sector organizations show that legitimacy is a motivator for innovative behavior (Verhoest et al., 2007) and positively impacts citizens’ civic morality (Andrews, 2008). Overall, the benefits for public organizations of enjoying organizational legitimacy are an understudied area of empirical research, although the theoretical arguments for seeking legitimacy are strong.

Context Perspectives on Organizational Legitimacy One of the most influential perspectives in organizational research is the institutional perspective (Suchman, 1995). Most contributions in organizational institutionalism build on the idea that organizations are deeply embedded in wider social and cultural environments. The perspective usually downplays managerial agency, placing little emphasis on deliberate legitimation activities and more on how societal beliefs become embedded in organizations, providing conformity with cultural norms, values, and expectations developed in these environments. Meyer and Scott (1983, p. 201) note that “a completely legitimate organization would be one about which no question could be raised.” Such an organization enjoys “cultural support” and is “taken for granted” and “understandable” in the sense that “cultural accounts provide explanations for its existence, functioning, and jurisdiction” (Meyers & Scott, 1983, p. 201). Legitimacy and institutionalization are “virtually synonymous” (Suchman, 1995, p. 571). Other perspectives emphasize organizations’ strategic efforts of acquiring, maintaining, and defending legitimacy (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990; Dowling & Pfeffer, 1975). Resource dependence theory, for example, depicts legitimacy as an operational resource that organizations acquire from their environments (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). From this perspective, legitimacy can be managed to achieve organizational goals. A similar conceptualization of legitimacy is found in discursive perspectives, which emphasize the role of language in legitimation (Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005; Vaara & Tienari, 2008). Discursive legitimation processes are political, involving persuasion and power relationships. A variant of the perspective emphasizes the verbal explanations organizations use to protect legitimacy following legitimacy‐threatening events

50

Arild Wæraas

(Elsbach, 1994). These explanations are assumed to be highly strategic and include various tactics ranging from denial to apologies (c.f. Scott & Lyman, 1968). As such, the perspective is an important contribution to our understanding of the role of communication in legitimation processes, also for public sector organizations.

Legitimacy, Public Sector Organizations, and Citizens Public sector organizations are subjected to strong sociopolitical judgments. Financed by taxpayer money, they are not only legally accountable to democratic institutions, but also morally to the taxpayers themselves. It is generally expected of public organizations that they do not waste money and resources, that they try to have the interests of citizens at heart, refrain from corruption, and that they do not favor or discriminate any particular social group. If they fail to adhere to these expectations, citizens are likely to become more skeptical of them, more indifferent, more likely to openly criticize them, and ultimately less inclined to pay taxes. If these sociopolitical judgments are consistently negative over time, the organization may not be able to survive as an independent entity. Another reason why legitimacy is important is the challenges for many public sector organizations in building a strong reputation. A number of constraining factors generally make such ambitions difficult to fulfill (Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012). Some authors, therefore, suggest that public organizations should settle for a “neutral” or “satisficing” reputation (Luoma‐Aho, 2007; Picci, 2015), that is, a reputation that is neither poor nor excellent, but good enough. The entity’s legitimacy does not necessarily suffer if its reputation is mediocre, although, of course, having a consistently poor reputation over time could hurt legitimacy. As long as the organization is deemed legitimate, it enjoys an amount of support that is large enough to continue to exist and conduct operations. While building an excellent reputation may be impossible, costly, or risky for many public organizations, acquiring and maintaining legitimacy is possible because doing so only requires a sufficient—not optimum—amount of support (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008). However, not all forms of legitimacy matter equally. Constituents and citizens confer different types of legitimacy to organizations depending on the organizations’ characteristics. For example, pragmatic legitimacy, which rests on the self‐interested calculations of specific citizen groups (Suchman, 1995), is generally less relevant for public organizations primarily because they must take into account the interests of everyone (but see Sillince and Brown (2009)). As a result, public organizations are less able to (and perhaps should not) base their long‐term survival on the legitimacy they receive from serving specific interests. Conversely, moral legitimacy, which is conferred when citizens believe the organization to be promoting societal welfare based on altruistic motives and because it is “the right thing to do,” is highly relevant for the large majority of public sector organizations. Given the overall objective of public organizations of serving the public interest, public agencies would find it difficult to survive if they were seen as having no moral legitimacy.

Legitimacy and Organization Type Few empirical studies on the relationship between organization type and legitimacy are conducted within the context of the public sector. However, on a general level, there are good reasons to assume that the ability to acquire and maintain legitimacy depends on certain organizational properties. First, it should be noted that large organizations probably acquire and maintain legitimacy more easily than smaller ones (Baum & Oliver, 1991). Because public organizations usually are relatively large, size should in principle help them enhance their legitimacy. Second, young and new organizations generally have more difficulty acquiring legitimacy than older ones. A well‐known insight is “the liability of newness” (Stinchcombe, 1965), meaning that new organizational forms entering

Public Sector Communication and Organizational Legitimacy

51

a market or field will have greater difficulty generating support because external audiences’ cognitive judgment of these organizations does not play in their favor. When evaluating audiences are unable to classify the organization into a preexisting category, cognitive legitimacy suffers. It could also be hypothesized that certain contextual aspects matter for legitimation strategies. In general, organizational research has shown that different organizations rely on different strategies depending on their status. Status reflects the relative position of a group of organizations compared to other groups (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008). Low‐status and high‐status groups favor differentiation strategies, while middle‐status groups prefer to conform (Phillips & Zuckerman, 2001). This suggests that legitimacy is relatively more important for middle‐status groups than it is for high‐ and low‐status groups. To the extent that public organizations can be distinguished on the basis of status, their legitimation strategies can be expected to differ. However, current research and theorizing give few guidelines for drawing such a distinction. Public organizations are probably best conceived as being middle status, although it is possible to distinguish between state, regional, and municipal agencies, with state agencies being high status, and the other two possibly middle and low status, respectively. To what extent, and how, these different group memberships shape legitimation efforts remains a topic for further empirical research.

Legitimacy and Public Sector Communication The theoretical exposition thus far suggests that organizational legitimacy is important for public sector organizations and that communication plays a role in this respect. But how exactly does legitimacy come into play in public sector communication? And how does the need for legitimacy shape public sector communication? This section of the chapter wrestles with these and other important questions that can improve our understanding of the ways in which organizational legitimacy relates to communication in the public sector.

From Information to Self‐Presentation Traditionally, all public sector communication is, at least ideally, undertaken for the purpose of contributing to the public interest in one way or another (see Chapter 1). Public sector communication may very well be strategic in the sense that it is goal‐oriented, especially when it takes the form of information campaigns. These goals are connected with democracy, welfare, participation, rights, and duties on a general level. As such, public sector communication contributes to the broader mission of the public sector of achieving specific policy results or desirable social outcomes that benefit everyone. These communication activities are unlikely to be sufficient in themselves in order to establish organizational legitimacy, but help maintain and reinforce moral legitimacy by demonstrating how a public organization is accountable to the general public. Recent macro‐level changes encourage a new type of communication from public organizations. A large number of reputation rankings and ratings are conducted every year in much of the Western world, making reputation an important benchmark of success. The current status of reputation is well illustrated by the press release issued by World Economic Forum in 2004 that “corporate brand reputation outranks financial performance as the most important measure of corporate success” (World Economic Forum 2004). As public organizations generally have become more similar to private sector organizations over the years following a series of new public management (NPM) reforms, they too are under pressure to manage their reputation just like any other formal organization (Wæraas & Maor, 2015). Consequently, the amount of communication has increased dramatically. “Every” self‐respecting public agency now has a team of communication specialists, communication strategies defining missions, core values, target groups, and messages, and many regularly conduct reputation measurements. More notably, the

52

Arild Wæraas

content of communication has shifted toward information concerning aspects of the organization itself that are deemed effective in building a favorable reputation. In accordance with general reputation management strategies of creating differentiation and building emotional appeal, public organizations focus on their distinct character and ethos in their communication in order to influence public perceptions of who they are. An increasingly larger share of their communication is devoted to strategic self‐presentation aimed at benefiting themselves (the senders of information) rather than the general public (the recipients of information). In doing so, many public organizations seek help from public relations professionals to carefully craft messages about who they are and what they stand for. This change from information to self‐presentation has important implications for both cognitive and sociopolitical legitimacy judgments. First, on a general basis it should be noted that reputation and legitimacy involve different logics. While reputation emerges from competitive logics prescribing differentiation, legitimacy rests on a logic emphasizing conformity (Deephouse, 1999). Being different reduces competition, but makes an organization less recognizable, thus weakening cognitive legitimacy. This conundrum makes the relationship between reputation and legitimacy “fundamentally antagonistic” (King & David Whetten, 2008, p. 193). Consequently, if a public sector organization responds to the pressure of building a favorable reputation by differentiating from others, it may ultimately jeopardize cognitive judgments of its legitimacy. Second, sociopolitical legitimacy judgments are likely to be negatively affected when communication shifts from information to strategic self‐presentation. This is because reputation‐­ enhancing communication is not necessarily aimed at reaching objectives of democracy, participation, or the common good. Indeed, recent studies demonstrate how public organizations have become more expressive and self‐centered in their communication, focusing on their own organizational identity and core values in order to build a favorable image or reputation (Abolafia & Hatmaker, 2013; Wæraas, 2010, 2014). Pressured by a growing array of national reputation rankings and measurements tailor‐made for the public sector, some public organizations even adopt commercial branding techniques in order to communicate an idealized image of themselves (Sataøen & Wæraas, 2013; Whelan, Davies, Walsh, & Bourke, 2010).3 And, when incidents that potentially could hurt reputation occur, public organizations rely on strategic communication that helps conceal or downplay these events, in some cases at the expense of truth (Wæraas, 2011). The negative effects of this type of self‐centered communication on legitimacy have rarely been studied. Nevertheless, there are good reasons to expect a significant toll on moral legitimacy following negative sociopolitical judgments, especially if the general public suspects a public organization of holding back information that it is perceived as having a moral obligation to give.

Communicating for Legitimacy A favorable reputation can generally provide “leverage or slack for defending against challenges to legitimacy” (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990, p. 189). For public organizations, it “can be used to generate public support, to achieve delegated autonomy and discretion from politicians, to protect the agency from political attack, and to recruit and retain valued employees” (Carpenter, 2002, p. 491). Strategic communication plays a central part in this regard, also in the public sector, as evidenced by a number of empirical studies (Alon‐Barkat & Gilad, 2017; Gilad, Maor, & Bloom, 2013; Maor, Gilad, & Bloom, 2012).

  It should be noted that branding techniques can also be used to support more traditional public sector communication activities such as in governance and public management (Klijn & Eshuis, 2012) and in promoting policy areas such as health (Evans & Hastings, 2008).

3

Public Sector Communication and Organizational Legitimacy

53

However, public organizations cannot afford to exclusively design their communication to build reputation while ignoring legitimacy altogether. Problematic legitimacy can be a reason for superordinate bodies to reduce an entity’s budget, downgrade its independence and increase oversight, integrate it within the structures of a more legitimate agency, or abolish it altogether. In contrast to problematic legitimacy, an unfavorable reputation does not necessarily represent a significant threat to a public organization’s existence. It follows that public organizations will benefit from balancing the need for reputation with the need for legitimacy. Doing so implies adhering to the constraints imposed on communication by legitimacy requirements, particularly with respect to cognitive and socio‐political legitimacy judgments. In our current reputation‐ oriented society, this balancing is perhaps more important than ever and should be reflected not only in daily activities and decisions but also in communication. Legitimacy requirements impose constraints on communication activities in several ways in the sense that there are things a public organization should not say, and ways in which it should not say those things, if it wants to preserve its legitimacy. First, respecting cognitive legitimacy judgments implies restricting the amount of strategic differentiation that otherwise is desirable from a purely competitive viewpoint. Following global NPM reforms, public organizations are exposed to more competition than ever before. This increase occurs either through structural devolution and the formation of quasi‐markets, or through competition with private sector providers. Competition has increased the need for strategic positioning, and thus for differentiation. For public entities facing such situations, legitimacy problems may arise if their communication is exclusively formed to satisfy reputation and differentiation requirements according to the market logic at the expense of legitimacy requirements emphasizing conformity. This is not to say that these entities should never manage their reputation, or that reputation does not matter, only that their communication should not aim toward more differentiation than what is legitimately possible (c.f. Deephouse, 1999; King & David Whetten, 2008). Their communication should make sure to confirm the identity of the entity so that no question is raised concerning its cognitive legitimacy. In practice, this could mean that a regulator, for example, should present itself like a regulator usually does and is usually expected to present itself, generally refraining from using communication and symbols that do not “fit” with this category. It could mean that a public hospital operating in a competitive patient market tones down its differentiation from other hospitals in order to respect cognitive legitimacy judgments, even if its reputation could be enhanced by more differentiation. The latter has been confirmed in studies showing how the communication of public hospitals enhances conformity rather than differentiation (Blomgren et al. 2016; Wæraas & Sataøen, 2015). Second, respecting sociopolitical legitimacy judgments implies restricting the amount of self‐ presentation that is desirable from a purely competitive viewpoint. A public organization is expected to be impartial, fair, disinterested, provide relevant information, and generally be careful promoting itself too much. While self‐promotion and some degree of boasting is to be expected of commercially oriented businesses aspiring to sell products and services on a market—exaggerations are part of “the game”—public sector organizations should generally be careful when engaging in this type of communication. Their moral legitimacy depends on their communication supporting the overall objective of the public sector by disseminating information that is beneficial to society as a whole. Communication could help to reduce any doubt that citizens might have about the contribution of a public agency in this respect. Such doubt, however, seems to be a rather normal occurrence, especially from individuals who have little or no rapport with the agency in question. Public organizations perform better than the general public often thinks or suspects (Goodsell, 2004), which results in both a communication and a legitimacy problem. These problems can be rectified by strategic legitimation efforts assuring evaluating audiences that the agency’s activities are “the right thing to do,” which, if successful, result in moral legitimacy.

54

Arild Wæraas

Critique and Challenges There is general and broad consensus that organizational legitimacy is important for survival and success. There also seems to be broad support for the notion that legitimacy is a chronic problem for most organizations, and that public sector organizations are particularly disposed to legitimacy challenges because they often do not produce tangible outputs, are accountable to the general public, and face disagreement over how public funds should be spent. However, there is some debate as to whether communication can be, or should be, a remedy for enhancing and maintaining legitimacy. This debate has roots in Habermas’s criticism of Weber’s understanding of legitimacy. Weber’s understanding highlights legitimacy as a perception, that is; a system is legitimate as long as external evaluators believe it is legitimate. He emphasized legitimation as the cultivation of beliefs, which can be achieved by communicating a “myth” or story about the entity that is sufficiently powerful to influence beliefs. It follows that successful legitimation could lead to legitimacy that ultimately is not “deserved” in the sense that is not based on a de facto congruence with social expectations and values— the evaluating audience just thinks there is such congruence. For Habermas, therefore, the notion of cultivating a myth may be “without an immanent relation to truth” (Habermas, 1976, p. 97) and therefore negatively affect the moral legitimacy of the system. For public organization, this problem can be identified in cases where agencies exaggerate their claims, taking advantage of the fact that legitimacy is a subjective interpretation susceptible to manipulation. If communication is to have a role in legitimation endeavors, it needs to reflect the sender’s genuine values and activities rather than empty promises or, at worst, “spin.” This points to a challenge for public sector communication: While every public organization’s existence depends on legitimation, legitimacy claims should be made with caution. Public organizations should balance the need for legitimacy by influencing perceptions through communication while at the same time respecting the limits of what constituents would accept as credible and in accordance with broader social norms and values. Legitimacy claims that “go too far” may backfire and ultimately lead to unfavorable sociopolitical as well as cognitive legitimacy judgments.

Conclusions and Directions for Future Research Despite the growing proliferation of strategic communication and reputation management, public organizations depend more on legitimacy than a favorable reputation. Their communication should respect cognitive and sociopolitical legitimacy judgments so that reputation management activities do not jeopardize legitimacy requirements. While reputation management requires strategic communication aimed at creating differentiation, cognitive legitimacy requirements encourage a public sector entity’s communication to create at least some degree of conformity with other entities by emphasizing identity features that make it recognizable and understandable. And while reputation management requires strategic communication and self‐ presentation intended to impress, making the organization “look good,” sociopolitical legitimacy judgments require public sector communication in a democratic, transparent society to benefit everyone. These are basic assumptions that should be further examined in empirical research. Unfortunately, few studies address issues related to the legitimacy of public sector organizations, and even fewer investigate the relationship between communication and legitimacy within a public sector context. There is much to be explored, particularly concerning how communication relates to the tension between legitimacy and reputation. Five central areas for future empirical research could be the following:

Public Sector Communication and Organizational Legitimacy

55

1 The organizational legitimacy of public sector organizations and the role of (strategic) communication. Under which conditions should legitimation activities of public organizations involve communication? What is the central contribution of communication in the legitimation of public organizations? What are the limits of communication in the quest for legitimacy? 2 Communication and different forms of legitimacy. Which form of legitimacy is more easily influenced by communication? Under which circumstances could communication positively influence pragmatic and moral legitimacy at the same time? Does communication have a larger effect on one of these legitimacy forms rather than the other, and if so, which one? 3 Communication and legitimacy judgments. To what extent does communication affect cognitive and sociopolitical judgments? Which type of judgment is more easily influenced by communication? Does the same type of communication influence legitimacy judgments equally? 4 Legitimacy and reputation. How do public organizations manage the conflicting tensions between legitimacy and reputation, and what is the role of communication in this regard? To what extent can communication contribute to an improved reputation while at the same time respecting legitimacy requirements? Relatedly, how can communication strengthen legitimacy without negatively affecting reputation? 5 Legitimacy, reputation, and organization type. Is it easier for certain types of public sector organizations to manage legitimacy through communication than for other types of public organizations? If so, which are they?

References Abolafia, M., & Hatmaker, D. (2013). Fine‐tuning the signal: Image and identity at the federal reserve. International Public Management Journal, 16, 532–556. Aerts, W., & Cormier, D. (2009). Media legitimacy and corporate environmental communication. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 1–27. Aggerholm, H. K., & Thomsen, C. (2016). Legitimation as a particular mode of strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10, 195–206. Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review, 19, 645. Alon‐Barkat, S., & Gilad, S. (2017). Compensating for poor performance with promotional symbols: Evidence from a survey experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27, 661–675. Andrews, C. W. (2008). Legitimacy and context: Implications for public sector reform in developing countries. Public Administration and Development, 28, 171–180. Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double‐edge of organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1, 177–194. Bansal, P., & Clelland, I. (2004). Talking trash: Legitimacy, impression management, and unsystematic risk in the context of the natural environment. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 93–103. Barros, M. (2014). Tools of legitimacy: The case of the Petrobras corporate blog. Organization Studies, 35, 1211–1230. Baum, J. A. C., & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 187–218. Bitektine, A. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgements of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36, 151–179. Bitektine, A., & Haack, P. (2015). The “macro” and the “micro” of legitimacy: Toward a multilevel theory of the legitimacy process. Academy of Management Review, 40, 49–75. Blomgren, M., Hedmo, T., & Waks, C. (2016). Being special in an ordinary way: Swedish hospitals’ strategic web communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10, 177–194. Bradford, B., Huq, A., Jackson, J., & Roberts, B. (2014). What price fairness when security is at stake? Police legitimacy in South Africa. Regulation & Governance, 8, 246–268.

56

Arild Wæraas

Carpenter, D. (2002). Groups, the media, agency waiting costs, and FDA drug approval. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 490–505. Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., & Rykkja, L. H. (2016). Organizing for crisis management; building governance and legitimacy capacity. Public Administration Review, 76, 887–897. Cohen, B. D., & Dean, T. J. (2005). Information asymmetry and investor valuation of IPOs: Top management team legitimacy as a capital market signal. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 683–690. Czarniawska, B., & Wolff, R. (1998). Constructing new identities in established organization fields: Young universities in old Europe. International Studies of Management and Organization, 28, 32–56. Deephouse, D. L. (1996). Does isomorphism legitimate? Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1024–1039. Deephouse, D. L. (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 147–166. Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. M. (2005). An examination of differences between organizational legitimacy and organizational reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 329–360. Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. C. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R.  Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49–77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy – social values and organizational behavior. The Pacific Sociological Review, 18, 122–136. Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror – image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 517–554. Elsbach, K. D. (1994). Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry: The construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 57–88. Evans, W. D., & Hastings, G. (Eds.) (2008). Public health branding. Applying marketing for social change. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Gilad, S., Maor, M., & Bloom, P. B.‐N. (2013). Organizational reputation, the content of public allegations, and regulatory communication. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. https:// doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut041 Glynn, M. A., & Abzug, R. (2002). Institutionalizing identity: Symbolic isomorphism and organizational names. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 267–280. Golant, B. D., & Sillince, J. A. A. (2007). The constitution of organizational legitimacy: A narrative perspective. Organization Studies, 28, 1149–1167. Goodsell, C. T. (2004). The case for bureaucracy. A public administration polemic. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 58–80. Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., & Meijer, A. J. (2015). Does twitter increase perceived police legitimacy. Public Administration Review, 75, 598–607. Habermas, J. (1976). Legitimation crisis. London, United Kingdom: Heinemann. Hannan, M. T., & Carroll, G. R. (1992). Dynamics of organizational populations: Density, legitimation, and competition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Holmström, S. (2005). Reframing public relations: The evolution of a reflective paradigm for organizational legitimization. Public Relations Review, 31, 498–504. King, B. G., & David Whetten, A. (2008). Rethinking the relationship between reputation and legitimacy: A social actor conceptualization. Corporate Reputation Review, 11, 192–207. Klijn, E.‐H., & Eshuis, J. (2012). Branding in governance and public management. New York, NY: Routledge. Lamin, A., & Zaheer, S. (2012). Wall street vs. Main street: Firm strategies for defending legitimacy and their impact on different stakeholders. Organization Science, 23, 47–26. Levi, M., Sacks, A., & Tyler, T. (2009). Conceptualizing legitimacy, measuring legitimating beliefs. American Behavioral Scientist, 53, 354–375. Luoma‐Aho, V. (2007). Neutral reputation and public sector organizations. Corporate Reputation Review, 10, 124–143. Maor, M., Gilad, S., & Bloom, P. B.‐N. (2012). Organizational reputation, regulatory talk, and strategic silence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23, 581–608. https://doi.org/10. 1093/jopart/mus047

Public Sector Communication and Organizational Legitimacy

57

Merkelsen, H. (2011). The double‐edged sword of legitimacy in public relations. Journal of Communication Management, 15, 125–143. Metzler, M. S. (2001). The centrality of organizational legitimacy to public relations practice. In R. L. Heath & G. Vasquez (Eds.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 321–333). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Meyer, J. W., & Richard Scott, W. (1983). Centralization and the legitimacy problems of local government. In J. W. Meyer & W. Richard Scott (Eds.), Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality (pp. 201). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Meyer, J. W., & Richard Scott, W. (Eds.) (2003). Organizational environments: Rituals and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363. Parsons, T. (1956). Suggestions for a sociological approach to the theory of organizations‐I. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1, 63–84. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper and Row. Phillips, D. J., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Middle‐status conformity: Theoretical restatement and empirical demonstration in two markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 379–429. Picci, L. (2015). Actors and strategies of the bureaucratic reputation game. In A. Wæraas & M. Maor (Eds.), Organizational reputation in the public sector (pp. 37–53). New York, NY: Routledge. Pollock, T. C., & Rindova, V. (2003). Media legitimation effects in the market for initial public offerings. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 631–642. Ricucci, N. M., Van Ryzin, G. G., & Lavena, C. F. (2014). Representative bureaucracy in policing: Does it increase perceived legitimacy? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 537–551. Ruef, M., & Scott, W. R. (1998). A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 877–904. Sataøen, H. L., & Wæraas, A. (2013). Branding without unique brands: Managing difference and similarity in a public sector context. Public Management Review, 17, 443–461. Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46–62. Sillince, J. A. A., & Brown, A. D. (2009). Multiple organizational identities and legitimacy: The rhetoric of police websites. Human Relations, 62, 1829–1856. Singh, J. V., Tucker, D. J., & House, R. J. (1986). Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 171–193. Staw, B., & Epstein, L. D. (1997). What bandwagons bring: Effects of popular management techniques on corporate performance, reputation, and CEO pay. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 523–556. Stinchcombe, A. (1965). Social structure and organization. In J. G. March (Ed.), A handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Chicago, IL: Rand‐McNally. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571–610. Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 35–57. Suddaby, R., Haack, P., & Scherer, A. G. (2017). Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals, 11, 451–478. Tankebe, J. (2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51, 103–135. Vaara, E., & Tienari, J. (2008). A discursive perspective on legitimation strategies in multinational corporations. Academy of Management Review, 33, 985–993. Vaara, E., Tienari, J., & Laurila, J. (2006). Pulp and paper fiction: On the discursive legitimation of global industrial restructuring. Organization Studies, 27, 789–810. Veil, S. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Petrun, E. L. (2012). Hoaxes and the paradoxical challenges of restoring legitimacy: Domono’s response to its YouTube crisis. Management Communication Quarterly, 26, 322–345. Verhoest, K., Verschuere, B., & Bouckaert, G. (2007). Pressure, legitimacy, and innovative behavior by public organizations. Governance  –  An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 20, 469–497. Wæraas, A. (2010). Communicating identity: A study of core value statements in regulative institutions. Administration and Society, 42, 526–549.

58

Arild Wæraas

Wæraas, A. (2011). Alt om min etat. Om transparenstrenden i offentlig sektor. In A. Wæraas, H. Byrkjeflot, & S. I. Angell (Eds.), Substans og framtreden. Omdømmehåndtering i offentlig sektor (pp. 113). Oslo, NW: Universitetsforlaget. Wæraas, A. (2014). Beauty from within? What bureaucracies stand for. The American Review of Public Administration, 44, 675–692. Wæraas, A., & Byrkjeflot, H. (2012). Public sector organizations and reputation management: Five problems. International Public Management Journal, 15, 186–206. Wæraas, A., & Maor, M. (Eds.) (2015). Organizational reputation in the public sector. New York, NY: Routledge. Wæraas, A., & Sataøen, H. L. (2015). Being all things to all customers: Building reputation in an institutionalized field. British Journal of Management, 26, 310–326. Weber, M. (1968a). In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.), Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (Vol. 2). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (Original work published in 1922) Weber, M. (1968b). In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.), Economy and society. New York, NY: Bedminster. (Original work published in 1922) Westphal, J. D., Gulati, R., & Shortell, S. M. (1997). Customization or conformity? An institutional and network on the content and consequences of TQM adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 366–394. Whelan, S., Davies, G., Walsh, M., & Bourke, R. (2010). Public sector corporate branding and customer orientation. Journal of Business Research, 63, 1164–1171. World Economic Forum. 2004. Corporate brand reputation outranks financial performance as the most important measure of corporate success. Yeung, K. (2009). Presentational management and the pursuit of regulatory legitimacy: A comparative study of competition and consumer agencies in the United Kingdom and Australia. Public Administration, 87, 274–294.

3

Trust, Fairness, and Signaling: Studying the Interaction Between Officials and Citizens Nadine Raaphorst and Steven Van de Walle

Introduction Public sector communication is not just a formal act by a public organization, but also a continuous process enacted at the interface between civil servants and citizens. Where government workers or services and citizens meet and interact, they communicate through sending signals that allow the other party to interpret intentions and values, and to decide whether the other party has qualities that are desirable or can be trusted (e.g., Gambetta & Hamill, 2005; Raaphorst & Groeneveld, 2018; Raaphorst & Van de Walle, 2018b). The public sector signals its trustworthiness, its authority, and the values its stands for to citizens and public sector clients. Citizens and clients want to signal their trustworthiness as a client or partner of the public sector. Probably even more than formal communication acts such as marketing campaigns and information on websites, the implicit and explicit signaling that is happening during personal encounters with government determines the view citizens have of the government as well as their trust in the government. At the same time, as is evidenced by the street‐level bureaucracy literature, the signals that are sent by citizens affect frontline decision‐making (e.g., Maynard‐Moody & Musheno, 2003). This chapter looks at public sector communication in the bureaucratic encounter, where civil servants and citizens meet. It introduces signaling theory as a way of conceptualizing and understanding the communication that takes place during this encounter. The chapter argues that public sector communication is also to some extent interpersonal communication where parties are often unequal and do not have full information. It focuses on both sides of the public encounter (officials and citizens), and discusses both the sending of signals (signalers) as the interpretation of signals (receivers) by both these parties. Using typical examples of bureaucratic encounters, this chapter discusses the possible consequences of misinterpretations of signals for citizen behavior. This topic is of particular relevance for public sector communication for several reasons. First, the signaling perspective draws attention to the implicit communication that takes place in bureaucratic encounters. Street‐level bureaucrats are the face of the government (Lipsky, 1980),

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

60

Nadine Raaphorst and Steven Van de Walle

and “are symbolic of government’s authority, reach and morality” (Oberfield, 2014, p. 16). What happens in the bureaucratic encounter probably has an impact on how citizens perceive procedural justice, which, in turn, affects their trust in and perceived legitimacy of the government (Cook, Hardin, & Levi, 2005). When street‐level officials distrust or are hostile toward citizens, this could evoke “resistance, evasions, and dishonesty” (Cook et al., 2005, p. 161). In this way, signals in the public sector encounter not only give the involved actors indications as to the other’s trustworthiness but also shape the mutual trust (or distrust for that matter) that arises within the encounter (Levi, 1998). Second, today’s horizontal forms of service provision and law enforcement, emphasizing the importance of collaboration, commitment, and trust (i.e., responsive regulation, collaborative governance), make street‐level decision‐making dependent on social dynamics between officials and citizens (Raaphorst & Loyens, 2018). Standards that are used to categorize citizens are, in such cases, to a lesser extent predetermined by strict organizational criteria, but deliberately left more vague, and their application up to the assessment by frontline workers. How officials read the characteristics and actions of citizens and vice versa, then, becomes an important field of study. The signaling perspective on the public encounter points to several management challenges for public sector organizations and their communication toward citizens. First, street‐level officials are not only required to provide services or enforce the law by relying on predetermined laws and rules, but also to assess observable client characteristics in the interaction, to draw inferences on that, and to adjust their own actions accordingly. This draws attention to street‐level officials’ own communication skills and their reflexivity in sending and reading signals. This raises important questions for the hiring, training, and socialization of street‐level officials. Second, besides street‐level officials’ skills, the signaling perspective also underlines the importance for public organizations to reflect on what values they want to signal to citizens and the ways in which they can do this. Third, acknowledging the fact that citizens often not voluntary interact with the government, and often cannot freely choose the provider of a public service, the feedback citizens send as response to public sector signals is of particular importance for the government in order to know how receivers interpret signals. When such “response signals” are not paid attention to, and hence, no action is taken by the government to improve the reliability of its own signals, this can have adverse and lasting consequences for the relationship between the government and citizens. In what follows, we will introduce the signaling theory perspective, its main concepts, and applications in existing research. After that, we will show how the perspective can be used to study trustworthiness evaluations in public service encounters. Subsequently, by relying on the signaling theory perspective, we will show how misinterpretations of signals could have adverse consequences for the relationship between citizens and the government. We conclude with a critique and challenges for public sector organizations and recommendations for future research.

Trust and Information Asymmetries in the Public Encounter Declining citizen trust in the government has been high on the public agenda and also studied extensively (e.g., Van de Walle & Bouckaert, 2007; Van Ryzin, 2011), and only recently also public officials’ trust in citizens has been taken up as relevant topic of study (Raaphorst & Groeneveld, 2018; Yang, 2005). Public organizations have taken different institutional measures to increase citizen trust, such as improving public sector transparency (Grimmelikhuijsen & Meijer, 2014) and implementing trust‐based working (Raaphorst & Van de Walle, 2018a). Within new public governance models and horizontal forms of regulation collaboration, responsiveness, and trust are seen as essential to frontline decision‐making. However, whether and how trust is established in official‐citizen encounters has thus far

Trust, Fairness, and Signaling

61

not received much scholarly a­ ttention (Raaphorst & Van de Walle, 2018a). This is striking, since research has found evidence that not only outcomes and results of public services affect citizens’ trust in the government, but that the process (fairness and equity) is even more important for citizens’ trust judgments (van Ryzin, 2011). Studying how the interaction between officials and citizens evolves, and how the latter perceive the process of service provision or law enforcement, then, is important to understand citizens’ perceptions of the government in general. When we look at the other side of the encounter, public officials’ trust in citizens has scarcely been studied (but see Yang, 2005). Nevertheless, the street‐level bureaucracy literature does point to the role of trust in frontline decision‐making. Social workers, as an example, need to assess whether applicants are honest, but they typically also look at whether applicants are able to pay society back in the long run (e.g., Maynard‐Moody & Musheno, 2003). The first can be seen as short‐term trustworthiness, the latter as long‐term trustworthiness. For police officers, to mention another example, trustworthiness judgments are typically intertwined with suspicions and decisions whether to interrogate or stop someone at the street (Johnson & Morgan, 2013). These interactions are commonly fraught with uncertainty in the form of an information asymmetry; officials are in the dark about specific private citizen information they need to know in order to make decisions. Within trust‐based working environments, trust is typically seen as a way to overcome this uncertainty; officials are expected to have trusting attitudes toward citizens (i.e., to have positive expectations), thereby avoiding the search costs involved in completely screening citizens. In line with the definition of trust as delineated by Möllering (2001), there are three central aspects of the trust process: expectation, interpretation, and suspension. He describes trust as a process whereby “our interpretations are accepted and our awareness of the unknown, unknowable, and unresolved is suspended” (Möllering, 2001, p. 414). Interpretive knowledge is made momentarily certain, which enables the leap to positive or negative expectations. The interpretive knowledge that is not entirely certain, but is at the same time certain enough to rely on, is also a central aspect of bureaucratic encounters. Officials, on the one hand, need private and not readily available information of citizens in order to make decisions. It is held that they rely on signals and cues that infer something about these unobservable attributes in order to reduce this uncertainty (Mennerick, 1974; Raaphorst & Groeneveld, 2018). Especially since bureaucrats not only rely on “hard” information such as, for instance, applicants’ earnings, but also need to look at “soft” information such as applicants’ trustworthiness or willingness to change (Eikenaar, De Rijk, & Meershoek, 2016). Citizens, on the other hand, often do not know how they are going to be processed in the bureaucratic system, and the possibilities they have to influence this categorization, and hence, to affect the final decision. It is held that “while the client has limited resources in bargaining with the street‐level bureaucrat, the street‐level bureaucrat’s control over information and his/ her capacity to manipulate ‘internal’ bureaucratic alternatives give him/her the upper hand in making slotting decisions” (Prottas, 1978, p. 294). Street‐level bureaucrats, then, could manipulate interactions with citizens by giving or not giving certain information about services the latter are entitled to. The information asymmetry, thus, works in both directions, and it affects street‐level decision‐making as well as how citizens view and relate to the government.

Signaling Theory and Its Applications Within the field of economics it has been acknowledged that encounters between actors within the market economy, such as the labor market, are fraught with uncertainty. The fact that an individual’s productive capacities are not directly observable and need to be learned over time,

62

Nadine Raaphorst and Steven Van de Walle

it is held, makes hiring an investment decision that is made under uncertainty (Spence, 1973). It is even argued that “to hire someone, then, is frequently to purchase a lottery” (Spence, 1973, p. 356). Signaling theory holds, in this regard, that people who find themselves in these uncertain situations look for observable, personal attributes that are believed to be linked to the sought after unobservable characteristics, “and it is these that must ultimately determine his assessment of the lottery he is buying” (Spence, 1973, p. 357). This unobservable quality is a piece of private information the receiver cannot observe directly because of an information asymmetry, but only through the signal. At the core of signaling theory is thus a concern for reducing information asymmetry. Since firms, to mention an example, cannot observe worker productivity directly, they rely on applicants’ educational choices to draw inferences about their competences (Weiss, 1995, p. 135). This theory, moreover, assumes that the signaling game is played out in a “calculative way,” i.e. that people look for costly signals in order to separate “good” from “bad” individuals. Costly signals are observable attributes that are deemed too costly for an imposter to fake, but affordable for an honest individual, “given the benefit that each can expect in the situation” (Gambetta & Hamill, 2005, p. 11). In the resulting separating equilibrium, the individual who really possesses the looked‐ for quality is perfectly distinguished from the individual who does not possess this quality, because for the former actor, the payoff of displaying a signal exceeds the payoff of not sending the signal, whereas for the latter actor, the payoff of not sending the signal exceeds the payoff of sending it. For example, education is expensive, and passing is difficult for lower‐skilled persons. This makes having a higher education degree a very reliable signal to prospective employers and a costly one for lower‐ qualified job applicants to fake (Spence, 1973). Some signals, then, can get ascribed certainty value. This means that the receiver of the signal consider it highly likely the signal is related to an unobserved property. No mimicry is considered possible in the case of signals that are perfectly indicating whether someone is trustworthy or untrustworthy (Gambetta & Hamill, 2005). In real‐world situations, most signals are however not perfectly sorting. This happens when an actor who does not have a particular quality might benefit from signaling. An example of this is the image drawn by Stone (1984) of the social benefit applicant faking disability by walking with crutches; this signal might be considered costly because of the risk the imposter runs of getting a penalty, but for which the benefits might also outweigh the risk. This, for instance, happens when the applicant knows that the penalty only involves an affordable fine, and service providers are typically trusting toward citizens. As a result of this, “walking with crutches” would be perceived by public officials as a semi‐sorting signal that does not enable them to perfectly distinguish the “real needy” applicants from the “fakers.” However, it is assumed there is still some truth transmitted: only a minority of cheaters will gain from using that signal, whereas also the majority of honest signalers still uses it (Gambetta & Hamill, 2005). Relying on semi‐sorting signals might result in false positive or false negative decisions. In the context of the mentioned example, this means that the imposter illegitimately receives a service or that the real needy applicant is wrongfully classified as a cheater. Connelly, Certo, Ireland, and Reutzel (2011, p. 44) describe the signaling environment using a timeline, where the signaler, the signal, the receiver, and feedback are distinguished as different subsequent phases in the process of signaling. The timeline (t = 0) starts with the signaler who has certain private information not known to the outer world and therefore has a privileged position. The signaler wishes to deliberately communicate positive private information to the outside world (t = 1). The receiver lacks this private information and likes to receive and interpret the information (t = 3). If there is no conflict of interest, the assumption is that both signalers and receivers gain from making decisions based on signals. An employer, for instance, hires the most competent job applicant, who signaled his/her competences strategically and was chosen over others. Receivers could also send back information to the signalers about how signals are interpreted and which signals are looked at (t = 4). Although signaling theory is a theory about intentional signaling, signals might also be sent unwittingly and taken into consideration by the receiver.

Trust, Fairness, and Signaling

63

The foundational work in the field looked at how highly qualified job applicants distinguish themselves through obtaining high‐quality education (Spence, 1973), and how employers, based on educational attainment, label individuals as less or more productive, which in turn affects the distribution of income (Stiglitz, 1975). Signaling theory has since been used in many different disciplines such as anthropology, diversity management, entrepreneurship, and human resource management (see Connelly et al., 2011 for a more elaborate review). A topic of study within the field of management is, for instance, how firms and CEO’s signal the quality of their firms to stakeholders (Zhang & Wiersema, 2009). Within human resource management studies are focused on the influence of signaling by applicants in the recruitment process (Celani & Singh, 2011). Service encounters, such as between taxi drivers and customers, have also been studied from the perspective of signaling theory, looking at the question what signals taxi drivers rely on to decide whether to let someone in their taxi (Gambetta & Hamill, 2005). In this chapter, we rely on signaling theory to describe the communication between public officials and citizens, and how unobservable characteristics such as trustworthiness might be inferred from observable characteristics. Moreover, it shows how both officials and citizens might signal their trustworthiness in the encounter, which may affect the establishment of trust. As such, we look at officials and citizens as both signalers and receivers. After that, we will describe how misinterpretations of signals at the frontline could have broader societal consequences.

Signaling Trustworthiness in Public Sector Encounters In bureaucratic encounters, both frontline officials and citizens are senders and receivers of signals. Through signaling, parties attempt to be seen as trustworthy and establish common ground for the interaction. Where citizens and civil servants interact, they do not have full and complete information about one another, and formal communication only discloses part of the relevant information. Decisions need to be made in situations of incomplete information. The citizen has to decide whether or not promises made by a government agency are fair and to be trusted. Civil servants need to make decisions whether claims made by the citizen are true. In such a situation of uncertainty where decisions have to be made using little information, parties rely on readily observable characteristics (signals) they believe to be related to unobservable properties—such as whether the other party can be trusted. Officials and citizens can have overlapping interests, but also conflicting interests. In what follows, we will discuss the signals citizens and the public sector send and the different contexts that could affect the interpretations of those signals.

Citizen Signals Citizens want to signal their own qualities when interacting with government. They want to be seen as reliable partners in a public consultation, they want to be seen as honest investors in building projects, they want to be seen as an unemployed person who is serious about getting a job, or they want to be seen as someone who has not willingly and knowingly made mistakes on a tax declaration. Through their appearance, expression, and behavior, they want to signal their trustworthiness to the government and government officials. By being open and transparent about mistakes that are made in keeping records, entrepreneurs, for instance, signal to tax inspectors that they are honest and want to change (Raaphorst & Groeneveld, 2018). Citizens who turn up in a suit at a welfare office and are proactive in finding a job, to mention another example, might want to signal they are trustworthy applicants who are worthy of getting help, since they are motivated to pay society back in the long run. Civil servants use signals that are consciously or unconsciously communicated by public sector clients to make sense of an encounter. They ask themselves whether this particular citizen is to

64

Nadine Raaphorst and Steven Van de Walle

be trusted, and how s/he is to be categorized in the bureaucratic system. They gain from receiving these signals since it offers them information that is not readily available but is needed in order to make decisions. An entrepreneur who hired an accountant to take care of the bookkeeping records, for example, wants to signal everything is under control. The tax inspector, as a receiver of this costly signal, benefits since s/he now knows that the bookkeeping records will probably be fine, and s/he does not have to totally inspect the records. Having such signals facilitates frontline officials’ work; it saves valuable time and reduces uncertainty, in that it enables them to quickly process the citizen in the bureaucratic system.

Public Sector Signals Governments want to be seen as reliable, legitimate, and as high‐quality entities. They can do this through appointing a citizen representative in an infrastructure decision body to signal their concern for local inhabitants’ interest or through a glossy annual report that may signal the unobserved quality of their public organization. They can mimic the terminology used by successful private organizations to signal their own innovativeness; they can put a picture of minorities in their annual report to signal the diversity of the organization (Bernardi, Bean, & Weippert, 2002); obtain an ISO certification or adopt a public service charter to signal service quality; or use information when making a decision to their competence (Feldman & March, 1981). A civil servant willing to meet a client during lunch hour could be used to signal to the client that the civil servant is probably to be trusted. Government also signals its legitimacy, democratic values and authority through the architecture it employs: Stately buildings at prime locations, and circular parliament buildings made of glass, signal authority and democracy (Goodsell, 2000). At the level of service encounters, authority, and distance is signaled through physical distance, uniforms, obstructed windows, bullet‐proof glass, or counters serving as barriers (Goodsell, 1977).

Moderating Contexts The context within which signals are sent and received determines their interpretation, and hence the extent to which uncertainty is reduced in the interaction. These moderating contexts alter the use, the meaning, and sometimes even the reliability of signals (Connelly et al., 2011). Organizational culture for instance determines whether certain signals are used or not at all, as well as their meaning. For example, inspection agencies with an organizational culture in which “getting the fraudsters” is of central importance, conducting unannounced audits might signal their tough approach to inspectees and outside world. However, this is considered unacceptable and as a signal of distrust within organizational cultures in which transparency and trust are anchored. The same applies to different types of policy. A policy focused on a top‐down implementation might signal different values to citizen‐clients than a bottom‐up policy focused on collaboration. Receivers of signals also adjust their interpretation of signals to that of other receivers in their proximity. Direct colleagues’ interpretation of a signal is taken into account when an official tries to make sense of a signal (Raaphorst & Groeneveld, 2018). This could also apply to citizen‐­ clients’ interpretation of public sector signals. If close friends have negative experiences with certain public organizations, this will probably influence people’s expectations about that ­organization, and hence, their interpretation of government actions. Signalers also adapt their signaling to that of other signalers, either by conforming or by diverging from the dominant signaling in order to make a statement. Another important moderating context for citizens’ interpretation of public sector signals is an organization’s reputation within the general public. The attitudes and expectations citizen‐clients have of public organizations can be based on previous experience, but also on an organization’s

Trust, Fairness, and Signaling

65

reputation when there’s no prior experience with the organization (Wallin Andreassen, 1994). Signals of public organizations with a negative reputation, also mediated by the media, who for instance report on lawsuits or wrongdoings of public officials, might be distorted or their intended meaning not be interpreted as such by the general public. Citizen‐clients may adjust their expectations to the general sentiment. Furthermore, government officials, as receivers of citizen signals, might use the latter’s belonging to a social group as lenses through which signals are interpreted (Raaphorst, Groeneveld, & Van de Walle, 2018). Research has suggested that frontline officials are often more eager to serve middle‐class applicants, because they empathize with their values (Blau, 1955; Harrits & Møller, 2014). This could imply that signals of such middle‐class applicants are more often taken at face value, whereas the signals of applicants of other classes (lower and higher) are scrutinized more thoroughly. In such a case, the honest signals of other classes would not be accepted without deeper inspection, and dishonest signals of the middle class would more easily be accepted. The street‐level bureaucracy literature has also shown that street‐level bureaucrats rely on “cognitive biases” to make judgments when faced with uncertainty: clients’ ethnicities, for instance, serve as shortcuts to their supposed identities (Andersen & Guul, 2019; Blau, 1955; Schram, Soss, Fording, Houser, 2009). It could be the case that clients’ perceived belonging to a social group, such as socioeconomic class and ethnicity, serve as moderating contexts changing the meaning of certain signals. An example might be that certain citizen behavior in the bureaucratic encounter, talking fast and loudly, may be perceived as an expression of enthusiasm for white people, and as an expression of hostility for people from other ethnic backgrounds. A moderating context that influences the reliability of signals in general is the extent to which signals are sent honestly or dishonestly (Connelly et al., 2014). When most signalers are honest, the value of a signal becomes increasingly reliable. If, however, deceptive signalers use a certain signal, then this signal will lose its value as a reliable signal. When social service applicants, for instance, exaggerate their difficult situations and get emotional in the interaction with a public official in order to get a service, these signals will probably lose their value as indicator of neediness when street‐level officials encounter this on a daily basis. Especially signals that are not that costly, such as way of behaving in the interaction, are prone to dishonest signaling.

The Consequences of Misinterpretation Signals do not allow for perfect sorting, and can lead to miscommunication and misinterpretation. Such misinterpretation can have important consequences for the interaction between public officials and citizens, and may trigger mutual perceptions and behaviors that were not intended. Misinterpretation of signals jeopardizes future communication because parties involved in the communication will have to make bigger efforts to establish themselves as trustworthy counterparts. We distinguished between different scenarios along two dimensions. One dimension distinguishes honest signals that are interpreted as dishonest or not taken into consideration at all from dishonest signals that are interpreted as honest, or not taken into account. The second dimension is whether it is the official who misinterprets the citizen signal or the citizen who misinterprets the officials’ signal. In a first scenario, the government official misinterprets a signal of the citizen, or does not take it into consideration at all. The literature on procedural justice in interpersonal contexts, such as bureaucratic encounters or courtrooms, shows that people look at how decision makers conduct themselves in the interaction in judging the process as either fair or unfair (Tyler & Bies, 1990). Citizens’ perceptions of procedural justice of public organizations, in turn, influence the trust they have in the government (van Ryzin, 2011). What we learn from this branch of literature is that decision maker consideration of the other party’s viewpoint is an important factor of how this fairness is perceived (Tyler & Bies, 1990). When citizen’s try to signal their honest

66

Nadine Raaphorst and Steven Van de Walle

intentions to a frontline official, but the official is only focused on enforcing the rules and not taking into account the citizen’s side of the story, this could have significant consequences for how citizen’s perceive the official’s fairness, and hence, the trust vested in the official. Especially since the government official has a lot of decision‐making power (Prottas, 1978), it is imaginable that the citizen feels not taken seriously or even manipulated. This could also happen when the honest intention of citizen signals is perceived as dishonest, especially when the criteria to judge the veracity of such signals are vague. When social benefit applicants’ honest signals of mental problems and alleged impediments to daily life are not accepted and put under scrutiny by the official, this could affect the fairness perceptions and trust of the applicant in the government. Also, when street‐level official’s authority is challenged by a demanding citizen, the latter is often categorized as a “bad guy” (Maynard‐Moody & Musheno, 2003). An articulate citizen‐ client with honest intentions could, then, be categorized as unworthy of getting a service. It could, of course, also work the other way around—dishonest citizen signals that are interpreted by the official as honest ones. The street‐level bureaucracy literature shows that street‐level officials often make decisions based on feelings of empathy (e.g., Maynard‐Moody & Musheno, 2003), and that satisfaction with work is often derived from helping clients (Blau, 1955; Maynard‐ Moody & Musheno, 2003). Fake tears and sad stories may drive the official to withdraw from giving a fine, or to provide extraordinary help. This could give the citizen the feeling that s/he can easily cheat the system. This will not just give them a benefit they are not entitled to but may also undermine their general belief in the competence of public officials, and undermine the public’s trust in government when it perceived such blatant dishonest behavior passing unpunished. The risk of such a misinterpretation probably increases when criteria to allocate services or enforce laws are less predetermined and more dependent on how the official interprets the interaction with the citizen. The provision of welfare and enforcement of laws is not the sole responsibility of the state anymore. In fact, public policies have shifted responsibilities to citizen‐clients, as contributors to the process of policy making and implementation (Barnes & Prior, 2009). Bureaucratic decisions are based on perceptions of citizen‐clients’ trustworthiness, commitment, and willingness to co‐operate. These interpersonal notions are more opaque, and such soft criteria do not necessarily make the official’s sorting task more easy. Behavior in the interaction might be more easily manipulated by the citizen‐client than stricter criteria such as level of income, degree of physical disability, or the extent to which rules are violated would allow. Hence, it opens the door for semi‐sorting signals, i.e. signals that are more ambiguous in terms of whether they point to trustworthy or untrustworthy citizen‐clients. In another scenario, citizens can also misinterpret signals emitted by officials. This scenario is more likely when frontline officials are working with various principles and frames of reference. In such a case, the decision making process is less clear‐cut, and not always intelligible for the citizen‐client. Officials increasingly have to deal with multiple and sometimes conflicting principles in their work as the result of organizational and societal pressures (Schott, Van Kleef, & Noordegraaf, 2016). Public officials both have to follow the laws, organizational rules, and norms, as also their professional principles. It is acknowledged that frontline officials need to act consistently on the one hand, and need to make responsive decisions on the other hand, in order to deal with complex problems (Rutz, Mathew, Robben, & Bont, 2017). Different officials could furthermore work with different frames of reference, leading them to look at different aspects of the case when making a decision (Eikenaar et al., 2016). It could be that one official focuses on strictly following the rules, whereas another official has a caring frame of reference. It is highly likely that citizens are not always aware of the principle or frame from which certain acts are performed by government officials. This ignorance on the side of the citizen‐client makes it difficult for them to interpret the intention behind certain acts. An example is a bureaucrat who bends the rules in order to achieve a superior outcome for the client, but who is perceived as someone who doesn’t follow the rules (DeHart‐Davis, 2007).

Trust, Fairness, and Signaling

67

A similar example shows how bending the rules as a dishonest act might be perceived as an honest act. Cohen’s (2012) study on Israeli doctors shows that these doctors make exceptions for sympathetic clients and sometimes accept informal payments for different reasons. Sometimes they bend the rules for personal material gain, but they sometimes also do it “to do the right thing,” or to buy themselves a good feeling (no direct material gain). Accepting an informal payment might be perceived as a signal of extra effort an official is willing to do for this citizen‐ client, whereas in reality this might only feed into an official’s material gain and not result in better treatment. The effect of such misinterpretation is that it stimulates the official to continue the dishonest practice. Misinterpretation of signals thus comes at an important cost and changes the nature of public sector communication. It can affect citizens’ perceptions of fairness and trust, and officials, who are generally motivated to help citizen‐clients, can become fatalistic when their attempts to help are not met with gratitude. The ambiguity of certain signals makes the interpretation a less straightforward endeavor. In a context where actors want to signal their honest intent, citizens will have to put in more effort to prove they are honest, since easy‐to‐manipulate signals will also be used by dishonest citizens. There is also a cost for public officials, who will have to work hard to show that they are honest by making clear how decisions are being made, i.e. by explicitly communicating what aspects have been looked at and for what reasons. For both sides, this means they will have to use more signals to signal trustworthiness, thereby increasing the costs and burden of communicating.

The Challenges of Signaling Trustworthiness The decision to trust in essence depends on a human judgment, and the standards to come to such a judgment are open. In the interaction between officials and citizens there is a lot of uncertainty, making it difficult to decide whether the other party is trustworthy. Signaling and screening is an efficient way for making sense of the interaction and the other party, but it also opens the door for stereotyping, and thus unfair treatment. When public officials screen on observable characteristics, this might lead to discrimination, because the official interprets certain characteristics as an indication the citizen may not be trustworthy, just because the citizen holds these characteristics. “Efficient” screening of such signals then leads to inequities in service provision or law enforcement. For honest signaling to work in the street‐level communication between officials and citizens, there needs to be common ground. The signals need to be understood as they are intended to. A party signals because it thinks the other party will understand the values or ideas that are communicated. Signals of trust (e.g., an overly interested official, or an official documenting everything for the sake of transparency) might not be perceived as signals of trust by everyone (people from other cultures, people from lower social classes, etc.). As a consequence, those citizens might react differently to such signals, and this reaction, in turn, could be interpreted as uncooperativeness by officials, leading to a negative spiral. Signaling in the bureaucratic encounter always involves a power imbalance: the official decides based on the account that s/he thinks is most plausible (if s/he has enough proof). This means both parties can signal their intentions, but in the end the official decides—potentially based on a misinterpretation of signals. This is especially the case when the official has little time and considerable work pressure. In such a case, the official will rely heavily on signals and cues, and first impressions will count. If officials get more time to get to know citizens, initial signals can be offset (e.g., Andersen & Guul, 2019). If the parties involved in street‐level communication are aware of the signals they send, and how they are interpreted by the other party, then signaling can reduce uncertainty in communicating in an efficient way. In practice, citizens and officials are not always aware that they are

68

Nadine Raaphorst and Steven Van de Walle

actually sending signals, or may think they are sending a different signal from the one they thought they were sending. They may interpret signals different from how the signaler has meant them to be interpreted. Both when citizens feel misunderstood and when they notice they can get away with false signals, citizen trust in government will suffer.

Future Research on the Role of Signaling in  Public Sector Communication Despite the wealth of research on street‐level bureaucracy and the interaction between officials and citizens, little of it has in particular looked at this interaction from a signaling perspective. Signaling is still a relatively new theoretical lens to use in public management research. This means future research will have to be not only explanatory but also descriptive. We distinguish between three avenues for further research. One is about the signals themselves, the second is about the interpretation of signals during communication, and the third is about how officials and citizens learn to signal and interpret signals. Together, these three avenues for further research will allow us to generate insight into how trust is created at the interface between citizens and public services through public sector communication. First, scholars have to map and categorize the signals that play a role during communication between government and citizens. This goes beyond conscious acts of communication, and includes the physical setting of the bureaucratic encounter, verbal communication, body language, outward appearance, etc. How common are certain signals? Can signals be categorized? Does their presence differ across settings, or do the signals depend on characteristics related to the official or the citizen? Second, we want to know how signals during street‐level interaction are interpreted by officials and citizens and what determines this interpretation. This will allow explaining variation in the interpretation of signals, both among citizens and among officials. How can we, for instance, explain why the same signal is interpreted differently by different people or groups, or why a signal is interpreted differently when sent by different groups? Finally, it is important to know how officials are socialized and trained to interpret certain signals, and whether their interpretation follows formal socialization practices or, rather, personal insights or peer influence. Likewise, more insight is needed into how public officials are trained to send signals within their work setting, such as to signal organizational values to citizens. The same holds for citizens: How do they learn to signal trustworthiness when interacting with government and government officials, and does this signaling change as a result of repeated interactions?

References Andersen, S. C., & Guul, T. S. (2019). Reducing Minority Discrimination at the Front Line—Combined Survey and Field Experimental Evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29, 429–444. Barnes, M., & Prior, D. (Eds.) (2009). Subversive citizens: Power, agency and resistance in public services. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press. Bernardi, R. A., Bean, D. F., & Weippert, K. M. (2002). Signaling gender diversity through annual report pictures: A research note on image management. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15, 609–616. Blau, P. M. (1955). The dynamics of bureaucracy. A study of interpersonal relationships in two government agencies. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Celani, A., & Sing, P. (2011). Signalling theory and applicant attraction outcomes. Personnel Review, 40, 222–238.

Trust, Fairness, and Signaling

69

Cohen, N. (2012). Informal payments for healthcare: The phenomenon and its context. Health Economics, Policy, and Law, 7, 285–308. Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37, 39–67. Connelly, B. L., S. Trevis Certo, R. Duane Ireland, and Christopher R. Reutzel. “Signaling theory: A review and assessment.” Journal of management 37, no. 1 (2011): 39–67. Cook, K. S., Hardin, R., & Levi, M. (2005). Cooperation without trust? New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. DeHart‐Davis, L. (2007). The unbureaucratic personality. Public Administration Review, 67, 892–903. Eikenaar, T., de Rijk, A. E., & Meershoek, A. (2016). What’s in a frame? How professionals assess clients in Dutch work integration practice. Social Policy and Administration, 50, 767–787. Feldman, M. S., & March, J. G. (1981). Information in organizations as signal and symbol. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 171–186. Gambetta, D., & Hamill, H. (2005). Streetwise: How taxi drivers establish their customers’ trustworthiness. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Goodsell, C. T. (1977). Bureaucratic manipulation of physical symbols: An empirical study. American Journal of Political Science, 21, 79–91. Goodsell, C. T. (2000). The American statehouse: Interpreting democracy’s temples. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G., & Meijer, A. J. (2014). The effects of transparency on the perceived trustworthiness of a government organization: Evidence from an online experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24, 137–157. Harrits, G. S., & Møller, M. Ø. (2014). Prevention at the front line: How home nurses, pedagogues, and teachers transform public worry into decisions of special efforts. Public Management Review, 16, 447–480. Johnson, R. R., & Morgan, M. A. (2013). Suspicion formation among police officers: An international literature review. Criminal Justice Studies, 26, 99–114. Levi, M. (1998). A state of trust. In V. Braithwaite & M. Levi (Eds.), Trust & governance (pp. 77–101). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street‐level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Maynard‐Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Stories from the front lines of public service. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Mennerick, L. A. (1974). Client typologies: A method of coping with conflict in the service worker‐client relationship. Work and Occupations, 1, 396–418. Möllering, G. (2001). The nature of trust: From George Simmel to a theory of expectation, interpretation and suspension. Sociology, 35, 403–420. Oberfield, Z. W. (2014). Becoming bureaucrats: Socialization at the front lines of government service. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Prottas, J. M. (1978). The power of the street‐level bureaucrats in public service bureaucracies. Urban Affairs Review, 13, 285–312. Raaphorst, N., & Groeneveld, S. (2018). Double standards in frontline decision making: A theoretical and empirical exploration. Administration & Society, 50, 1175–1201. Raaphorst, N., Groeneveld, S., & Van de Walle, S. (2018). Do tax officials use double standards in evaluating citizen‐clients? A policy‐capturing study among Dutch frontline tax officials. Public Administration, 96, 134–153. Raaphorst, N., & Loyens, K. (2018). From poker games to kitchen tables: How social dynamics affect frontline decision making. Administration & Society, 0095399718761651. Raaphorst, N., & Van de Walle, S. (2018a). Trust in and by the public sector. In R. H. Searle, A.‐M. I. Nienaber, & S. B. Sitkin (Eds.), The Routledge companion to trust (pp. 469–482). New York, NY: Routledge. Raaphorst, N., & Van de Walle, S. (2018b). A signaling perspective on bureaucratic encounters: How public officials interpret signals and cues. Social Policy & Administration, 52, 1367–1378. Rutz, S., Mathew, D., Robben, P., & de Bont, A. (2017). Enhancing responsiveness and consistency: Comparing the collective use of discretion and discretionary room at inspectorates in England and the Netherlands. Regulation & Governance, 11, 81–94.

70

Nadine Raaphorst and Steven Van de Walle

Schott, C., Van Kleef, D., & Noordegraaf, M. (2016). Confused professionals? Capacities to cope with pressures on professional work. Public Management Review, 18, 583–610. Schram, S. F., Soss, J., Fording, R. C., & Houser, L. (2009). Deciding to discipline: Race, choice, and punishment on the frontlines of welfare reform. American Sociological Review, 74, 398–422. Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355–374. Stiglitz, J. E. (1975). The theory of “screening”, education, and the distribution of income. The American Economic Review, 65, 283–300. Stone, D. (1984). The Disabled State. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp. 77–98). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Van de Walle, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2007). Perceptions of productivity and performance in Europe and the USA. International Journal of Public Administration, 30, 1–18. Van Ryzin, G. G. (2011). Outcomes, process, and trust of civil servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 745–760. Wallin Andreassen, T. (1994). Satisfaction, loyalty and reputation as indicators of customer orientation in the public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 7, 16–34. Weiss, A. (1995). Human capital vs. signaling explanations of wages. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 133–154. Yang, K. (2005). Public administrators’ trust in citizens: A missing link in citizen involvement efforts. Public Administration Review, 65, 273–285. Zhang, Y., & Wiersema, M. F. (2009). Stock market reaction to CEO certification: The signaling role of CEO background. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 693–710.

4

Transparency and Corruption in the Public Sector Katerina Tsetsura and Vilma Luoma‐aho

Transparency has become an essential concept globally through the international crises around information leaks. Transparency International results show that lack of transparency appears to be a global trend, despite the fact that research has proven the different benefits of transparency for societies (Transparency International, 2014). Globally, nontransparency, and its manifestations corruption, bribery, and propaganda are seen as undesired traits for public sector organizations. The battle against nontransparency and corruption is challenging, as such processes and practices are strongly rooted in societies and power structures, and as systems they often maintain themselves despite interventions and improvement efforts. For public sector organizations that serve the citizens, transparency is understood as a vital part of democracy. How transparency is valued and understood depends not only on the societal setting, but also on the degree of democracy apparent and enabled in that setting (Charron, Lapuente, & Rothstein, 2013; Kumlin & Rothstein, 2005, pp. 339–365). Public sector organizations in their practices often reflect the existing challenges of the society within which they are embedded. Fundamentally transparency is related to the deeper concept of trust apparent within a society. In fact, Fukuyama (1995), p. 7 claims that “a nation’s well‐being, as well as its ability to compete, is conditioned by a single, pervasive cultural characteristic: the level of trust inherent in a society.” Democracy itself is a means of establishing into society a culture of trust (Sztompka, 1999). Trust and distrust themselves are not inherently either good or bad when it comes to societies and their functioning on the whole. In fact, trust and distrust can both be either functional or dysfunctional (Oomsels & Bouckaert, 2014, pp. 577–604). Transparency can be defined as the open flow of information (Holzner & Holzner, 2006; Piotrowski & Ryzin, 2007, pp. 306–323). The literature on transparency in the relationship between governments and citizens always concentrates on the concept of openness (Park & Blenkinsopp, 2011, pp. 254–274). Public sector organizations globally range between the two extremes: those that are built on the principle of transparency and openness (such as the Nordic countries) emphasize transparency as a central value, whereas those organizations in totalitarian settings view transparency as a threat. In fact, some have equated the governmental transparency to open government (Piotrowski & Ryzin, 2007, pp. 306–323), and transparency has been linked with greater accountability and good governance (Ball, 2009, pp. 293–308).

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

72

Katerina Tsetsura and Vilma Luoma-aho

Transparency can also be defined as full disclosure of all information to all people at all times (Wakefield & Walton, 2010). Often, transparency assumes that true and complete information should be disclosed. The concepts of openness and full disclosure share similar aspirations and thus contribute to discussions about transparency in the context of the extent in which truth can be achieved in society (Tsetsura & Kruckeberg, 2017). When transparency does not take place, scholars speak of opacity, ambiguity, or nontransparency. There are several mechanisms that affect societies of nontransparency, one of which is corruption. The traditional definition of corruption is tied to the calculated behavior of an individual during transaction to unduly take advantage of their position or information over the other (Gault, 2017, pp. 827–842). In the public sector, corruption occurs when the official ethics of public service is violated (Klitgaard, 1988). Nye (2002, pp. 281–302) defined corruption as “behavior which deviates from the formal duties of a public role because of private‐regarding (personal, close family, private clique) pecuniary or status gains; or violates rules against the exercise of certain types of private‐regarding influence” (p. 284), and (Ross‐Ackerman, 2008, pp. 328–343) called it “the misuse of public office for private gain” (p. 551). Corruption contains three elements: (a) violations of law, rules, regulations, or ethical standards; (b) misuse of an officer’s position; and (c) acceptance of some actual or expected material reward or gain (Barker & Carter, 1994). As such, corruption in any form undermines the performance of public services and thus decreases satisfaction with such services (Park & Blenkinsopp, 2011, pp. 254–274). Bribery is a manifestation of corruption. Bribery is a specific act of providing money, goods, services, or certain promises in exchange for favors from people in power or decision‐makers. Any investigation of where nontransparency, corruption, and bribery start in society should begin with understanding how society becomes corrupt and what factors contribute to the development and rise of corruption. This chapter takes up the task of explaining nontransparency, corruption, bribery, and propaganda from the point of view of public sector organizations. In addition, the role of public sector communication for transparency is discussed.

What Makes Public Sector Organizations Prone to Corruption? Recent research on corruption suggests that instead of taking the individual approach of calculated behavior, corruption should be understood on the level of organizations and societies: “corruption is not a phenomenon where individuals enter discreet relations, but rather a dense social phenomenon. It is a social relation, in other words. And this social logic is both true for corruption in the private sector as it is in the public one” (Gault, 2017, pp. 827–842, 830).

Corruption develops over time and through repeated practices (Putnam, Leonardi, & Nanetti, 1993). Some have argued that societies that have long had autocratic regimes may be “societies of distrust,” and as such somewhat dysfunctional. In such societies, there are two levels of communication: the official promises and statements for instance of which services should be provided and how, and the practical experience that has taught the citizens that very little service or public sector help can be expected in practice (Boldonova & Tsetsura, 2015, pp. 7–22). Corruption is one such indicator of a dysfunctional society. Societies with low levels of trust use corruption and nontransparent practices to support their ecosystems that otherwise are dysfunctional because they cannot rely on standard centrality of trust in public sector. In societies where corruption is widespread and bribery becomes a cultural trait (such as Russia), nobody teaches anyone how to give bribe; one acquires this skills through repeated experience (Putnam et al., 1993). There are no written steps how to give and receive bribers (and most of the time, these practices are illegal; as in the case of Russia, where strong anti‐corruption

Transparency and Corruption in the Public Sector

73

and anti‐bribery laws exist on paper but are followed in practice very seldom and always for a reason), but there are rules and norms to follow and experiences that one is expected to learn through repeated exposure to the situations in which corruption takes place. Such societies are understood to have become victim of the social trap: as citizens see other citizens get away with wrong behavior, they do it themselves (Kumlin & Rothstein, 2005, pp. 339–365). In those parts of the world where trust is low in society and corruption reigns, also corruption related practices are common in the public sector (Transparency International, 2014). Research on bribery in the public sector in Russia (Ledeneva, 2006) concluded that Russia’s public sector is driven by the informal nontransparent practices that are based on the ideas of favors, transactional exchanges, and informal networking and bear very little resemblance to Western typical understanding of public service. The difference is striking as the ecosystem of public service in Russia has self‐centric properties: those in power and in decision‐making capacities look for opportunities for self‐benefits, rather than fulfill the promise of public service—that is, help the society and societal institutions serve the citizens (Ledeneva, 2006). Corruption has become the norm that guides all societal operations, even in the realm of what information is considered news and how the media agenda is set (Tsetsura & Luoma‐aho, 2010). In all societal settings, relying heavily on preset procedures and bureaucratic models in their operations, public sector organizations are often good ground for organizational secrecy. As much of this secrecy (such as principle of confidentiality, privacy of citizen data etc.) is guided by laws and regulations, a secrecy‐supporting organizational culture is easily formed, making secrecy the norm over open communication. Organizational secrecy has been defined as “the ongoing formal and informal social processes of intentional concealment of information from actors by actors in organizations” (Costas & Grey, 2014, pp. 1423–1447, 1423). Much of the secrecy may happen unintentionally, and cultural factors such as face maintenance in dissent situations may also contribute to withholding information in public sector organizations. Secrecy is always a social process (Costas & Grey, 2014, pp. 1423–1447), so choices made to reveal or withhold information are embedded in the culture and context of the organizations. What are the different levels that nontransparency can take?

Levels of Nontransparency Transparency in society is influenced by several intertwined social processes and factors. Research has found support for example for the degree of democracy, infrastructure, respect for human rights, economic welfare, distribution of wealth, comprehensiveness of corruption laws, accountability of government, quality of education and level of adult literacy, professional education of journalists, codes of ethics for attention workers (including journalists, public relations, marketing, and lobbying), as well as freedom of speech and freedom of press all contributing to whether society is transparent (Charron et al., 2013; Delli Carpini, Cook, & Jacobs, 2004, pp. 315–344; Sanders & Canel, 2013; Tsetsura & Kruckeberg, 2017). Societal nontransparency can have multiple dimensions and levels. Based on media research conducted in a low‐trust society (Ukraine), three different levels of nontransparency were detected: interpersonal, intra‐organizational, and inter‐organizational levels (Tsetsura & Grynko, 2009). At the interpersonal level, the most frequent form of bribery was a one where the individual journalist benefitted from the provision of a product or service and not disclosing certain information. At the intra‐organizational level, groups within organizations were all benefiting. Finally, at the inter‐organizational level, there were established contracts for collaboration related to nontransparent procedures making the practice more established (Tsetsura, 2011, pp. 172–182). These three levels of media nontransparency can also be applicable to nontransparency in public sector: interpersonal, intra‐organizational, and inter‐organizational. First, the interpersonal level of nontransparency describes the nontransparent exchange between two individuals

74

Katerina Tsetsura and Vilma Luoma-aho

who agreed to transactional exchange of goods or services for each other’s benefit, such as a public servant promising to issue a driver’s license faster for a citizen for an extra fee. The second level of nontransparency is intra‐organizational. At this level of nontransparency, departments or offices within the organization pressure one another or engage in corruptive practices to achieve a certain benefit, such as having a share in unfair gains achieved via procedures that the citizen goes through wanting to receive a driver’s license. Finally, at the inter‐organizational level of nontransparency, corruptive practices happen between organizations as organizations themselves engage in corruptive practices to achieve specific benefits. One example might be when drivers’ licenses needed by an organization, for example a driving school, are reserved through a secret system of compensations and bribes. Thus, corruption (i.e., a nontransparent practice of exchange of goods or services for ones benefit) can be individual as it takes place at a personal level. It can also be organizational as the corrupt practices are done within the organization to satisfy certain organizational goals (such as, different members of the organization can engage in corrupt practices to benefit themselves within the organization or the organization as a whole). Finally, at the inter‐organizational level, corruption happens at the societal level as institutions are expected to solve their issues or achieve certain results by engaging in practice of quid pro quo exchange with other institutions or organizations to receive certain benefits. In functional societies, several practices are in place to guard against corruption. For example, in the Nordic countries of high trust, universal public services such as the welfare system levels the playing field as it treats everyone as equal removing the “…vicious spiral of distrust from the client leading to increasing control of the bureaucrat that in its turn results in still more distrust from the client…” (Kumlin & Rothstein, 2005, pp. 339–365, 15). Public sector organizations in these societies are expected to share information and demonstrate the process of decision making. However, in less functional or dysfunctional societies such practices are less transparent. Organizations are not held to higher standards and the exchange mechanisms are convoluted and opaque. Hence, in such societies of distrust engagement in corrupt practices happens with more frequency and with a more defined expectation to solve the problem in a quid pro quo way (Tsetsura, 2011, pp. 172–182). Levels of transparency can shed light on the idea as to why societies may become corrupt: as expectations for transparency diminish, the opportunities for nontransparent, corrupt practices and bribery become lucrative. Moreover, in such societies bribery can become expected at a societal level as a way to conduct business in the nontrust dysfunctional environment, as quid pro quo exchanges can become one of the few common denominators if no one trusts anyone (Kumlin & Rothstein, 2005, pp. 339–365).

Public Sector Communication or Propaganda? Related to nontransparency is the communicational phenomenon of propaganda. Defined as the “deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist” (Jowett & O’Donnell, 1999, p. 6), the central idea behind propaganda is to influence people to behave in a certain, desired way. Some propaganda is seen as necessary for public sector organizations as they need to inform citizens and ensure their safety (Ellul, 1973). In fact, some have distinguished between black, gray, and white forms of propaganda, where black refers to untrue content and negative intent, white refers to accurate information with positive intentions, and gray is something in between these (Jowett & O’Donnell, 1999). It is the level of transparency of the message that determines whether propaganda is black or white. Most government communication and information falls into the category of white propaganda attempting to serve citizens, whereas political party‐related campaigns and lobbying can

Transparency and Corruption in the Public Sector

75

at times even be understood as gray propaganda (Canel & Sanders, 2015; Jowett & O’Donnell, 1999). Whether the propaganda is white or gray can also be decided according to its aims and purposes. In fact, in democracies where citizenry is involved and public sector organizations remain politically detached from party interests, gray or black propaganda has less ground (Charron et al., 2013). As public sector organizations and governments require collaboration with their constituencies and stakeholders, communication remains a central tool for public sector organizations to use (Gelders & Ihlen, 2010, pp. 59–62). In totalitarian societies, much of their communication can be understood as black. Sometimes, partly democratic governments and societies are involved in massive nontransparency efforts or black forms of propaganda (USC Annenberg Center for Public Relations, 2017). One recent research from China suggests that the officially known “internet commentators” (unofficially known as “50 cent party” of individuals who are paid 50 cents for each fake, positive post they make about the government in social networking environments), are actually run by public sector employees who are not paid extra, but do this job as part of their public service responsibilities (Pan, 2017). Though the concept of propaganda has mostly negative associations, scholars agree that some degree of propaganda is necessary for public sector organizations and governments to function and serve and benefit society (Ellul, 1973; Gelders & Ihlen, 2010, pp. 59–62). In fact, government public relations and communication have been sometimes been titled as propaganda, as they aim at changing citizen behavior and attitude for the benefit of the society.

Fair Process, Less Corruption? Many of the bureaucratic routines of public sector organizations were originally created to ensure equality and hence create trust in society. One central idea eliminating corruption is the “procedural justice.” A fair process and equal rights of citizens are basic principles for Western democracies and therefore contribute to also the legitimacy of public sector organizations (Patulny, 2003). As the process is fair, it contributes also to trust in society: “positive perceptions of procedural justice in contacts with the institutions of the welfare state tend to increase general political trust” (Kumlin & Rothstein, 2005, pp. 339–365, 14). This occurs through psychological mechanisms: first, individuals in society perceive how others behave, individuals then weigh the necessity of certain procedures to achieve their goals and finally generalize these perceptions and procedures into reality through their actions and attitudes. For an experience of fairness to emerge, citizens have to be able to feel in their everyday transactions and interaction with public sector, that public sector authorities place serving the citizens before their own interests. Once such an experience exists, it generalizes trust into society at large. Trust and distrust are seen as contagious in society. If public sector employees themselves trust the public sector system they work for, it encourages citizens to trust as well and creates a positive reputation for the sector (Luoma‐aho, 2005, p. 368). In countries of high trust and good employee morale, public sector trust can be increased via improving communication, continuing to educate employees, and rewarding valuable and futuristic thinking (Harisalo & Stenvall, 2003, pp. 915–940). In practice, this requires transparency of processes and dialogue, two characteristics that are often lacking in countries of low trust (Canel & Sanders, 2015). Evaluating whether public sector organizations are fair and noncorrupt may prove challenging, as such assessment usually requires simultaneous estimation of actions on various noncommensurable scales. Citizens may find it difficult to assess certain public services and policies that they lack personal experience in. In such cases, experts and other intermediaries such as the media or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) take up the role of providing record of actions.

76

Katerina Tsetsura and Vilma Luoma-aho

Better Communication, Less Corruption? Recent efforts in eliminating corruption worldwide have focused on increasing understanding of what counts as corruption, creating opportunities to open dialogues and create communication and education across countries. Global research also provided opportunism for other countries to understand the demands and challenges of the Western companies as they come to new, emerging markets. With increasing pressures from home activists and home anti‐corruption laws, Western companies cannot legally engage in corrupt practices and may lose the momentum or a business advantage compared to other companies from China o Russia. At the same time, countries that may not have strong anti‐corruption laws and their reinforcement find opportunities to access emerging markets, particularly in Africa and Asia. The International Anti‐corruption Academy (IACA), launched in 2010 by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, INTERPOL, the European Anti‐Fraud Office, the Republic of Austria, and other stakeholders, focuses on preventing and tackling corruption across the world. IACA (https://www.iaca.int/) offers postsecondary education programs recognized in line with EU’s “Bologna Process” and conducts series of educational trainings, seminars, and workshops for representatives of the governments, nonprofits, and corporations around the world. Many of attendees are representatives of the public sector from regions that struggle with corruptive practices. IACA is one of several ways in which transnational and transgovernmental organizations address challenges of corruption worldwide. A big part in this process is an ability to construct dialogue and communicate with various parties about difficulties of eradicating corrupt practices and corrupt networks worldwide.

Critique for Research on Corruption So far, much of the research on corruption has focused on the processes associated with the corrupt practices and the ways that individuals and groups resist the corruption. Some attention has been given to understanding the societal mechanisms that lead to corruption and underlying rules and regulations that may encourage corrupt practices in the public sector. For example, Ledeneva (2006) examined how and why corruption has become a widespread, over encompassing system of achieving effective outcomes in the Russian society (whether this would be a quick and easy process to receive a renewed passport, process the transfer of ownership paperwork, or receive a lucrative government contract). Citizens in the Soviet Union (1922–1991) operated within a commonly accepted, informal quid‐pro‐quo system of blatt, a term used to describe the monetary or nonmonetary favor exchange to get access to certain goods, services, or opportunities in the Soviet Union. In the highly bureaucratic public service system of the Soviet Union, having a blatt connection (in other words, knowing someone who works in the system or someone who knows someone who is a decision maker in the system) help to receive a quick solution or implement otherwise complex, complicated, and perhaps impossible tasks. These quid‐pro‐quo mechanisms translated into the business‐focused models of monetary exchange in times of transition and scarce resources soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union. To accomplish goals of working quickly and efficiently through bureaucratic layers and achieve positive results, citizens in the Russian society continued to rely on their networked connections to seek opportunities and benefit from favors in a long run (which can be compared to a concept of quanxi in the Chinese society). Not surprisingly, many elements of corruptive mechanisms that function in today’s Russia are similar to those one can find in many countries on the post‐Soviet landscape (Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc.), China, and many other former totalitarian and autocratic countries of Africa, among others. What escapes attention of today’s researchers is the long‐embedded tradition of equating corruptive practices within blatt and quanxi networks with long‐term relationship building and gift‐giving aspects, native to these societal cultures. Networking opportunities and possibilities to establish new connections are vast, and yet corruption is widespread in these societies.

Transparency and Corruption in the Public Sector

77

Reflecting and examining the deep, intertwined ties and bonds between culturally bound traditions and structurally formed traditions (such as the need to have blatt connections in the Soviet Union to receive certain privileges or gain access to specific products and services) is a challenge for the next generation of researchers who are interested in examining the nature of corruption and roots of nontransparency in the public sphere.

Challenges for Improving Transparency One of the main challenges for improving transparency is a lack of trust in modern societies. The idea that transparency is directly linked to a continuum society of trust (in which one person trusts another until proven otherwise) to society of distrust (in which one person does not trust another, until proven otherwise) has been manifested in recent research on media transparency (Tsetsura & Kruckeberg, 2017; Tsetsura & Luoma‐aho, 2010). A trust–distrust continuum provides an insight into challenges for improving transparency. Public sector around the world increasingly faces challenges of diminishing trust among citizens. This is especially visible in countries with higher levels of generalized trust, such as countries of Eastern Europe and South‐East Asia, but also in countries that move toward a society of distrust position on the continuum (e.g., the United States, Denmark, and Sweden). Transparency improvement, therefore, is difficult if the process itself is not trusted by the citizens. Vetting mechanisms are scrutinized and interrogated; more importantly, mechanisms of checks and balances for transparency are questioned and distrusted. It might be easy to ask what kind of special interests specific groups have in sharing information about transparency or anticorruption forces. Some may point out, for example, that some of the most active participants in the IACA educational workshops come from highly corrupt and distrusted countries of the African continent. Then, the question one might ask is whether anticorruption efforts and transparency disclosure serve the interests of those representative of the public sector who are corrupt but try to cover up their corrupt practices by demonstrating the commitment to anticorruption efforts, much celebrated by the Western countries. Then, a problem with transparency is not that the steps to eradicate corruption are not clear (on the contrary, they may be very well developed and presented), but that the very premise of why they are developed is questionable and, more importantly, the anticorruption processes and laws just stay on paper, with no consequences for violation or very little or no reinforcement. This gap between knowing and doing—the rhetoric of anticorruption and actions toward eradicating corruption—is observed in many countries around the world. Countries can be forced, in many ways, by the international NGO networks and transgovernmental organizations to recognize a problem and commit to eradicate the problem, but actual reinforcement mechanisms and steps to eradicate—or at the very least, minimize—the problem, may never be taken. As societies around the world move toward a state of distrust and fragmentation, questions of true motivations in relation to transparency become more pronounced. Future research on transparency and corruption should investigate underlying motives for interrogation and problematize the difference between the rhetoric and actions toward anticorruption in the public sector.

References Ball, C. (2009). What is transparency? Public Integrity, 11(4), 293–308. Barker, T., & Carter, D. (1994). Police deviance. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Boldonova, I., & Tsetsura, K. (2015). Volunteering movement in Russia: Regional presence and future perspectives. Styles of Communication, 7(1), 7–22. Canel, M.‐J., & Sanders, K. (2015). Government communication. In G. Mazzoleni, K. Barnhurst, K.’i. Ikeda, R. Maia, & H. Wessler (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of political communication (pp. 450–457). Boston, MA: Wiley.

78

Katerina Tsetsura and Vilma Luoma-aho

Charron, N., Lapuente, V., & Rothstein, B. (2013). Quality of government and corruption from a European perspective: A comparative study of good government in EU regions. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Costas, J., & Grey, C. (2014). Bringing secrecy into the open: Towards a theorization of the social processes of organizational secrecy. Organization Studies, 35(10), 1423–1447. Delli Carpini, M., Cook, F., & Jacobs, L. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315–344. Ellul, J. (1973). In K. Kellen & J. Lerner (Eds.), (Trans.)Propaganda: The formation of men’s attitudes. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York, NY: Free Press. Gault, D. A. (2017). Corruption as an organizational process: Understanding the logic of the denormalization of corruption. Contaduria Y Administracion, 62, 827–842. Gelders, D., & Ihlen, Ø. (2010). Government communication about potential policies: Public relations, propaganda or both? Public Relations Review, 36(1), 59–62. Harisalo, R., & Stenvall, J. (2003). Trust management in the Finnish ministries: Evaluation of management systems. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(8–9), 915–940. Holzner, B., & Holzner, L. (2006). Transparency in global change: The vanguard of the open society. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Jowett, G., & O’Donnell, V. (1999). Propaganda and persuasion (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage. Klitgaard, R. (1988). Controlling corruption. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Kumlin, S., & Rothstein, B. (2005). Making and breaking social capital: The impact of welfare‐state institutions. Comparative Political Studies, 38(4), 339–365. Ledeneva, A. (2006). How Russian really works: The informal practices that shaped post‐Soviet politics and business. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Luoma‐aho, Vilma. 2005. "Faith‐holders as social capital of Finnish public organisations/."Jyväskylän yliopisto, yhteisöviestintä. Nye, J. (2002). Corruption and political development: A cost‐benefit analysis. In A. Heidenheimer & M.  Johnston (Eds.), Political corruption: Concepts and contexts (pp. 281–302). New Brunswick, London: Transaction. Oomsels, P., & Bouckaert, G. (2014). Studying interorganizational trust in public administration. Public Performance & Management Review, 37(4), 577–604. Pan, J. (2017). How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction, Not Engaged Argument. American Political Science Review, 111(3), 484–501. Park, H., & Blenkinsopp, J. (2011). The roles of transparency and trust in the relationship between corruption and citizen satisfaction. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2), 254–274. Patulny, R. (2003). Bonding, bridging and investment: Important aspects of a national social capital policy strategy. Melbourne Journal of Politics, 29(03), 68–80. Piotrowski, S., & Ryzin, G. (2007). Citizen attitudes toward transparency in a local government. The American Review of Public Administration, 37(3), 306–323. Putnam, R., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. (1993). Making democracy work; civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ross‐Ackerman, S. (2008). Corruption and government. International Peacekeeping, 15(3), 328–343. Sanders, K., & Canel, M.‐J. (Eds.) (2013). Government communication cases and challenges (1st ed.). London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. Sztompka, P. (1999). Trust: A sociological theory. Cambridge cultural social studies. Cambridge, United Kingdom/New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Transparency International (2014). Corruption perceptions index. Berlin, Germany: Transparency International. Tsetsura, K. (2011). Cultural and historical aspects of media transparency in Russia. In A. G. Nikolaev (Ed.), Ethics issues in international communication (pp. 172–182). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Tsetsura, K., & Grynko, A. (2009). An exploratory study of the media transparency in Ukraine. The Public Relations Journal, 3(2), 1–21. http://apps.prsa.org/SearchResults/view/6D‐030205/0/An_ Exploratory_Study_of_the_Media_Transparency_in#.XRJqXv57mLg Tsetsura, K., & Kruckeberg, D. (2017). Transparency, public relations and the mass media: Combating the hidden influences in news coverage worldwide. New York, NY: Taylor and Francis/Routledge.

Transparency and Corruption in the Public Sector

79

Tsetsura, K., & Luoma‐aho, V. (2010). Innovative thinking or distortion of journalistic values? How the lack of trust creates non‐transparency in the Russian media. Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics, 7(4). USC Annenberg Center for Public Relations. 2017. Relevance Report. Wakefield, Robert and Susan Walton. 2010. The transparency corollary: Why full transparency is not always the most ethical approach. A blog post. Institute for Public Relations. https://instituteforpr.org/ translucency‐corollary/.

5

Politics and Policy: Relationships and Functions Within Public Sector Communication Leanne Glenny

Introduction Public sector communication serves two masters—the elected officials and the public—supporting and implementing the political will, while facilitating citizens’ access to and participation in government. It operates in a highly political environment, and yet is required to avoid partisan political influence. As a bureaucratic function its separation from that political influence has always been, and remains, a significant challenge for public servants in western, liberal democratic administrations. This is exacerbated for communication staff as they sit at the intersection of the politicians, policy makers, bureaucrats, and the nation’s citizens. This chapter draws specific attention to the relationship between public sector communication, politics, and the political output of policy‐making and implementation. The position of public sector communication in the discussion of politics and policy is complex as it sits across various disciplines. Historically, the writings on public administration and policy position the communication function in a supporting role, while the public relations discipline advocates for a much broader responsibility. Discussions of political communication and political marketing often fail to make a clear distinction between communication for electoral versus governance purposes. More recent efforts to distinguish the specific function of public sector communication, such as this book, are adding value to the discussion. This chapter positions public sector communication within a political and policy framework. An initial contextualization and mapping of the field describes the relationships between the various subdisciplines of communication and the broader concepts of politics and policy. The literature is then examined, revealing three areas of communication focus: public sector, political, and administrative. While recognizing that many public relations and marketing theories contribute to understandings of public sector communication, the chapter specifically highlights theories of the public sphere, communicative action, and mediatization that impact on the intersection of communication, politics, and policy. Finally, key issues regarding politicization, political advisers, permanent campaigning, and the communication functions in policy‐making and dissemination are considered. A greater understanding of these and other key issues and

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

82

Leanne Glenny

c­ hallenges for public sector communication has the potential to improve practice, shifting it close to that ideal of a truly apolitical function that contributes to democracy.

Contextualizing Public Sector Communication, Politics, and Policy Two main frames position the perspective of public sector communication used in this chapter. The first is a view that public sector communication extends beyond the information dissemination function. Views that focus on media relations alone, common in the field of political communication, are restrictive and give cause to criticisms of public sector communication as another “mass‐mediated ‘voice’… struggling for advantage in a competitive world,” adding to “a cacophony of pleading and preening to public life in liberal democracy today” (Moloney, 2005, p. 552). In contrast, a normative government public relations perspective is applied here, in which public sector communication has the potential to enact two‐way communication, ensuring that the public is not only informed but is able to access and participate in government when required. That is, it is a strategic function, not simply a tactical tool. The challenge lies in whether the context of politics and policy allows this normative model to succeed. Second, this chapter also takes the position of public sector communication as a largely bureaucratic function that attempts to take a politically neutral stance in order to facilitate the smooth governance of the nation. Yet debates in the discipline of politics show that the distinction between politics and bureaucracy is not always clear. The common approach that describes a political‐administrative dichotomy, where elected officials make the policy and nonelected officials implement the policy (Demir, 2009) is too simplistic and does not take account of the complexities in the relationships and the functions of the public sector communicator. There is a growing discussion on the complementarity view of politics, presenting the concept of a duality, which “implies the sharing of governance, reciprocal influence, and overlapping roles between elected officials and public administrators” (Demir, 2009, p. 877). Public sector communication, as discussed in this chapter, is positioned within this frame.

Mapping the Field of Public Sector Communication, Politics, and Policy A multidisciplinary approach is needed to study the development of public sector communication and its relationship to politics and policy. The challenge is that a range of specific communication and marketing sudisciplines have emerged over the past decades, all touching on what could be considered public sector communication to varying degrees. Much of the discussion in the literature focuses on defining those specific fields, yet the definitional challenges within each of them result in a blurring of the boundaries. In addition, each of these subdisciplines is informed by one or more general disciplines, from which they draw their foundations while demonstrating their unique application of the discipline to specific contexts. Despite recognition of a “need to build bridges between cognate areas and disciplines for the study of government communication” (Canel & Sanders, 2013), agreement on the relationships between them will be difficult. Mapping the relationships between all of the disciplines and subdisciplines is contentious due to the various ways in which they can all be applied. With a focus on public sector communication, politics, and policy, however, Figure 5.1 attempts to do just this. With public sector communication as the central focus, the diagram proposes a perspective of this field of research as one with porous boundaries, overlapping with other subdisciplines of political communication, political public relations, political marketing, and public sector marketing. These are referred to here as subdisciplines as they tend to be branches of more widely addressed fields of study in the

83

Politics and Policy

Organisational communication

Political Communication

P o l i c y

Political Public Relations

Public sector Communication

Political science Political Marketing

Strategic communication

Public relations

Public Sector Marketing

Government communication Government Political sphere

Public administration

Marketing

Figure 5.1  The field of public sector communication, politics, and policy.

broader disciplines of communication, public relations, marketing, political science, and public administration, represented around the edge of the diagram. The field of research known as government communication is represented in Figure 5.1 as embracing the other subdisciplines. Horsley, Liu, and Levenshus argue for government communication to be considered as an entity in itself, rather than it being studied “within the scope of corporate communication theory and practice” (2010, p. 269). Yet its convergence with research in the other subdisciplines creates an additional challenge to any claim of individuality. Each subdiscipline is defined or described differently, but at the same time, they are often used to denote the same issues or practices. The term government communication is often used interchangeably with other terms such as political communication and public sector communication, but a lack of agreement on definitions and boundaries remains. If the sphere of government communication is taken to concern those directly responsible for the governing of a nation, rather than all of the individuals and entities involved in the political sphere (such as political parties and lobby groups), then the sub‐disciplines of public sector communication and marketing sit within this frame. However, the subdisciplines of political communication, political public relations, and political marketing extend beyond the government framework to include the wider political context. This delineation is important for any discussion that attempts to analyze the relationship between public sector communication and politics. Table  5.1 presents some examples of the sometimes subtle and overlapping subdisciplines in action. The positioning of policy in this model recognizes that its development and implementation is led by government political leaders with a heavy involvement by public sector agencies. The involvement of other political entities and citizens is acknowledged, however the intention here is to highlight the involvement of government and public sector communication in that process. Studies into each of the subdisciplines and the broader disciplines in Figure  5.1 reveal multiple perspectives on the influence that politics and policy have had on the way public sector entities communicate. An overview of the fields most relevant to the discussion of

84

Leanne Glenny

Table 5.1  Examples of Subdisciplines in Practice. Subdiscipline

Example

Public sector communication

Government agency reminding citizens and businesses to submit their tax returns through letters, advertising, and social media. Government agency informing citizens of the availability of government welfare services. Science minister announcing a new climate‐change policy at a press conference and through social media. Opposition politician engaging with industry and lobby groups about proposed changes to media laws. A political party election campaign. All of the above, depending on choice of definition.

Public sector marketing Political communication Political public relations Political marketing Government communication

public sector communication, politics, and policy are discussed in the following sections, identifying the major theories and issues for exploration.

The Broader Literature The extent of the literature on all of these subdisciplines is immense and has been grouped into three major categories in order to identify major themes. First, the relationships between the more generic subdisciplines of government communication, public sector communication, and government public relations are reviewed. The emphasis then turns to political communication, and its relationship with public relations and marketing, before considering administrative communication. The term government communication is often used as an all‐encompassing term that links together the related fields of study identified above. A heavy emphasis is often given to the communication activities of elected officials rather than those of nonelected participants in government or other actors in the “multilayered and organizationally diverse environment” (Canel & Sanders, 2013). Young is more explicit when she incorporates political leaders, “major portfolio departments…and agencies including statutory authorities, boards, committees, and government business enterprises” in her approach to government communication (Young, 2007a, pp. xxix–xxx). Liu and Horsley’s (2007) “government communication decision wheel” is even more specific, focusing on the work done specifically within public sector agencies and recognizing the centrality of politics and the differences between elected and unelected officials (Liu, Levenshus, & Horsley, 2012). Individual examples of research that focus on communication involving public sector agencies have explored wide‐ranging topics such as functions (Gregory, 2006, 2012; Koul, 2009), professionalization (Sanders, 2011), ethics (Glenny, 2008, 2010), transparency (Fairbanks, Plowman, & Rawlins, 2007; Ruijer, 2016), public segmentation and trust (Hong, Park, Lee, & Park, 2012), and corporate social responsibility (Thomsen, 2007). There is also a growing ­number of writings and case studies of communication at the local government level, often from a diverse range of nations, and concerning social or digital media, such as Brown, Gaudin, and Moran (2013), Sanders and Canel (2015), Wei (2010), and Heaselgrave and Simmons (2016). This agency focus is also adopted in texts on government public relations (Lee, Neeley, & Stewart, 2012) where public relations is seen as a tool for “the twenty‐first‐century government administrator” (Lee, Neeley, & Stewart, 2012, p. 11). In terms of public sector communication and policy, the most prominent research has been conducted by European‐based researchers. Again, focusing on the narrower descriptions of the

Politics and Policy

85

communication role of the bureaucracy, Vos (2006) proposed four ways in which public sector communication could be involved in policy development and implementation. Various research teams led by Gelders focused on public sector communication about policy intentions in the Netherlands and Belgium (Gelders, De Cock, Roe, & Neijens, 2006; Gelders & Ihlen, 2010), as well as mapping the differences between private sector and public sector policy communication (Gelders, Bouckaert, & van Ruler, 2007). In addition to this, Kraaier (2016) examined attempts by the Netherlands government to place “communication at the heart of policy.” The second category of literature includes disciplines of communication, public relations, and marketing that have a political focus. Key issues addressed within political communication have included its professionalization and its influence on the media (Blumler & Kavanagh, 1999). Concepts such as the “PR state” (Deacon & Golding, 1994; Ward, 2003) and “symbolic government” (O’Shaughnessy, 2004) criticize the use of public relations in political communication and its perceived emphasis on image management and control of messages and media. O’Shaughnessy warns of potential consequences such as increased authoritarianism, cynicism, and manipulation (O’Shaughnessy, 2004, pp. 185–186). Conversely, Strömbäck and Kiousis (2011, p. 8) argue that the concept of political public relations provides a positive opportunity for a more integrative approach to theorization and research. The alignment of public relations with largely one‐way communication, media relations, and reputation management (Knott Martinelli, 2011; McNair, 2004, 2011; Moloney, 2006) and its focus on elected officials, media, and citizens, limits an understanding of its role in political communication. In particular, there is often a lack of attention given to public sector agencies, as seen in the discussion of the more generic government communication field. While Ward (2003) and O’Shaughnessy (2004) direct most of the attention to the use of public relations by politicians, they also recognize the involvement of civil servants and the departmental “public affairs sections,” that Ward describes as one “topographical feature…[of] the landscape of the Australian PR state” (Ward, 2003, p. 28). The adoption of general marketing principles and the relevance of marketing theory in the political arena triggered the emergence of a “hybrid sub‐discipline” (Hughes & Dann, 2009, p. 243) of marketing and political science. From a practical sense, ideas such as “segmentation, market research, branding, and public relations” (Lees‐Marshment, 2014, p. 65) have been incorporated into political communication activities. Despite broadening the original focus on campaigns and voters to a wider range of issues and actors, the public sector’s role in this subdiscipline is generally passive (Hughes & Dann, 2009, p. 253) or of lower prominence (Lees‐ Marshment, 2014, p. 37; Nielsen, 2012, p. 294). The growth of public sector marketing started to address this major limitation of political marketing, with the adoption of practices from the business sector (Laing, 2003, p. 428) and strategic communication (Kozolanka, 2006, p. 344) and a shift in thinking about consumers rather than citizens (Pasquier & Villeneuve, 2012, p. 5; Walsh, 1994). The variety of functions and services provided by government agencies created the need for different marketing approaches, from promotional and advertising activities (Lees‐ Marshment, 2014; Walsh, 1994) to specific tasks such as the provision of information about social welfare, campaigns about public health and the justification of budgets (Head, 2007, pp. 48–49). The final category used to review the broad literature, one that removes the focus on elected officials, is that of administrative communication. Despite the efforts led largely by Heise (1985) and Garnett and Kouzmin (1997), communication stills holds a relatively small place within the field of public administration with a “disjointed” approach and a lack of attention to research in the field compared to other areas of public administration (Garnett, 1997, p. 14). While Garnett clearly places political communication outside its boundaries, he still accepts that administrative communication can involve “public executives once elected” (Garnett, 1997, p. 4). He also argues for the consideration of both “unidirectional communication” and “symmetrical and negotiated” communication, both intended and unintended communication, and the “faulty as well as the constructive” communication efforts [italics original] (Garnett, 1997, pp. 5–6).

86

Leanne Glenny

The potential for politicization identified in the other related subdisciplines is also a concern in administrative communication. Garnett observes that “political appointees [are] increasingly replacing trained professionals as head of communication units” (Garnett, 1997, p. 7). In addition, he refers to lowering levels of trust caused by the “propaganda paradox” in which persuasion from the public sector is viewed as “spin,” which he acknowledges is sometimes deserved (Garnett, 1997, p. 7). The influence of public relations on the field highlights the argument for engaging citizens rather than treating them as audiences to be persuaded (Garnett, 1997, p. 9). Heise, however, is skeptical about the ability of public relations to do this, believing that its advocacy role when used in the private sector is unsuitable for communication activities in the public sector (1985, pp. 202–203). It is in the field of administrative communication where much of the discussion of public sector communication and policy is located. Heise outlines the need to “facilitate accurate, systematic, and timely feedback on public policy issues from the entire community” (Heise, 1985, p. 209). Lee also argues that the need to gain support for policies is as equally as important as the implementation of them (Lee, 2007, p. 14). Heise cautions against politicization, however, referring to the “treacherous” but “legitimate” need for “senior public officials to employ public communication channels and resources in the governmental policy‐making, implementation, and evaluation process, but… without becoming involved in electoral politics” (Heise, 1985, p. 209). The question remains as to which senior public officials should do this and whether they are equipped with the knowledge and skills required. Lee notes a paucity of communication training for public servants over the years (2007, p. 7). But in his discussion of the functions of government public relations, he focuses on public administrators rather than identifying any specific roles for communication specialists (Lee, 2007, p. 7). It is in the discussion of policy, that Lee’s attention is drawn from the public administrator to the more specific “agency spokesperson” and “external communication specialist” (2007, p. 4). Suggested roles for the communication specialist include “assessing possible external reactions to different policy scenarios” (Lee, 2007, p. 14) and “overseeing a citizen participation program” (Heise, 1985, p. 214).

Theoretical Perspectives Just as the field of research in public sector communication is informed by many other fields, it can also be informed by a multidisciplinary approach to theory (Strömbäck & Kiousis, 2011, p. 13). The previous review indicates a broad range of theoretical concepts that could inform public sector communication in general, and its relationship to politics and policy. Some, which are often connected to the public relations discipline, can be implied. For example, theories in relationship management (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998) could inform the building and management of relationships between actors in public sector communication, such as those between elected and unelected officials, and between unelected officials, citizens, and the media. Theories of framing and agenda setting (Chong & Druckman, 2007; McCombs, 2004) would be useful in investigating and informing the separation of government communication that supports electioneering versus governance. Three theoretical perspectives that are particularly useful for looking at the topic of public sector communication, politics, and policy are addressed here: those of the public sphere, communicative action, and mediatization. Along with theories of deliberative democracy, Habermas’ notion of the public sphere (1989) provides a useful foundation for debate on public sector communication, politics, and policy. Based on the concept of participation, Habermas describes the public sphere as “a domain of our social life where such a thing as public opinion can be formed” without coercion and in a private capacity, rather than in a business context (Habermas, 1997, p. 105). Reflections on the practical implementation of this notion of an ideal world in which citizens rationally debate issues of concern to society and influence the democratic governance of the nation have been varied. The  first is critical of the professionalization of the communication efforts by politicians and

Politics and Policy

87

government, and the impact this has in shutting down the free flow of communication within the public sphere. Some view this as “thwarting the citizen’s exercise of rational choice” and “an unwelcome corruption of democracy” (McNair, 2004, p. 325). A similar, critical view places blame for the failure of the public sphere on a number of factors and institutions, suggesting that today’s public sphere is too trivialized, too commercial, too fragmented, prefers spectacle rather than rational argument, and causes apathy in citizens (McKee, 2005, p. 2). In contrast, others continue to debate potential for changes in the media landscape to re‐imagine the public sphere (Dahlgren, 2005). Habermas’s distinction between strategic action and communicative action is also relevant here. While strategic action models of communication focus on achieving organizational goals, communicative action presents an opportunity for rational debate and achievement of consensus (Habermas, 1984). Yet Habermas was a critic of public relations, suggesting that it was “publicity to advance the political interests of business” (Moloney, 2006, p. 49). This has implications for the strong links between public relations and public sector communication where concerns about political influences would also suggest the potential for a preference of strategic action over communicative action. McIntosh White argues that public information officers (PIOs) actually perform a mix of strategic and communicative action, admitting that their role in representing the government in health and science communication is “turning from mere advocacy to furthering public agenda through information transfer” (McIntosh White, 2012, p. 575). The theory of communicative action provides a framework for analyzing the wide ranging functions of public sector communication to determine intent, potentially uncovering levels of political influence. In addition, it provides guidance in terms of the equality of participants in the communicative action through Habermas’s “ideal speech situation,” which argues that all parties should have freedoms to start and engage in dialogue, challenge others, and explain their own position while being free from manipulation and equal in their ability to influence (Habermas, 1984). A further theoretical lens for critical analysis of public sector communication, politics, and policy is the concept of mediatization. The mass media plays a significant role in the dissemination of government information, and therefore its influence on political and public sector communication can have serious consequences for accurate and timely information dissemination and engagement. Although mediatization theory can be applied in many organizational contexts, in the political sphere it originally focused on elected representatives. Recent research, however, has drawn attention to its application to the bureaucracies within the public sector (Schillemans, 2016, p. 79). In mediatization theory, journalistic values that seek “dramatisation… brevity… entertain[ment]… personalisation… and…narratives” are seen to be adopted in the political sphere, in place of “balancing interests… negotiating …and [taking actions] through deliberation and collective decision” (Blumler & Coleman, 2015, p. 118). Internal, organizational processes are altered in response to the pressure from media demands (Schillemans, 2016, p. 79). Schillemans’s examination of mediatization of the public sector in the Netherlands and Australia suggested that both nations had “fairly advanced forms of mediatization” (Schillemans, 2016, p. 92). Yet, the extent to which mediatization is leading to a negative “media‐driven democracy” or a more “harmless process of mediatization of politics” has not been agreed (Mazzoleni & Schulz, 1999, p. 258).

Key Issues in Politics and Public Sector Communication—the Relationships The impact of politics on public sector communication is clear throughout the previous discussion. A number of common threads are woven between the different disciplines and theories covered in this chapter. Some issues are agreed, some reflect different approaches, and others

88

Leanne Glenny

emerge from what is not said. This next section attempts to bring these discussions together under two broad categories: the relationships between communication and politics, and the function of communication in policy. Public sector communication, as approached in this chapter, is presented as apolitical, or nonpartisan. It works to serve the government of the day and communicates on behalf of those implementing the policies of elected officials, to facilitate the governing of the nation. It strives to achieve an independence from the political machinations, allowing it to offer full and frank advice, while still accepting the decisions and directions of the political leaders. This is not always easy to achieve. Ultimately, public sector communicators are what Moloney describes as “communicative agents of our principals,” responsible for giving “voice” to the behaviors of others (2005, pp. 552–553). So rather than being apolitical, O’Faircheallaigh, Wanna, and Weller argue that “public sector management…is essentially a political exercise involving choices about defensible structures, accountable processes and appropriate strategies” (1999, p. 16). Graber is critical about the ability for public sector agencies to avoid political pressure, citing examples such as needing to compromise between political and administrative goals, the dominance of “political currents,” perceptions of additional resources for political support, and image protection (2003, pp. 7–9). Despite this, public sector employees will often refer to themselves as apolitical, or disinterested in politics. While this may appear to be a paradox, they are typically referring to their separation from “party politics,” wanting to be seen as being neutral participants serving whichever political party is in power at the time. For example, the values of the Australian Public Service (Australian Public Service Commission, 2016), the UK Civil Service (Civil Service, 2015), and the Canadian public sector (Government of Canada, 2015) all include the notion of impartiality. The Australian document uses the term apolitical in relation to providing frank and honest advice, the UK document refers to serving governments of different political persuasions equally, and the Canadian document emphasizes that “a professional and non‐partisan federal public sector is integral to our democracy” (Government of Canada, 2015, p. 2). A review of the literature about government communication in the Netherlands also shows a consensus understanding that it be “non‐partisan and factual” (Kraaier, 2016, p. 76). Some of the characteristics between political and apolitical communication are distinguished in Table 5.2. Liu, Horsley, and Levenshus identify two types of government communication specialists: those “representing elected officials” and “those representing bureaucrats” (Liu, Horsley, & Levenshus, 2010, p. 196). This separation is a key issue for public sector communication. The responsibility that the public sector communication specialist has toward the minister/secretary and the government of the day creates particular challenges in remaining apolitical, working with political staffers, and working in the environment of the permanent campaign. The challenge lies in juggling the need of the elected officials with the expectations of public service Table 5.2  Characteristics of Political and Apolitical Communication.

Undertaken by

Goals Messages

Political

Apolitical

Politicians Political party operatives Political and media advisers Lobbyists Political ends Partisan Persuasive Selective Electioneering

Public sector communication staff Public servants

Governance/administrative ends Nonpartisan/impartial Factual, transparent Persuasive (in terms of policy implementation)

Politics and Policy

89

when dealing with what Mouffe (1999) refers to as the potential antagonisms and diverse social relations. There is considerable coverage in the literature of the politicization of the function of public sector communication, including discussions by Kozolanka (2006) in Canada, Sanders (2013) in the United Kingdom, and Mulgan (2007) in Australia. Often, these cases involve very complex and sensitive government business rather than the day‐to‐day activities in public sector communication. For example, numerous scholars have reported on claims of undue political influence on Australian and UK public servants and military public affairs officers in the lead‐up to the Iraq conflict of 2003 (e.g., Hibbert & Simmons, 2006; Humphreys, 2005; Mulgan, 2008; Wilkie, 2004). The consequences of stepping over the political line have ramifications for the integrity of government information, campaigns, and citizen collaboration. A factor that appears in many of the discussions of politicization of public sector communication is the role played by political staff sitting between the politician and the public service communicator. Often labeled “ministerial advisors,” “special advisors,” or “political advisors,” their role is to provide partisan support and advice to the minister regarding politics, policy, and media. Of interest here are the specialist media advisors, often ex‐journalists, and their involvement in public sector communication. Claimed benefits of political advisors include efficiency, access, and responsiveness (OECD, 2011, p. 16; van Onselen & Errington, 2007, p. 6; Wilson, 2015, p. 456). However, there are also concerns about accountability, governance frameworks, and inappropriate political influence (Wilson, 2015, p. 456). In particular, there has been considerable criticism of ministerial media advisors (McNair, 2004; Ward, 2003), with accusations of manipulation and spin. While some countries establish clear governance structures and/or codify expected behaviors for ministerial advisors, how this is done varies widely, with some limiting the responsibility of advisors and others placing them in authority over public servants (OECD, 2011, pp. 29–31). The boundaries between the partisan media advisor and the apolitical public sector communicator are often blurred (OECD, 2011, p. 16), presenting a significant challenge to upholding the value of impartiality in public sector communication. The concept of the permanent campaign strains this relationship between the political media advisors and public sector communication further. The continued use of campaigning methods by political actors to garner the support of voters when elections are not being held has been the subject of considerable research. Not only is it discussed and researched in different national contexts (e.g., Funk, 2013; Koliastasis, 2016; Ornstein & Mann, 2000; Sparrow & Turner, 2001; Young, 2007b), but the increased use of social media platforms by elected officials has given the topic a recent twist (e.g., Larsson, 2016). The issue here for public sector communication is the extent to which unelected government officials (public servants) are brought into the permanent campaign or change their activities to align with it. The potential exists again for politicization of the day‐to‐day functions of public sector communication; however, most of the research into the permanent campaign has been conducted in the field of political communication with little attention given to the more specific position of public sector communication.

Key Issues in Policy and Public Sector Communication—The Functions The second key issue emerging from the literature relates to the function of public sector communication and its role in undertaking two‐way communication on behalf of the government. Functions that are generally accepted as belonging to public sector communication include keeping citizens informed, creating awareness of government activities and influencing some behaviors for the social good. Less clear, however, is the function that public sector communication plays in government policy, despite the adoption of public relations concepts, such as two‐way

90

Leanne Glenny

communication. Rather than treating citizens as passive receivers of government messages, ­citizens are given the opportunity to influence government behavior (Fairbanks et  al., 2007, p. 24), in turn increasing “compliance and public support for new policies” (Lee, 1999, cited in Fairbanks et al., 2007, p. 24). Garnett argues that this dialogue is about informing government as much as it is about informing the citizens, a process that is “vital to government legitimacy and effectiveness” (Garnett, 1997, p. 165). In a sense, this interaction gives public sector communication a political role. Although communication can be seen as central to policy‐making, there is very little public policy literature that examines the role of public sector communication in the policy process. Politicians are primarily acknowledged as the policy makers, however, there are typically “complex interactions between state and non‐state actors” (Maddison & Denniss, 2013, p. 88). The role of the bureaucrats extends beyond simply implementing policy to include policy gatekeeping, policy research, and policy design (Maddison & Denniss, 2013, p. 128). Despite the need for communication expertise in these processes, the policy literature rarely identifies or distinguishes the role of public service communication staff from the broader policy workers. One of the exceptions is Maddison and Denniss, who acknowledge the existence of “journalists in some form of public relations capacity” within the Australian public service (Maddison & Denniss, 2013, p. 225), but their discussion on the importance of and need for communication devolves this responsibility to the policy workers in general. Moloney also acknowledges that senior public servants have a shared role in policy‐making with elected officials, but he separates the functions of policy explaining and policy promoting to the public service communicator and the political advisors respectively (Moloney, 2006, p. 120). He raises again the potential to blur the line between the political and the apolitical roles, suggesting that the “conflation [of the merging of policy making and policy presentation] is evidence of the high water mark of PR influence on modern UK government” (Moloney, 2006, p. 120). Maddison and Denniss also hold some skepticism toward the public service communication function, arguing that is has the positive potential to “make a real contribution to involving citizens and stakeholders”, while also suggesting its potential to “degenerate into mere PR” (Maddison & Denniss, 2013, p. 225). The negative portrayal of public relations in both of these approaches dismisses the contribution that the field can make to engaging citizens through public sector communication. Within the literature in the communication discipline, there is some reference to policy; however, it is still a relatively underdeveloped area of scholarly debate. Vos presents a framework aligning the communication and policy functions in the public sector in her study of the government communication in the Netherlands (2006, pp. 254–255). She describes four categories of policy communication: (a) communication regarding policy items; (b) communication as policy; (c) communication for policy; and (d) communication in policy. The first category covers the fairly common function performed by communication specialists in disseminating information about policies that have already been determined. The second category extends this to include communication tasks that are an integral part of the policy delivery, such as persuading citizens to change behaviors in regard to the problem being addressed. The third category relates to the need identified above; that of engaging others, particularly citizens, in policy‐making. The final category concerns clear language in the policies or other outputs such as laws and regulations. The role of public sector communication in the first, second, and fourth roles in Vos’s framework are fairly well accepted in both theory and practice, although there is still minimal discussion from a theoretical perspective. Gelders, Bouckaert, and van Ruler claim that the role for communication in the early stages of policy‐making—Vos’s third role of communication for policy—is receiving specific attention (2007, p. 326), but this is not widespread. They call for a greater involvement of communication through all stages of the policy process; however, the role in policy‐making is the most contentious, and any theorization in the public sector is still relatively immature. Strömbäck and Kiousus suggest that giving communication staff a role in

Politics and Policy

91

the decision‐making process may be even more important in the political environment, where contentious issues create a need for “…environmental scanning, boundary spanning, and the strategic choice of publics and relationships to prioritize” (Strömbäck & Kiousis, 2011, p. 15). Using public relations theory, they reinforce the argument for public relations to be a management function in the specific political context. The links between policy and public sector communication in practice can be seen clearly in the intentions signaled by the UK government to move to a more strategic approach following a major review of government communication in the early 2000s (Gregory, 2006, p. 198). Claiming a need to involve more dialogue and become more responsive to citizens’ information needs, the Permanent Secretary of Government Communication in 2005 spoke of a “key element” being the “need to make the voice of the public heard at the policy table” (Gregory, 2006, p. 198). The purpose of the improved communication processes was just as much about the government gaining a clearer understanding of the policy environment as it was about informing the citizens about policy. Similarly, a survey of those involved in government communication in the Netherlands identified an “increase in citizens’ involvement” as the most important communication task for their organizations (Vos, 2006, p. 251). Included in this was a call for “interactive policy development,” although results showed that communication involvement early in the policy‐making process rated fairly low as an activity (Vos, 2006, p. 263). An inquiry into government communication in the Netherlands in 2001, the Commission of Future Government Communication (see Kraaier, 2016), suggested a greater regard for the role of public sector communicators in policy‐making, even if it is potentially more idealistic than practical. The committee’s recommendation “to make communication an integral part of the policymaking process” (Kraaier, 2016, p. 75) recognized the significance of connecting and involving citizens, resulting in the ability for the community to influence government policy and business. In this context, Kraaier examined the role of communication specialists in the Dutch public service, describing, in the first instance, a “mediating role” for communicators. He argues that their responsibilities are to gather, filter and interpret information from citizens, and, in the process, assist their policy colleagues – and ultimately those in power – in developing policies and legislation that receive broad social support. (Kraaier, 2016, p. 86)

However, the study also revealed that not all communicators had the same role, with differences depending on the closeness of the communicator to those in power, raising again, the issue of politicization of the roles and functions in public sector communication. Kraaier argues for autonomy in public sector communication and a need to balance “participation and perception” (Kraaier, 2016, p. 87). This political context is one of the major challenges or threats to public sector communication, highlighting the need to separate the communication about governance from political communication.

Conclusion The complementarity view of politics, discussed at the beginning of this chapter, recognizes the shared roles of elected and unelected officials in the governance of a nation and the overlap that can occur in the performance of their duties (Demir, 2009, p. 877). This remains one of the most challenging characteristics of public sector communication. Acknowledging that government communication operates in a political environment, Sanders raises the need for “a distinction between communication managed to achieve a government’s political goals and communication managed in line with overarching government obligations in relation to the

92

Leanne Glenny

common civic good” (Sanders, 2011, p. 266). This should be the distinguishing feature of the discipline of public sector communication, separating it from related fields of political communication and marketing and the ubiquitous field of government communication with its ill‐ defined boundaries. Yet those other fields, and the core disciplines that sit behind them, will continue to inform public sector communication. Despite the criticisms of public relations, this discipline in particular has much to offer the development of normative models of public sector communication based on engagement in mutually beneficial relationships in search of common understanding. McNair agrees that public relations is not restricted to those in power, but is equally available to all “political actors” and its application should be afforded the same scrutiny as other political activities (McNair, 2004). Public sector communication plays a substantial role in the governance of the nation, and its relationship with politics and political actors is key to its success and credibility. It is a part of politics, and the challenges of serving a political master while being accountable to the citizens will continue. The resources and reach that public sector communication has will always be a temptation to the political maneuvering of elected officials. However, the democratic integrity of the function will only exist as long as efforts are made to remove or reduce partisan political influence. Public sector communication can also contribute to strengthening democratic processes through policy‐making and policy implementation. A more substantial and autonomous role, beyond that of communicating about policy would facilitate a deeper engagement of citizens in the policy process, guiding government decision‐making. For this to occur, a greater understanding and recognition of the function of public sector communication within the political process will be essential. Continuing research into a more clearly defined field of public sector communication has potential to contribute to practice.

References Australian Public Service Commission (APSC). 2016. “APS values and code of conduct in practice”, Accessed August 25, 2016 http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications‐and‐media/current‐publications/ aps‐values‐and‐code‐of‐conduct‐in‐practice Blumler, J. G., & Coleman, S. (2015). Democracy and the media—revisited. Javnost ‐ The Public, 22, 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2015.1041226 Blumler, J. G., & Kavanagh, D. (1999). The third age of political communication: Influences and features. Political Communication, 16, 209–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198596 Brown, J., Gaudin, P., & Moran, W. (2013). PR and communication in local government and public services. London: Kogan Page Publishers. Canel, M. J., & Sanders, K. (2013). Introduction: Mapping the field of government communication. In K. Sanders & M. J. Canel (Eds.), Government communication cases and challenges (pp. 1–26). London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054 Civil Service, UK Government. 2015. Statutory guidance: the Civil Service code. Accessed August 25, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil‐service‐code/the‐civil‐service‐code. Dahlgren, P. (2005). The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22, 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933160 Deacon, D., & Golding, P. (1994). Taxation and representation: The media, political communication and the poll tax. London: John Libbey. Demir, T. (2009). The complementarity view: Exploring a continuum in political‐administrative relations. Public Administration Review, 69, 876–888. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐6210.2009.02037.x Fairbanks, J., Plowman, K. D., & Rawlins, B. L. (2007). Transparency in government communication. Journal of Public Affairs, 7, 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.245

Politics and Policy

93

Funk, R. L. (2013). Chile 2012: The permanent campaign. Revista de Ciencia Politica (Santiago), 33, 83–99. Garnett, J. L. (1997). Administrative communication: Domain, threats, and legitimacy. In J. L. Garnett & A. Kouzmin (Eds.), Handbook of administrative communication. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker Inc. Garnett, J. L., & Kouzmin, A. (Eds.) (1997). Handbook of administrative communication. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker Inc. Gelders, D., Bouckaert, G., & van Ruler, B. (2007). Communication management in the public sector: Consequences for public communication about policy intentions. Government Information Quarterly, 24, 326–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.06.009 Gelders, D., De Cock, R., Roe, K., & Neijens, P. (2006). The opinion of Belgian government communication professionals on public communication about policy intentions: Pros/cons and conditions. Government Information Quarterly, 23, 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.01.013 Gelders, D., & Ihlen, Ø. (2010). Government communication about potential policies: Public relations, propaganda or both? Public Relations Review, 36, 59–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pubrev.2009.08.012 Glenny, L. (2008). Perspectives of communication in the Australian public sector. Journal of Communication Management, 12, 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632540810881965 Glenny, L. (2010). “Communication, Ethics and the Public Servant: Equality, Reciprocity, Truth and Authenticity.” PhD thesis, University of South Australia, South Australia. Government of Canada. (2015). Values and ethics code for the public sector, Government of Canada. Accessed August 25, 2016 http://www.tbs‐sct.gc.ca. Graber, D. A. (2003). The power of communication: Managing information in public organizations. Washington: CQ Press. Gregory, A. (2006). A development framework for government communicators. Journal of Communication Management, 10, 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632540610664742 Gregory, A. (2012). UK Government communications: Full circle in the 21st century? Public Relations Review, 38(3), 367–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.01.002 Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Habermas, J. (1997). The public sphere. In R. E. Goodin & P. Pettit (Eds.), Contemporary political philosophy: An anthology (pp. 105–108). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Head, B. (2007). The public service and government communication: Pressures and dilemmas. In S. A. Young (Ed.), Government communication in Australia (pp. 36–50). Melbourne, AU: Cambridge University Press. Heaselgrave, F., & Simmons, P. (2016). Culture, competency and policy: Why social media dialogue is limited in Australian local government. Journal of Communication Management, 20, 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM‐07‐2015‐0059 Heise, J. A. (1985). Toward closing the confidence gap: An alternative approach to communication between public and government. Public Administration Quarterly, 9, 196–217. http://www.jstor.org/ stable/40861057 Hibbert, Z., & Simmons, P. (2006). War reporting and Australian defence public relations, an exchange. PRism, 4, 1–10. Hong, H., Park, H., Lee, Y., & Park, J. (2012). Public segmentation and government–public relationship building: A cluster analysis of publics in the United States and 19 European Countries. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24, 37–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2012.626135 Horsley, J. S., Liu, B. F., & Levenshus, A. B. (2010). Comparisons of U.S. government communication practices: Expanding the government communication decision wheel. Communication Theory, 20, 269–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468‐2885.2010.01363.x Hughes, A., & Dann, S. (2009). Political marketing and stakeholder engagement. Marketing Theory, 9, 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593109103070 Humphreys, J. (2005). The Iraq Dossier and the meaning of spin. Parliamentary Affairs, 58, 156–170. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsi013 Knott Martinelli, D. (2011). Political public relations: Remembering its roots and classics. In J. Strömbäck & S. Kiousis (Eds.), Political public relations principles and applications (pp. 33–53). New York, NY: Routledge.

94

Leanne Glenny

Koliastasis, P. (2016). The permanent campaign strategy of prime ministers in parliamentary systems: The case of Greece. Journal of Political Marketing, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2016. 1193835 Koul, S. (2009). Communication structure of the public sector in India: An empirical analysis. Corporate Communications:AnInternationalJournal,14,320–332.https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280910980096 Kozolanka, K. (2006). The sponsorship scandal as communication: The rise of politicized and strategic communications in the federal government. Canadian Journal of Communication, 31, 343–366. Kraaier, N. M. (2016). Communication in the heart of policy and the conduct of conduct. Journal of Communication Management, 20, 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM‐01‐2015‐0009 Laing, A. (2003). Marketing in the public sector: Towards a typology of public services. Marketing Theory, 3, 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593103042005 Larsson, A. O. (2016). Online, all the time? A quantitative assessment of the permanent campaign on Facebook. New Media and Society, 18, 274–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814538798 Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organization‐public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24, 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0363‐8111(98)80020‐9 Lee, M. (2007). Public relations in public administration. In M. Lee (Ed.), Government public relations: A reader (pp. 3–20). Boca Raton: CRC Press. Lee, M., Neeley, G., & Stewart, K. (Eds.) (2012). The practice of government public relations. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Lees‐Marshment, J. (2014). Political marketing principles and applications (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor and Francis. Liu, B. F., & Horsley, J. S. (2007). The government communication decision wheel: Toward a public relations model for the public sector. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19, 377–393. https://doi. org/10.1080/10627260701402473 Liu, B. F., Horsley, J. S., & Levenshus, A. B. (2010). Government and corporate communication practices: Do the differences matter? Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38, 189–213. https://doi. org/10.1080/00909881003639528 Liu, B. F., Levenshus, A., & Horsley, J. S. (2012). Communication practices of US elected and non‐elected officials. Journal of Communication Management, 16, 220–243. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 13632541211245785 Maddison, S., & Denniss, R. (2013). An introduction to Australian public policy theory and practice (2nd ed.). Melbourne, AU: Cambridge University Press. Mazzoleni, G., & Schulz, W. (1999). ‘Mediatization’ of politics: A challenge for democracy? Political Communication, 16, 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198613 McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Oxford, UK: Malden– Blackwell Publishing Inc. McIntosh White, J. (2012). The communicative action of journalists and public information officers: Habermas revisited. Journalism Practice, 6, 563–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2011. 644899 McKee, A. (2005). The public sphere: An introduction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. McNair, B. (2004). PR must die: Spin, anti‐spin and political public relations in the UK, 1997‐2004. Journalism Studies, 5, 325–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670042000246089 McNair, B. (2011). An introduction to political communication (5th ed.). Oxon, UK: Routledge. Moloney, K. (2005). Trust and public relations: Center and edge. Public Relations Review, 31, 550–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.08.015 Moloney, K. (2006). Rethinking public relations: PR, propaganda and democracy (2nd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66, 745–758. http:// nbn‐resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0168‐ssoar‐246548 Mulgan, R. (2007). Truth in government and the politicization of public service advice. Public Administration, 85, 569–586. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9299.2007.00663.x Mulgan, R. (2008). How much responsiveness is too much or too little? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67, 345–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8500.2008.00592.x Nielsen, S. W. (2012). Three faces of political marketing strategy. Journal of Public Affairs, 12, 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.434

Politics and Policy

95

OECD (2011). The phenomenon of ministerial advisors. In E. Beth (Ed.), Ministerial advisors: Role, influence and management. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264124936‐3‐en O’Faircheallaigh, C., Wanna, J., & Weller, P. (1999). Public sector management in Australia: New challenges, new directions (2nd ed.). South Yarra, AU: Macmillan Education AU. Ornstein, N. J., & Mann, T. E. (2000). The permanent campaign and its future. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. O’Shaughnessy, N. J. (2004). Politics and propaganda: Weapons of mass seduction. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Pasquier, M., & Villeneuve, J.‐P. (2012). Marketing management and communications in the public sector. London, UK: Routledge. Ruijer, H. J. M. (2016). Proactive transparency in the United States and the Netherlands: The role of government communication officials. The American Review of Public Administration, 46, 1–22. Sanders, K. (2011). Political public relations and government communication. In J. Strömbäck & S. Kiousis (Eds.), Political public relations principles and applications (pp. 254–273). New York, NY: Routledge. Sanders, K. (2013). The strategic shift of UK government communication. In K. Sanders & M. J. Canel (Eds.), Government communication cases and challenges (pp. 79–98). London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing. Sanders, K., & Canel, M. J. (2015). Mind the gap: Local government communication strategies and Spanish Citizens’ perceptions of their cities. Public Relations Review, 41, 777–784. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.06.014 Schillemans, T. (2016). Fighting or fumbling with the beast? The mediatisation of public sector agencies in Australia and the Netherlands. Policy and Politics, 44, 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1332/ 030557315X14466438893302 Sparrow, N., & Turner, J. (2001). The permanent campaign: The integration of market research techniques in developing strategies in a more uncertain political climate. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 984–1002. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560110400605 Strömbäck, J., & Kiousis, S. (Eds.) (2011). Political public relations: Principles and applications. New York, NY: Routledge. Thomsen, C. (2007). Public sector CSR communication: A dialogical approach. Hermes, 38, 41–64. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v20i38.25904 van Onselen, P., & Errington, W. (2007). The democratic state as a marketing tool: The permanent campaign in Australia. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 45, 78–94. https://doi. org/10.1080/14662040601135805 Vos, M. (2006). Setting the research agenda for governmental communication. Journal of Communication Management, 10, 250–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632540610681149 Walsh, K. (1994). Marketing and public sector management. European Journal of Marketing, 28, 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569410057308 Ward, I. (2003). An Australian PR state? Australian Journal of Communication, 30, 25–42. Wei, N. (2010). Research on the local government communication mechanism from the governance perspective: A case study of the “11.17” Mass incident in Longnan, Gansu Province. In Management and service science (MASS), 2010 International Conference on Management and Service Science (pp. 1–6). Wuhan, China: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMSS.2010.5576760 Wilkie, A. (2004). Axis of deceit: The story of the intelligence officer who risked it all to tell the truth about WMD and Iraq. Melbourne: Black Inc. Wilson, R. P. (2015). Research note: A profile of ministerial policy staff in the Government of Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 48, 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423915000293 Young, S. (2007b). The regulation of government advertising in Australia: The politicisation of a public policy issue. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66, 438–452. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467‐8500.2007.00555.x Young, S. A. (2007a). Government communication in Australia. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Part II

Public Sector Communication, Organizations, Stakeholders, and Employees Magnus Fredriksson

Introduction Organizations acting in public sectors come in many varieties. There are units or directorates in national or federal governments, semiautonomous agencies without legal independence, and agencies with legal independence, as well as local bodies (municipalities, counties, and provinces) and corporations contracted to provide public services (Van Thiel, 2012). The compositions of, and therefore the conditions for, these actors and their tasks and responsibilities vary, both between and within countries. More recently, there have been strong ambitions to reduce these differences and align the workings of organizations in different contexts. In the wake of a neoliberal turn, politicians across countries and sectors—with extensive encouragement from international organizations such as the OECD, the WTO, and a vast number of management consultancies—have made extensive efforts to transform how public sectors are set up, how they are managed, and how they interact with their environments. The motives for change differ, but it has frequently been argued that reforms are necessary to overcome criticisms about inefficiency, inflexibility, and increasing costs and about a decreasing interest among people in finding work in the public sector (Hood, 1991). Accordingly, extensive efforts have been made to replace the classical hierarchical model of regulation by command and control from the top. There have been ambitions to “reinvent” and craft more accountable and responsive actors that are capable of competing under market‐like conditions. The toolbox offered by the reformists contains a diverse set of instruments, and among other things it has included the delegation of responsibilities to managers for both actions and results; the introduction of performance measurements and output control in a way that links resource allocation to desirable results; the disaggregation of units and the splitting of large bureaucracies into smaller units with responsibilities for their own results; competition as a way of governance; a focus on managers’ personal skills, abilities, and flexibility as part of a move away from a rule‐based hierarchy and civil servant ethics; and strictness and prudence in resource use, in which budgetary discipline is used to increase productivity and efficiency. The ambition of all these initiatives is to foster “organizational best practice” (Hood, 1995).

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

98

Magnus Fredriksson

To what extent the reforms have had the desired results is a question for debate. There is little empirical evidence that indicates that decreasing transaction costs, cost efficiency, and managerial rationality—arguments often used to justify transformation initiatives (Pollitt, 2003)—have been achieved. This is not to say, however, that organizations haven’t been transformed or that the governance, structures, chains of commands, routines, resource allocation, and management of public sector organizations have remained the same—quite the opposite. What we have seen is an evident change in how public sector organizations are governed, managed, and organized (Brunsson & Sahlin‐Andersson, 2000). The chapters in this section take these transformations as their point of departure and explore how public sector organizations respond to increasing demands from a variety of interests and how different forms of communication activities can provide support, especially in a context where public sector organizations, to an increasing degree, are becoming accountable for their own results. Communication is central here, not least because organizations are required to involve stakeholders (citizens, users, and customers) in their doings, but also because communication to an increasing degree has become viewed as the “means by which organizations are established, composed, designed, and sustained” (Cooren, Kuhn, Cornelissen, & Clark, 2011, p. 1150). In Chapter 6, Maria‐Jose Canel, Vilma Luoma‐aho, and Xabier Barandiaran explore and discuss the significance of intangible assets in public sector contexts. Their argument is that communication is about managing relationships in order to create and maintain relevant and accurate accounts of organizations’ activities and results. Far too often there are gaps between real and perceived performances. As a consequence, organizations tend to run the risk of being perceived as inefficient and superfluous, and they thereby lose their intangible public value. The authors therefore urge public sector organizations to give their relationships with stakeholders increased attention and to make use of communication to manage their affairs. This is followed by a chapter by Kaidi Aher, Jari Vuori, and Marika Kylänen that examines ideas about bureaucracy in general and the work of Weber and Taylor in particular, as well as what their theories have to offer managers in contemporary public sector organizations. The authors investigate the key assumptions of bureaucracy and argue that to a large degree these still prevail in many public sector contexts, especially when issues regarding efficiency and productivity are in play. Their continued presence tends to strengthen the dominance of linear communication, which decreases organizations’ abilities to create and maintain an open and inclusive approach. The authors argue that this is problematic and that policymakers ought to develop new patterns of communication to make public sector organizations more open, flexible, and inclusive. Chapter  8 focuses on the behavioral elements that shape, and are shaped by, public sector communication. Ben Farr‐Wharton, Yvonne Brunetto, and Kate Shacklock highlight how front‐ line public sector employees can dilute or ruin “good intentions” and how they can use autonomous decision‐making to transform and improve plans or intentions that have not been properly thought through. The power that public sector employees hold stems from their positions as liaisons between the organizations that they work for and the organization’s stakeholders—a highly communicative position whose importance the authors investigate in the light of social exchanges. From that point of departure, they build an argument that the efficiency by which public services are delivered rests on organizations’ abilities to create and maintain good relationships between employees and supervisors. If such relationships don’t work out well, employees will make use of their power, and this might affect not only service delivery but also what managers will know about employees’ activities and their results. This situation will create major obstacles for organizations and their functionalities in the long run. The importance of social relations is then also brought to the fore in Sanna Tuurnas’s chapter (Chapter 9). She explores the roles of civil servants and citizens in the creation, evaluation, and development of public services, and her main point is that these interactions must be understood as a form of coproduction. Accordingly, public sector organizations need to use dialogue and interactional forms of communication instead of activities aimed at information provision and

Introduction to Public Sector Communication, Organizations, Stakeholders, and Employees

99

persuasion. Such an approach is seldom taken in practice, however, as public servants seem to lack the necessary means and tools to do so. It is also evident that the coproduction’s ideas contest professional values and stakeholder expectations, as they do not correspond to established ways of communicating in public sector organizations, as Tuurnas points out. An underlying theme in all the chapters included in this section is change, first and foremost in terms of sectoral transformations and their consequences on the ways in which public sector organizations ought to make use of communication. The need for (new forms of) communication and the ways in which public sector organizations actually communicate therefore follow on from change. In Chapter 10, however, communication is presented as a driver for change. Mats Heide and Charlotte Simonsson take changes and how they are enacted through communication as their point of departure. Their chapter can partly be read as a critique of previous studies, which they think are far too preoccupied with issues concerning managers’ abilities to bring about desired changes. In contrast to this, they argue that much more attention must be paid to coworkers, middle managers, professional groups, and various external stakeholders if we want to understand how change comes about and why initiatives, intentions, and processes play out as they do. Central to their argument is the importance of sense‐making and how coworkers create and negotiate meanings as they encounter disruptions and deviations from the well‐ known patterns of everyday life in their respective organizations. The section concludes with a chapter in which Magnus Fredriksson and Josef Pallas focus on the media and the role that it plays in activities performed in public sector organizations as a result, to some extent, of its role as a fourth branch of government but also, to an increasing degree, owing to an increasing mediatization—that is, the processes whereby ideas regarding the media’s functionalities, values, working methods, and effects become institutionalized and taken for granted. The argument is that public sector organizations tend to be mediatized and therefore are, to an increasing degree, integrating ideas of media in contexts where it was previously absent. Eventually, these ideas affect organizational activities, routines, decisions, resource allocation, and communication far beyond communication departments. Taken together, the chapters in this section remind us that we have to take a number of aspects into account if we want to understand the what, when, how, and why of the public sector’s use of communication in its interactions with stakeholders and what factors shape the outcomes of this use. To start with, the fact that institutional configurations and the mandate that an organization is given vary considerably across national and sectoral cultures as well as across legal and political systems must be kept in mind. The significance of political interventions, levels of autonomy, the ways in which the organization is financed, the tasks and roles attributed to it, the extent to which it faces competition (in both political and economic terms), and other aspects all contribute to making up the particular position from which a given organization communicates (Christensen & Lægreid, 2006; Fredriksson & Pallas, 2016). Second, the arrangements of stakeholders and how and to what extent citizens, users, customers, journalists, competitors, interest groups, professional bodies, and others are given formal and/or informal possibilities to influence organizations’ activities must be given due consideration. Public sector organizations tend to struggle in these respects, as they often have to respond to diverse and complex interests from a variety of groups that often make incompatible claims. Whereas other types of organizations have some possibilities to order these interests and give certain actors priority over others, public sector organizations often lack that possibility, as stakeholders often have lawful right to be heard and taken into account (Salomonsen, 2013). Third, the prominent role of professional groups and employees has to be taken into account. Public sector organizations are often manned by professional groups that have their own sets of values, norms, and principles, and these are not always in tune with those of the organizations in which they operate. These groups are often vital to their organizations’ operations, and t­ herefore they have far‐reaching possibilities to influence how work is organized, resources are allocated,

100

Magnus Fredriksson

and decisions are made. Others groups that might lack the formal status held by members of professions might instead make use of the role that their positions play as liaisons between the organizations and its stakeholders (Fredriksson & Pallas, 2016). Each of these aspects brings complexity to the table, especially when they interact with one another. Accordingly, as the chapters in this section show, one has to understand communication in much wider contexts. This is of course true for all organizational contexts, but it is particularly the case in public sectors.

References Brunsson, N., & Sahlin‐Andersson, K. (2000). Constructing organizations: The example of public sector reform. Organization Studies, 21(4), 721–746. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2006). Agentification and regulatory reforms. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Autonomy and regulation: Coping with agencies in the modern state (pp. 8–47). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Cooren, F., Kuhn, T., Cornelissen, J. P., & Clark, T. (2011). Communication, organizing and organization: An overview and introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1149–1170. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0170840611410836 Fredriksson, M., & Pallas, J. (2016). Characteristics of public sectors and their consequences for strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(3), 149–152. https://doi.org /10.1080/1553118X.2016.1176572 Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. Hood, C. (1995). The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2), 93–109. Pollitt, C. (2003). The essential public manager. London, UK: McGraw‐Hill International. Salomonsen, H. H. (2013). Offentlig ledelse och strategisk kommunikation ‐ et spørsmål om overlevelse. [Public management and strategic communication  –  a question of survival]. In H. H. Salomonsen (Ed.), Offentlig ledelse og strategisk kommunikation, [Public management and strategic communication] (pp. 11–32). Copenhagen, Denmark: Jurist‐ og Økonomforbundets Forlag. Van Thiel, S. (2012). Comparing agencies across countries. In K. Verhoest, S. Van Thiel, G. Bouckaert, & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Government agencies: Practices and lessons from 30 countries (pp. 18–28). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.

6

Public Sector Communication and Publicly Valuable Intangible Assets María‐José Canel, Vilma Luoma‐aho, and Xabier Barandiarán

We are losing the battle at the perceptions level (informal statement from a public manager at the Inter‐American Development Bank)

Public management is embedded in the world of perceptions, and there is evidence to support the position that a gap usually exists between what public organizations are and what they do (i.e., their achievements, strengths, shortcomings, and flaws) on the one hand and what people perceive them to do on the other (Sanders & Canel, 2015). For instance, citizens’ reported perceptions of their safety do not necessarily correspond to what crime rates might indicate about public security, and citizens’ assessments of the success or failure of health policies do not always equate with actual mortality rates at hospitals. In the most acute cases of such gaps, public leaders become frustrated that their efforts are not acknowledged by the people whom they serve, while citizens feel that they are not being understood and well served by their leaders. Moreover, recent economic and financial crises have contributed to a decrease in trust in public institutions. Resources are scarce and citizens appear to be less satisfied than they were in the past, even if (as is often the case) the public sector that serves them has continually made efforts to improve in areas such as its service provision (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2015; Luoma‐aho & Makikangas, 2014; Thomas, 2013; Uslaner, 2010). This chapter is based on the assumption that gaps between real performance and perceived performance might indicate a problem of communication (Luoma‐aho, 2008). Public sector organizations lose their intangible public value when their communication is deficient. Public sector communication is about managing relationships (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2018), and the aim of this chapter is to explore how communication can help public sector organizations by building intangible assets that are valuable for society. We acknowledge that intangible assets are not intrinsically valuable, as they can also be used for outcomes that are bad for society (consider, e.g., excessive tourism as a negative consequence of a good reputation built up by an exotic island). The matter of what is valuable for citizens and society or for the “public good” has been discussed extensively in the public management literature, and this chapter focuses on the idea of public value.

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

102

María-José Canel, Vilma Luoma-aho, and Xabier Barandiarán

The term public value was coined by Moore (1995) to assess the value that an organization provides to society. Applied to the public sector, it is understood to be “a placeholder for what a society values and aims to create through its public institutions” (Moynihan & Kroll, 2015, p. 245). Categorized as “the next ‘Big Thing’” (Talbot, 2009, p. 167) in public sector management, the evolution of the literature on it shows the need to combine the managerial values of efficacy and efficiency with social values (Bryson, Crosby, & Bloomberg, 2015c). We believe that the stress that this literature places on what is of value for society can enrich the building of intangible assets in the public sector. In other words, this chapter argues that communication can be the means through which intangible assets contribute to public value. In this chapter, we take the term public sector communication to refer to “goal‐oriented communication inside public organizations and between public organizations and their stakeholders that enables public sector functions within their specific cultural and/or political settings, with the purpose of building and maintaining the public good and trust between citizens and authorities” (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2018, p. 33). We first describe the specificities of the public sector in terms of intangible assets, and we discuss the extent to which intangible assets can be conceptualized and deployed in the public sector. We then introduce the public value perspective, and with the help of a case observation, we finally address how combining the public value perspective with the concept of public sector intangible assets can enhance public sector communication.

Intangible Assets in the Public Sector Intangible Value, an Emerging Area of Research in the Public Sector The words intangible and asset point to the idea that an intangible asset has to do with nonphysical realities that provide value. In order to be recognized, an intangible asset has to have a value for its owner, and it needs to be represented in the company balance sheet in a monetary term, just as tangible assets such as buildings are. While in the private sector there is an increasing awareness of and active discourse about the economic role of intangible assets and their consequences (Lev & Daum, 2004), the public sector remains slightly apprehensive about measuring them (Bossi, Fuertes, & Serrano, 2005; da Silva & Batista, 2007; Serrano, Fuertes, & Molinaro, 2003). This gap is a paradoxical one, since intangibility is even more important in public organizations than it is in profit‐making ones (Bossi et al., 2005). Whereas quantifiable objectives are key within the private sector, dominated as it is by profitability and the generation of value for shareholders, public administrations work predominantly with nonphysical aims and intangible resources. Rather than capital, machines, and raw materials, the public sector principally uses knowledge and human resources. And the outcomes of the public sector—public services—are closely linked to intangibility. However, there seems to be consensus in the literature that Sztompka’s assertion that organizations’ and institutions’ productivity is increasingly built on intangible assets (Sztompka, 2000) fully applies today to the public sector (see Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2018 for a list of sources). Intangible capital, understood as immaterial aspects that enable the organization to function, can be found in different assets—for example, human and social capital, acquired knowledge (which is expressed in the form of the intangible asset intellectual capital), relationships (which among employees are expressed via the intangible asset organizational culture, and which with regard to the environment are expressed via the intangible asset of institutional social responsibility), quality, legitimacy, reputation, and trust. The emerging trend of increasing intangibility in the public sector is expressed in comparable increases in the number of units, activities, practices, rankings, and practical cases developed by public administrations from different countries with the aim of building specific intangible assets (see Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2018 for a selection of practices and cases from different cultural settings around the world).

Public Sector Communication and Publicly Valuable Intangible Assets

103

From a scholarly perspective, the most developed intangibles in the public sector are intellectual and social capital (Bossi et al., 2005; Serrano et al., 2003; Kong & Ramírez, 2010; Wall, 2005). Other intangible concepts that are frequently examined by researchers include trust and reputation (Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012; Carpenter, 2001, 2014; Carpenter & Krause, 2012). Finally, there is a large body of works that centers on place branding and place reputation, and studies in this vein encompass the public sector insofar as municipalities and public sector companies are highly involved in initiatives of this kind (Hanna & Rowley, 2013; Kavaratzis & Hatch, 2013; Whelan, Davies, Walsh, & Bourke, 2010). But what exactly is an intangible asset?

Defining “Intangible Asset” in the Public Sector Context The notion of intangible asset is grounded in ideas put forward by scholars, accounting standards, and other initiatives spearheaded by international organizations (Belkaoui, 1992; Edvinsson & Malone, 1997; Egginton, 1990; Hall, 1992; Hand & Lev, 2003; Lev, 2001; Lev & Daum, 2004; Maher, Stickney, & Weil, 2012; OECD, 1999), and it has been transferred to the public sector context, where it may be defined as follows: A nonmonetary asset (without physical substance) that enables and gives access to tangible assets, that is activated through communication, and that is built on past events (and linked to the behavior of the organization); therefore, it gives rise to a resource that is identifiable and from which a future (long‐term) benefit/value (social, monetary, and so forth) is expected to flow, potentially, for both the organization and stakeholders/citizens (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2018, p. 77).

In producing this conceptualization, we relied on the following assumptions about intangible assets. Intangible assets: 1 Derive from good practices and experiences, and as such can be managed but not created from scratch. 2 Are self‐sustaining, in that they enforce themselves over time by strengthening existing connections and accumulating other forms of assets. 3 Require acknowledgment to exist (somebody has to attribute an intangible asset to an organization). 4 Are perception based and as such are established through communication: intangible assets establish common ground and understanding of each other’s points of view. 5 Aim at building the public good—understood as those needs and challenges we have in common. To give an example, the intangible asset intellectual capital measures the capacity of an organization to manage knowledge well (i.e., in a timely, efficient, shared, and systematized manner). The quality and amount of knowledge make a difference for both the organization (which saves costs) and the citizen (who is better served). As Jones and Mahon state, a failure to utilize knowledge on police and emergency services in a timely and effective way could be the difference between life and death (Jones and Mahon, 2012, p. 774, cited in Guthrie & Dumay, 2015, p. 259).

What Are the Constraints on Managing Intangible Assets in the Public Sector? Relative to the private sector, the public sector is less open to market competition. Furthermore, it is less incentivized to reduce costs and less concerned with consumer preferences (Luoma‐aho, 2007; Waeraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012). Therefore, it could be argued that the innovation involved

104

María-José Canel, Vilma Luoma-aho, and Xabier Barandiarán

in intangible assets management does not fit well with the style of public sector management. In addition, public sector organizations are more constrained by legal and regulatory frameworks than corporations are; they are subjected to a greater degree of public scrutiny and are required to have a high degree of accountability to their constituencies. Moreover, the diversity and multiplicity of their publics and stakeholders exceed those of corporations (see Canel & Sanders, 2013). In sum, public sector organizations have to operate under different constraints and balance guidelines that are generated by different policy‐making bodies and at different levels of government political guidelines, national guidelines, initiatives aimed at international cooperation, competing ideologies, the bureaucratic culture of administration, and current citizen and stakeholder feedback. These challenges also limit the evaluation of intangible assets (Arvidsson, 1986; Bond & Dent, 1998). For example, public sector organizations are not exposed to market value and hence they lack references for determining their value, and their manifold publics and stakeholders multiply the instances scenarios and criteria against which an asset will be valued. Since, as Bond and Dent state, the specific role of public administration is to contribute to the improvement of total social economic welfare, “the contribution is not solely based on ‘value for money’ criteria but must also incorporate a ‘quality of living’ dimension” (Bond & Dent, 1998, p. 371). Therefore, as these authors argue, discussions about efficiency must embrace different criteria, including money, social value, and quality of life, among others. For example, a city government’s decision on the frequency of trash collections cannot be decided by bottom‐line criteria alone but must also be informed by the quality of life of the city’s residents. An additional hurdle is encountered when it comes to building intangible assets in the public sector: uniqueness cannot be attained in this sector through intangible assets, as monopolistic public sector organizations do not require distinctiveness to become individuals’ default choice (Wareaas & Byrkjeflot, 2012), and hence neutral levels of reputation instead of excellence may suffice (Luoma‐aho, 2007). However, the public sector is composed of organizations with different degrees of publicness, and there is increasing competition among public sector organizations. In many countries, schools, hospitals, universities, and other services are provided under market‐like or competitive conditions. Intangible assets management can result in certain outcomes that produce value not only for the public sector but also for all of society. In fact, in three respects intangible assets have provided the foundation for a management paradigm that increases efficiency and efficacy in public sector organizations. First, they help public sector organizations with efficiency by improving internal management. Second, because intangible assets correspond to positive attributes, they enable organizations to become known for those attributes, and this will ultimately be to their benefit (Sánchez, 2008, p. 577). Third, in the new context of the knowledge‐based economy (which is associated with the network society or the innovation society), there is much support for the assertion that intangibles are instrumental in determining organizations’ value (Petty & Guthrie, 2000, p. 155). It is reasonable to think that a well‐reputed city council will attract tourism and international investment, that a legitimate government will save costs on systems of deterrence and coercion, and that a more engaged citizenry might reduce costs of social services thanks to coproduction of services and dialogue (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2015). Regardless of whether intangible assets’ impact is economic or social, it is clear that their potential to provide a competitive advantage is not their only positive feature. Public sector organizations are required to fulfill certain standards that are socially constructed (by laws or by their stakeholders’ expectations) and that determine the nature of the competition in which the public sector must engage. How much value is provided to society becomes a relevant criterion, and so we will now explore the public value perspective, which, as we argue below, provides helpful contributions to a more thorough understanding of the intangible value of public sector organizations.

Public Sector Communication and Publicly Valuable Intangible Assets

105

Public Value There is a solid corpus of knowledge that has developed both the concept of public value and our understanding of its practical implications in public management (Moore, 1995, 2013, 2014, 2015; Bozeman & Sarewitz, 2011; Meynhardt & Bartholomes, 2011; Bozeman & Johnson, 2015; Bryson, Crosby, & Bloomberg, 2015b; Meynhardt, 2009, 2015; Meynhardt, Gomez, & Schweizer, 2014, to cite just a few sources). The key point in the development of public value as a concept and a perspective is that it has brought society’s value‐related concerns to the fore. Public value has been referred to variously as “government’s proper role,” “public engagement,” “active citizenship,” and “the desire for strengthened democracy” (Bryson et al., 2015b).

What Public Value Actually Means Public value has to do with the idea that certain things are good for society and its functioning (Meynhardt et al., 2014, p. 5), and in the world of organizations the notion of public value has stimulated different views and debates about the nature of the value that an organization provides to the general public. Public value is both value from the public (the combined view of the public about what they regard as valuable) and for the public (what is valuable to society) (Talbot, 2006, p. 7). Public value is multifaceted. It can be considered the joint achievement of both economic and social value; it results from the combination of tangible and intangible dimensions; it is expressed on the level of both quantitative and qualitative worth; and it contemplates users’ immediate satisfaction as well as medium‐term and long‐term impacts on their well‐being (Bracci, Deidda, & Bigoni, 2014, p. 133). Incorporating public value in public management means, in practical terms, that information (in the form of reports, rankings, ratings, and so forth) has to be provided for each specific governmental program and that such programs must be assessed against a set of criteria that refer to the value provided to society. For instance, the public value of a local government’s road safety policy would include: its financial costs to the government, the extent to which it is operationally achievable, the satisfaction that different publics (e.g., residents/citizens, authorities from other levels, or organizations) derive from it and the support that they give to it, and the degree to which dialogue and deliberation were fostered and implemented during its elaboration.

Literature Streams’ Contributions to Our Understanding of “Public Value” The notion of public value has been the focus of several disciplines (e.g., economics, administrative science, philosophy, and psychology) and interdisciplinary studies, but it has been neglected to a surprising extent in the field of corporate and political communication, which, we argue, is a useful discipline to turn to in order to deal with some of the critical issues that are bound up with this paradigm. Communication is at the heart of this concept: developing public value implies an ongoing attitude of listening to society. The notion was coined by Mark H. Moore, who in 1995 published Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government, which he followed up with Recognizing Public Value in 2013 (Moore, 1995, 2013). It could be argued that, from its very beginnings, it has been infeasible to understand or implement public value if a communication‐focused approach is disregarded. Moore presents a public value account and a public value scorecard as aids for assessing the value that a public organization provides to society. The public value account combines operational capacity with a capacity that Moore names “legitimacy and support.” We would argue that the latter is in effect communication, since organizations need to collect feedback from their different stakeholders. A public value account is a summary term that is assessed and

106

María-José Canel, Vilma Luoma-aho, and Xabier Barandiarán

measured against the extent to which an organization in practice achieves or realizes more specific public values at a reasonable cost (see also Moore, 2013, 2014, 2015).

Counterbalancing Economic Value with Social Values Moore’s ideas have been criticized for apparently downplaying the democratic aspect of public value and as a result giving excessive protagonism to values of a strictly economic nature (Bryson et al., 2015c). To address these concerns, Bozeman and Jorgensen suggested a more balanced way of measuring public value (Bozeman, 2007; Bozeman & Johnson, 2015; Jørgensen & Bozeman, 2007; Welch, Rimes, & Bozeman, 2015). For Bozeman, public value amounts to objective measurable states within the world, and to measure those states, Jorgensen and Bozeman (2007) identify six “constellations” (value categories) with which a set of values can be associated. For instance, the first constellation is “the public sector’s contribution to society,” whose value set includes the common good, altruism, sustainability, and regime dignity, and whose other related values are public interest, social cohesion, human dignity, voices of the future, and regime stability. The list of values associated with the six constellations is large, and it includes accountability, citizen involvement, neutrality, productivity, innovation, and legality, among many others. Using data and information, the public value measurement process consists of a mapping of the values met (failures and successes) according to a list of public value criteria elaborated upon this map of values (Bozeman & Johnson, 2015). Any policy, program, innovation, or agency can be charted based on its public value and market value successes and failures (see Welch et al., 2015 for the most updated description of the model), and we argue that this charting implies interacting with society and collecting the latter’s feedback. In fact, one of the criteria that Bozeman and Johnson suggest is the extent to which what is evaluated fosters the public sphere.

Relations and Perceptions at the Core of Public Value Creation The contribution that most explicitly includes a communication perspective is that of Meynhardt (Meynhardt, 2009, 2015; Meynhardt et al., 2014). Meynhardt adopts a sociopsychological perspective, and he provides helpful contributions that are based on concepts related to communication. Public value derives from people’s perception: there is no public value without human appraisal, and hence, though public value can be created and delivered, it does not come into being until it is appreciated by somebody and thereby attributed to an organization. Second, since valuing is relational, public value is constructed out of values that characterize the relationship between an individual and society. Meynhardt offers a public value scorecard (based on Moore’s) that allows any actual or proposed policy, program, or product to be evaluated via the use of different techniques (prioritizing, screening, surveying, exploring, and sensing; all of these are techniques that capture society’s responses) and through asking questions related to the following value dimensions: utilitarian‐ instrumental ones (Is it useful? Is it profitable?), moral‐ethical ones (Is it decent?), political social ones (Is it politically acceptable?), and hedonistic‐esthetic ones (Is it a positive experience?). This scorecard, Meynhardt argues, can be integrated into management systems and shows where trade‐offs and gaps arise (Meynhardt, 2015).

Merging Approaches That Aim for an Integrative Account of Public Value The coedited volume by Bryson, Crosby, and Bloomberg (2015a) titled Public Value and Public Administration is the most up‐to‐date, thorough, and systematic work on public value in the public sector context. It proposes the public value government triangle (PVGT), which is similar to Moore’s strategic triangle and to which a central box with a list of public values (which is

Public Sector Communication and Publicly Valuable Intangible Assets

107

wider ranging than Moore’s) has been added. The PVGT additionally features the following three boxes: a legitimacy and authority box (which includes legitimate decision‐making bodies from all sectors and the support that different stakeholders provide); a second box that captures public value; and a capabilities box (which includes capacities to create public value embedded in collectives of many kinds, including governments). To measure public value, the PVGT highlights six practical approaches deemed as relevant in dealing with public value and public values (Bryson et al., 2015b, 2015c). The suggested six practices are as follows, with an example of the questions that we understand could be asked when analyzing pubic value in parentheses: 1 Policy analysis, design, and evaluation (How are values considered in relation to these aspects?) 2 Leadership (How does the leader inspire and mobilize citizens to get them involved in public life?) 3 Dialogue and deliberation (Are these being fostered?) 4 Institutional and organizational design (Do these embody and enable public values?) 5 Formal and informal processes of democracy (Are these bringing about reasonable, acceptable, and necessarily wise or good decisions involving public values?) 6 Strategic management, including performance measurement and management (Is performance meeting values?) In our understanding, the analysis of practices in this integrative model is oriented so that it assesses the extent to which public sector organizations are capable of being attuned with society’s needs and expectations, on the basis that building public value requires public managers to listen to and interact with their stakeholders.

Merging Intangible Assets Research with Public Value for the Enhancement of Public Sector Communication To date, there has been no attempt to link the notion of “public value” to that of “intangible asset,” and we argue that finding the best formulas, methods, and techniques to measure intangible assets in the public sector would contribute to the development of “public value” and hence to a better calibration of the value that public management provides. Moreover, the different responses to questions about value can complement as well as benefit approaches to measuring intangible assets and subsequently enhance the study and practice of public sector communication.

The Outcome of Combining These Two Concepts: Public‐Valued Intangible Assets Both sets of literature deal with value‐related concerns, and both address the intangibility dimension of the value that an organization has (public value is intangible, as are assets that are based on perceptions). They are concerned with putting into practice the democratic principle of public sector accountability, and their concepts, frameworks, metrics, and so on are intended to capture more effectively the value that public sector organizations provide. In doing so, both sets of literature pay attention to the managerial (and strategic) dimension of public management, since measurements of public value and intangible assets alike might inform decision‐­making and help organizations to improve performance. By their nature, both intangible assets and public value combine multiple sectors, levels, and interests, and therefore the production of intangible assets can facilitate contemplation of all facets of the value that public sector organizations should take into account. Both

108

María-José Canel, Vilma Luoma-aho, and Xabier Barandiarán

acknowledge the relevance that the intangible dimension of public opinion has for the development of society, and in this sense, both have inspired bodies of literature that take up the challenge of building the intangible value associated with perceptions management in the public sector. There is, however, an interesting difference in the way in which the two sets of literature honor the centrality of relationship building as the basis for creating value. While the literature on intangible assets looks at what intangibility adds to the organization as owner of a specific asset (the question that is asked is: How much value does this intangible asset have for this organization?), the public value perspective looks at society (the question asked here is: What makes an organization valuable to society?). It could thus be said that not all intangible assets have a public value per se and therefore that combining the two approaches might help organizations to face the challenge of putting stakeholders first and to respond to organizational needs. This combining will also inspire the debate centered on whether intangible assets potentially provide value for just one or both sides in a relationship between public services on the one hand and stakeholders and end users on the other. (For instance, could a school have good reputation while providing bad teaching?) Finally, combining both approaches will shed light on how the broad intangible public value of an organization can be parceled into different intangible assets. For example, public value depends on the capacity of public managers to produce innovations (Hartley, Alford, Knies, & Douglas, 2017) and the intangible asset of “intellectual capital” has innovation as one of its components (Bossi et al., 2005). The literature on public value stresses that the perception that an individual has about the organization (e.g., that individual’s opinion about the motivations of the organization’s managers) is central to developing public value. By contrast, the literature on intangible assets bases the intangible asset of “organizational culture” on this perception. The literature on public value views dialogue and deliberation as key practices for increasing public value (Bryson et al., 2015c), whereas the literature on the intangible asset “engagement” and more specifically on what has been called “governmental citizens involvement efforts” (Yang & Callahan, 2005, 2007; Yang & Pandey, 2011) has produced rich evidence of the impact that governmental actions focused on citizen engagement have on society. One of the aspects of the public value scorecard is “legitimacy” (which measures the extent to which authorities and supporters approve a specific governmental action); extensive research on legitimacy as an intangible asset of organizations has produced evidence that helps to delineate strategies for organizational legitimacy that can inspire public value strategies. Overall, the intangible assets literature provides ways of identifying and measuring the perceptions that different stakeholders have about an organization, and thus building public‐valued intangible assets might provide assistance within the “battle of perceptions” mentioned at the start of this chapter. The points of convergence between both sets of literature lead us to suggest the following conceptual connection, which may well serve as a basis for a research hypothesis: the public value that an organization provides, which is intangible, can be measured by adding together the values that correspond to the different specific intangible assets that the organization has built up. In other words, the more intangible assets created (and the more the latter are public‐valued), the more public value an organization has and, therefore, the more it is valuable for society. Public sector communication is therefore enhanced when it is oriented to building intangible assets that have public value.

What Is the Role of Communication in Building Public‐Valued Intangible Assets? Out of the above discussion, the following ideas that assist in responding to this question emerge. First, ascertaining the existence of a given intangible asset is tied to that asset’s being acknowledged: somebody has to attribute an intangible asset to an organization. The intangible assets that we have discussed in this chapter are perceptions‐based assets, and hence they require ­communication to be built: intangible assets bridge the gap between citizens and public sector

Public Sector Communication and Publicly Valuable Intangible Assets

109

organizations by establishing common ground and by fostering a mutual understanding of each party’s points of view. The concept of public value reinforces the need for communication: to the extent that public value is defined by society, building public‐valued intangible assets entails a process of interaction and dialogue between different stakeholders to negotiate the compromises that might emerge when different people’s values enter into conflict. Therefore, building intangible assets is in itself communication, for communication activates the value of an intangible asset and increases the possibility that the asset in question also has a public value.

Implications for the Practice of Public Sector Communication: What Kind of Organizational and Communication Culture Do Public‐Valued Intangible Assets Contribute to? We stated above that intangible assets derive from good practices and experiences, and so although such assets can be managed, they cannot be created from scratch. This implies that intangible assets are activated through both organizational behavior and sense‐making. Building intangible assets that have public value brings about a culture of deeds‐based messages. Being oriented to building public‐valued intangible assets fosters a citizen‐centered culture, and thus the communication that is activated focuses not on impressions management but on relations. Orienting public sector communication to the building of public‐valued intangible assets implies important transformations in the way in which communication is managed. New quality criteria will be needed for assessing outcomes; more public–private partnerships will be required; management will be guided by objectives, and communication by results; and the evaluation of communication performance will be focused on the quality of established relations and on the extent to which citizens are engaged (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2015; Garnett et al., 2008; Gelders & Ihlen, 2010; Luoma‐aho & Makikangas, 2014; Sanders & Canel, 2013; Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012). Several practices are inspired by this approach to communication, among which the following can be mentioned. First, building public‐valued intangible assets requires a detailed knowledge of stakeholders’ needs and expectations, which can only be discovered through ongoing interaction with those stakeholders. As some practical cases have shown, public value building also requires the development of technologies that allow inputs from different publics to be processed in real time (Department of Culture and the Arts, 2014). Second, building intangible assets that provide public value requires an approach to communication that is strategic. For example, the measures of both public value and intangible assets might inform decision making and help organizations to improve performance. One study that explores the organization of government communication in 16 countries identifies the orientation of communication to build intangible assets as a common trend, and it claims that changes need to be undertaken in organizational schema, in the distribution of tasks, and in the shaping of the approaches taken by public sector communicators (Sanders and Canel, 2013). Third, new practices to cultivate cross‐ and multisector relations are needed. Public value can only be created in a multisector and multilevel context that goes beyond government (Bryson et al., 2015b), and certain public‐valued intangible assets might be built more effectively through public–private partnerships. Public managers need to be trained in the communication skills that are required to build these networks of cross‐sectorial dialogue, as is shown by cases such as the study by Page, Stone, Bryson, and Crosby (2015) that focuses on the use of cross‐sectorial collaboration to solve the problem of traffic congestion in Minnesota. Fourth, and finally, building public‐valued intangible assets requires not only motivation on the part of communication practitioners but also passionate involvement on the part of top leadership and management, as has been shown in an analysis of public value programs in two local governments in Italy (Guarini, 2014) and in a study of the building of the intangible asset of engagement by the Obama administration’s Engagement Office in the United States (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2018).

110

María-José Canel, Vilma Luoma-aho, and Xabier Barandiarán

An Illustrative Example: Etorkizuna Eraikiz and the Use of Intangible Assets to Produce Public Value How do intangible assets contribute to public value in practice? The provincial‐level government of Gipuzkoa in the Basque Country (northern Spain) started Etorkizuna Eraikiz (meaning “Building our future together”) in 2016 to increase its public value through intangible assets. The initiative focuses principally on citizen engagement and attempted to define the region’s agenda through collaboration with society. It embraces a project‐based structure of governance that aims to bring about systematic, proactive, and ongoing interaction with different stakeholders in order to bring their participation into the policy cycle. To test the value of intangible assets in practice, the authors of this chapter conducted empirical research to analyze this experiment. A panel consisting of the top‐level leaders and heads of communication of the municipality and region was set up. The panel was organized in May 2018, and six top‐level people participated in the three‐hour session with two researchers present.

Study To establish the range of experiences and values that the interviewees attached to different intangible assets, the panel was executed over three stages that were organized according to logic of phenomenography. First, the decision makers were given a list of eight different intangible assets and told to strike out the three least important ones in order to leave them with the five intangible assets that they considered to be most important. Second, participants were told to choose the three intangible assets that they viewed as most important and rank them. In turn, each panel member then presented his or her choices to the panel making arguments about their importance, and the other panel members then posed questions. The third stage of the research introduced a grid containing two axes, one of which was centered on providing public value and ranged from least public value to most public value, and the other of which centered on the impact of public sector communication and ranged from a low level to a high one. Panelists had to position the different intangible assets within the grid.

Results and Discussion Though the individual responses varied, the intangible asset that was eliminated most frequently was intellectual capital. During the second stage, the panel participants concluded that the most valuable intangible assets were the following: social capital (five top mentions and two priority mentions as being the most important), organizational culture (five top mentions), and legitimacy (four top mentions and two priority mentions). In the third stage, the intangible asset that was located at the lowest‐impact end of the communication axis was intellectual capital, though a high level of public value was also attributed to it; organizational culture was attributed a high level of public value and a medium impact in relation to communication. The following intangible assets were mentioned as providing the most public value and as having the greatest impact on communication: social capital, legitimacy, reputation, engagement, satisfaction, and trust. The discussion that took place between the panelists and the authors of this chapter provided relevant insights related to the topic of the present chapter and, more specifically, to the role of communication in building intangible assets with a public value. First, it was evident that all intangible assets are interrelated and hence cannot be easily singled out or separated. In this respect, some panelists saw social capital as a contextual factor from which other assets such as engagement and trust derive, while for others, legitimacy, engagement, and trust were assets from which others such as reputation and intellectual and social capital derive. Second, all panelists indicated that there is an intrinsic relation between intangible assets and public value: all intangible assets were

Public Sector Communication and Publicly Valuable Intangible Assets

111

located at the top of the axis that measured public value. These public managers take the view that there is no point in building an intangible asset that has no value to society. Third, and looking specifically at the role of communication, intellectual capital and organizational culture were located at the low or medium points on the communication axis based on the argument that these assets are not particularly dependent on people’s perceptions. All the other assets (reputation, satisfaction, social capital, legitimacy, engagement, and trust) were located at the upper end of this axis, and participants placed them there based on the argument that communication is needed to activate these assets in stakeholders’ minds. As one public manager commented, “It is difficult to think of these intangible assets without communication.” Out of the discussion, a conceptualization of communication emerged that corroborates one of the arguments of this chapter: an intangible asset requires both organizational behaviors (actual achievements by public organizations) and activated perceptions (an acknowledgement by end users). The research participants stated that acts represent the strongest form of communication: “We believe that we communicate more through our actions and our public policies than we do through the headlines that are produced based on our press conferences.” They expressed concern about the possibility that citizens see Etorkizuna Eraikiz as a marketing operation, and they indicated a desire to support their messages with behaviors: “It is very important for us to be consistent in our behaviors, vision, mission, deployed tools and actual public policy achievements.” In their attempt to summarize the kind of communication that this organization is undertaking, members of the panel said that they have managed to change the architecture of relationships with their stakeholders. The conclusion to be drawn from this study is that practitioners in this particular context value intangible assets and believe that most of them have great potential to provide public value. They take the view that intangible assets are built through both public policies—that is, actions—and messages. An equation could be established by which building intangible assets with public value can be considered to amount to communicating, lending weight to this chapter’s argument that communication can be the means through which intangible assets contribute to public value. The limitations of the study—including the fact that the assets were specified to participants ahead of time and not mentioned spontaneously by them—naturally prohibit wider conclusions. Nevertheless, the study provides a starting point from which to undertake further analysis of the role of public sector communication in building public‐valued intangible assets.

Critical Issues and Further Research Transferring the idea of intangible assets from the private sector to the public sector will imply adjusting concepts and practices to public sector settings (e.g., the notion of “corporate social responsibility” would need to be replaced with one of “institutional social responsibility”), developing research on assets that have already been “imported” into the public sector—for example, branding (Scammell, 2014)—and extending lines of research to identify, label, and build new intangible assets to respond better to the changing environments in which public sector communication operates today. In merging the literature on public sector intangible assets with that on public value, a key question arises both for scholars and for practitioners: What exactly is a public‐valued intangible asset? Responding to this question implies tackling other important questions—for example: Who is entitled to define what is or is not public value? According to which criteria may they do so? And how much weight should be given to each actor’s judgment? Value‐centered concerns are better addressed through broader and multidisciplinary dialogue, and based on the argument put forward in this chapter, another critical question could be formulated as follows: How can the public relations and corporate communication literature contribute to the challenge identified by Bryson, Sancino, Benington, and Sorensen (2017) of building a more general theory of public value creation?

112

María-José Canel, Vilma Luoma-aho, and Xabier Barandiarán

Tackling these conceptual questions also entails empirical challenges. Hartley et  al. (2017) argue that a much wider array of research methods and designs should be used besides case ­studies. Moreover, a more diverse understanding of stakeholders is needed to break out of the public‐manager‐centric approach. Measures need to offer more than mere diagnoses in order not only to provide a higher strategic capacity to public sector organizations but also to enhance their dialogue with society. A specific challenge is that of elaborating an indicator of public value that would facilitate the elaboration of tools to calibrate gaps between actual public sector performance and perceptions of it. A public value indicator would, in turn, provide better measurements of specific intangible assets. Such an indicator would, for instance, provide measures of intellectual capital that tell us about the extent to which an organization is able to manage knowledge and share it with society; offer measures of engagement that tell us about the ability of a specific government to involve citizens in administrative processes, policy‐making, and coproduction of public services; and deliver measures of social capital that tell about the extent to which a specific governmental program builds or destroys social cohesion. A public value index would help to measure the outcomes of the increasing number of units, activities, practices, and cases that are being developed by public administrations and managers worldwide with the goal of building specific intangible assets, and it would ultimately foster competitiveness among public sector organizations in order to improve the creation of public value.

References Arvidsson, R. (1986). Performance evaluation. In F. Kaufman (Ed.), Guidance, control and evaluation in the public domain berlin. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Belkaoui, A. R. (1992). Accounting theory. London: London Academic Press. Bond, S., & Dent, P. (1998). Efficient management of public sector assets. The call for correct evaluation criteria and techniques. Journal of Property Valuation and Investment, 16(4), 369–385. Bossi, A., Fuertes, Y., & Serrano, C. (2005). Reflexiones en torno a la aplicación del capital intelectual en el sector público. Spanish Journal of Finance and Accounting/Revista Española de Financiación y Contabilidad, 34(124), 211–245. Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Georgetown, DC: Georgetown University Press. Bozeman, B., & Johnson, J. (2015). The political economy of public values. A case for the public sphere and progressive opportunity. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(1), 61–85. Bozeman, B., & Sarewitz, D. (2011). Public value mapping and science policy evaluation. Minerva, 49(1), 1–23. Bracci, E., Deidda, E., & Bigoni, M. (2014). Performance management systems and public value strategy: A case study. In J. Guthrie, G. Marcon, S. Russo, & F. Farneti (Eds.), Public value management, measurement and reporting (pp. 129–157). Bingl: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (Eds.) (2015a). Public value and public administration (pp. 239–283). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2015b). Conclusions. In J. M. Bryson, B. C. Crosby, & L. Bloomberg (Eds.), Public value and public administration (pp. 239–283). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press. Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2015c). Introduction. In Public value and public administration (pp. xvii–xxvi). Georgetown, DC: Georgetown University Press. Bryson, J. M., Sancino, A., Benington, J., & Sorensen, E. (2017). Towards a multi‐actor theory of public value co‐creation. Public Management Review, 19(5), 640–654. Canel, M. J., & Luoma‐aho, V. (2015). Crisis en la Administración Pública, oportunidad para la intangibilidad. In J. Villafañe (Ed.), La Comunicación Empresarial y la Gestión de los Intangibles en España y Latinoamérica (pp. 121–132). Madrid: Gedisa. Canel, M.‐J., & Luoma‐aho, V. (2018). Public sector communication. Closing gaps between citizens and organizations. Boston: Wiley‐Blackwell.

Public Sector Communication and Publicly Valuable Intangible Assets

113

Carpenter, D. (2014). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton University Press. Carpenter, D. P. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies (pp. 1862–1928). Princeton: Princeton University Press. Carpenter, D. P., & Krause, G. A. (2012). Reputation and public administration. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 26–32. Department of Culture and the Arts. (2014). Public value measurement framework. Measuring the quality of the art. Retrieved from http://www.dca.wa.gov.au/Documents/New Research Hub/Research Documents/Public Value/PVMF_Measuring_Quality_Arts_Research_Hub_08_14.pdf, last access 11th December 2018. Edvinsson, L., & Malone, M. S. (1997). Intellectual capital: Realizing your Company’s true value by finding its hidden brainpower. London: Paitkus. Egginton, D. A. (1990). Towards some principles for intangible asset accounting. Accounting and Business Research, 20(79), 193–205. Garnett, J. L., Marlowe, J., & Pandey, S. K. (2008). Penetrating the performance predicament: communication as a mediator or moderator of organizational culture’s impact on public organizational performance. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 266–281. Gelders, D., & Ihlen, Ø. (2010). Government communication about potential policies: Public relations, propaganda or both? Public Relations Review, 36(1), 59–62. Guarini, E. (2014). Measuring public value in bureaucratic settings: opportunities and constraints. In J. Guthrie, G. Marcon, S. Russo, & F. Farneti (Eds.), Public value management, measurement and reporting (pp. 301–319). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Guthrie, J., & Dumay, J. (2015). New frontiers in the use of intellectual capital in the public sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(2), 258–266. Hall, R. (1992). The strategic analysis of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2), 135–144. Hand, J. R. M., & Lev, B. (2003). Intangible assets: Values, measures, and risks: Values, measures, and risks. Oxford University Press. Hanna, S., & Rowley, J. (2013). Place brand practitioners’ perspectives on the management and evaluation of the brand experience. Town Planning Review, 84(4), 495–515. Hartley, J., Alford, J., Knies, E., & Douglas, S. (2017). Towards an empirical research agenda for public value theory. Public Management Review, 19(5), 670–685. Jones, N. B., & Mahon, J. F. (2012). Nimble knowledge transfer in high velocity/turbulent environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(5), 774–788. Jørgensen, T. B., & Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values an inventory. Administration & Society, 39(3), 354–381. Kavaratzis, M., & Hatch, M. J. (2013). The dynamics of place brands an identity‐based approach to place branding theory. Marketing Theory, 13(1), 69–86. Kong, E., & Ramírez, Y. (2010). Intellectual capital models in Spanish public sector. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(2), 248–264. Lev, B. (2001). Intangibles: Management, measurement and reporting. Washington, D.C: Bookings Institution Press. Lev, B., & Daum, J. H. (2004). The dominance of intangible assets: consequences for enterprise management and corporate reporting. Measuring Business Excellence, 8(1), 6–17. Luoma‐aho, V. (2007). Neutral reputation and public sector organizations. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(2), 124–143. Luoma‐aho, V. (2008). Sector reputation and public organisations. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(5), 446–467. Luoma‐aho, V. L., & Makikangas, M. E. (2014). Do public sector mergers (re) shape reputation? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 27(1), 39–52. Maher, M. W., Stickney, C. P., & Weil, R. L. (2012). Managerial accounting: An introduction to concepts. Cengage Learning: Methods and Uses. Meynhardt, T. (2009). Public value inside: what is public value creation? International Journal of Public Administration, 32(3–4), 192–219. Meynhardt, T. (2015). Public value: turning a conceptual framework into a scorecard. In Creating public value in a multi‐sector, shared‐power world. Minneapolis, MN: Georgetown University Press.

114

María-José Canel, Vilma Luoma-aho, and Xabier Barandiarán

Meynhardt, T., & Bartholomes, S. (2011). (De) composing public value: In search of basic dimensions and common ground. International Public Management Journal, 14(3), 284–308. Meynhardt, T., Gomez, P., & Schweizer, M. (2014). The public value scorecard: What makes an organization valuable to society? Performance, 6, 1–8. Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Moore, M. H. (2013). Recognizing public value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Moore, M. H. (2014). Public value accounting: Establishing the philosophical basis. Public Administration Review, 74(4), 465–477. Moore, M. H. (2015). Creating a public value account and scorecard. In J. M. Bryson, B. C. Crosby, & L. Bloomberg (Eds.), Public value and public administration (pp. 110–130). Georgetown: Georgetown University Press. Moynihan, D. P., & Kroll, A. (2015). Performance management routines that work? An early assessment of the GPRA Modernization Act. Public Administration Review. OECD. (1999). Measuring and Reporting Intellectual Capital. Amsterdam: OECD. Retrieved from www. oecd.org, last access 11th December 2018. Page, S., Stone, M., Bryson, J., & Crosby, B. (2015). Public value creation by cross‐sector collaborations: A framework and challenges of assessment. Public Administration, 93(3), 715–732. Petty, R., & Guthrie, J. (2000). Intellectual capital literature review: Measurement, reporting and management. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 1(2), 155–176. Sanders, K., & Canel, M. J. (2013). In K. Sanders & M.‐J. Canel (Eds.), Government Communication.Cases and Challenges (pp. 1–26). London: Bloomsbury. Sánchez, M. P. (2008). Papel de los intangibles y el capital intelectual en la creación y difusión del conocimiento en las organizaciones. Situación actual y retos de futuro. Arbor, 184(732), 575–594. Sanders, K., & Canel, M. J. (2015). Mind the gap: Local government communication strategies and Spanish citizens’ perceptions of their cities. Public Relations Review, 41(5), 777–784. Scammell, M. (2014). Consumer Democracy: The Marketing of Politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Serrano, C., Fuertes, Y., & Molinaro, M. (2003). An approach to the measurement of intangible assets in dot.com. The International Journal of Digital Accounting Research, 3, 6. da Silva, R., & Batista, L. (2007). Boosting government reputation through CRM. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 20(7), 588–607. Sztompka, P. (2000). Cultural trauma: The other face of social change. European Journal of Social Theory, 3(4), 449–466. Talbot, C. (2006). Paradoxes and prospects of public value. Paper presented at Tenth International Research Symposium on Public Management, April 10–12, Glasgow, Scotland. Thomas, J. C. (2013). Citizen, customer, partner: Rethinking the place of the public in public management. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 786–796. Uslaner, E. M. (2010). Trust and the economic crisis of 2008. Corporate Reputation Review, 13(2), 110–123. Waeraas, A., & Byrkjeflot, H. (2012). Public sector organizations and reputation management: Five problems. International Public Management Journal, 15(2), 186–202. Wall, A. (2005). The measurement and management of intellectual capital in the public sector: Taking the lead or waiting for direction? Public Management Review, 7(2), 289–303. Welch, J., Rimes, H., & Bozeman, B. (2015). Public value mapping. In J. Bryson, B. Crosby, & L. Bloomberg (Eds.), Public value and public administration (pp. 131–146). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Whelan, S., Davies, G., Walsh, M., & Bourke, R. (2010). Public sector corporate branding and customer orientation. Journal of Business Research, 63(11), 1164–1171. Yang, K., & Callahan, K. (2005). Assessing citizen involvement efforts by local governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 29(2), 191–216. Yang, K., & Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: Participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 249–264. Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? Public Administration Review, 71(6), 880–892.

7

The Influence of Weber and Taylor on Public Sector Organizations’ Communication Jari Vuori, Kaidi Aher, and Marika Kylänen

Introduction This chapter explores Max Weber’s and Frederick Taylor’s influence on the communication undertaken by public sector organizations. Across the world, such organizations find themselves between two paradigms, namely bureaucracy and scientific management, which later inspired new public management (NPM). Both bureaucracy and scientific management have been used in public sector organizations for over a century, and during this time they have become global phenomena. Most governments around the world have been affected by bureaucracy, as the quantity of articles published on it globally indicates: it has been studied in Europe, the United States, Africa, Australia, and elsewhere. Taylorism has also traveled quite far as a principle, having influenced the development of benchmarking, strategic management, and NPM. NPM, which has incorporated many of the principles and values of Taylor’s scientific management, has been seen as a serious rival to bureaucracy in public sector organizations in recent decades, but it has been criticized just as heavily. For example, according to Du Gay (2005): The idea, often propagated in the more dramatic of new public management texts, of a single, universal (and now obsolete) bureaucratic regime of public administration is as implausible as the solution proffered to this illusory problem: a global recipe which will deliver a form of ‘post‐bureaucratic,’ ‘entrepreneurial’ government that is always and everywhere ‘best in world.’

Both Weber and Taylor pioneered classical organization theory and sought the most efficient method of performing tasks. Taylor saw the effective state as one in which experts determined the single best way of working and standardized that method. Weber is considered the father of bureaucracy, which for him was the most rational form of state administration. While Taylorian communication is productivity driven, Weberian communication is primarily concerned with procedures. Both believe in order and rules in specialized, hierarchical, and formal management processes and a rigid line of communication.

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

116

Jari Vuori, Kaidi Aher, and Marika Kylänen

Why is it relevant for public sector communication researchers to discuss Weber’s and Taylor’s organizational principles, values, and approaches to communication? There is a global expectation for public sector organizations to change from having power over citizens to having power with them (Follett, 1919; Thomas, 2013). This creates new challenges for public sector communication. Therefore, it is important for public sector organizations to understand and think through their Weberian and Tayloristic heritage in order to keep the parts that are necessary for keeping the public organization effective, but they also need to rethink the parts that may keep them from responding efficiently to the challenges posed by our current society and from developing flexible and inclusive communication. Given that public sector organizations around the world have incorporated the principles of bureaucracy and scientific management into their organizational culture at every level of administration, it is valuable to understand these principles and their possible effects on the communication of public sector organizations. Since both these systems were developed about a hundred years ago for very different societies in which mass communication was the norm, it is necessary to explore the influence of these systems on public sector communication in today’s world, which has moved toward more fragmented communication systems and fast‐paced change in all areas of life. The chapter begins this exploration with a short overview of the principles of Weber and Taylor and the ways in which they have influenced communication in the public sector. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the findings and some suggestions for further research.

Weber and Taylor in Public Sector Communication What Is Taylorian Scientific Management? The scientific management of Frederick W. Taylor focuses on the mechanistic characteristics of management. Taylor built on the ideas of the economist Adam Smith (1776), who believed that productivity depends on the skill of the labor force, the division of labor, and the proportion of productive and unproductive labor. Taylor intended to use scientific laws to build a management system characterized by efficiency and standardization in which savings were the ultimate organizational goals (Taylor, 1911). Taylorism aims to: achieve maximum job fragmentation to minimize skill requirements and job learning time; separate execution of work from planning; separate direct labor from indirect labor; replace rule‐of‐thumb productivity estimates with precise measurements; introduce time and motion studies for optimal job performance, cost accounting, and tool and work station design; and make payment by results possible in wage determination (Taylor, 1911). There are four main principles of scientific management: 1 There is one best way to do every job. 2 Emphasis is placed on the proper selection of workers for the job and on employee training. 3 If workers do not meet the expectations set for their position, they should either be transferred to a more suitable position or simply be dismissed. 4 Managers as planners are suited to thinking, while workers are best at labor (Taylor, 1911). Taylor hoped for the principles of scientific management to be applied in all kinds of organizations, including homes, farms, businesses, churches, philanthropic institutions, universities, and governmental departments (Taylor, 1911, p. 8). Already in the 1910s, Taylorism undoubtedly transformed work in post offices, on railways, and in other governmental departments across the world (see, e.g., Brandeis, 1911; Cooke, 1915; Hopkins, 1912).

The Influence of Weber and Taylor on Public Sector Organizations’ Communication

117

Taylor’s system of scientific management can be considered the cornerstone of classical theory, and figures such as Fayol and Weber both refer to Taylor in their writings as a pioneer and a visionary of organization management (Modaff & DeWine, 2002). Many of Taylor’s principles are still used in the organization, which has a preoccupation with efficiency, and they have been further developed in strategic management and NPM. For example, Stoney (2001) supports Braverman’s (1974) contention that Taylorism is not a failed system superseded by more sophisticated behavioral theories, but he also agrees that modern forms of management are more complex than the methods conceived by Taylor. According to Stoney, “Strategic management is not ‘super Taylorism,’ nor should it be seen as ‘son’ of scientific management, but there are sufficient parallels to illustrate the durability of Taylor’s thinking in the modern management context” (Stoney, 2001, p. 41). Kuipers et al. (2014) claim that with the implementation of NPM business values such as efficiency can take precedence over more traditional public values in the public sector. Therefore, it is possible to surmise from these examples that scientific management principles are still used in many organizations, albeit with different names and slightly changed principles. In Western economies, austerity is an important influence on public sector organizations. It was expected that efficiency would improve in all public sector organizations following the wave of privatization that occurred in the 1980s. Citizens’ funding for the public sector is decreasing year by year in aging societies. Taxpayers are expecting greater value for money at the same time as the tax base is drying up. More and more people are turning to new ways of working, such as self‐employment and international Internet‐based work, making the collection of taxes more difficult. Many jobs can be outsourced to employees in other countries, and income can be earned from around the world through blogging, selling handicrafts on eBay, or renting out apartments through Airbnb. Most countries have not yet worked out ways to tax these new types of work. Therefore, the principles of scientific management, which are mainly concerned with efficiency and cutting costs, can be very appealing to public sector managers, who must wrestle with never‐ending demands for austerity. However, a focus on cost efficiency and performance management in the public sector has been heavily criticized, and it does not have a good track record. For example, an analysis of 49 empirical studies of performance reforms from 2000 to 2014 found the reforms to have had a small impact, with only some positive exceptions (Gerrish, 2015).

Scientific Management and Communication In the first three decades of the twentieth century, most organizations followed formal and authority‐driven communication channels such as the chain of command. Under such an approach, authority and information in organizations were supposed to flow from managers downward and accountability from employees upward in a highly formalized way (e.g., through the use of rules and orders.). Taylor believed that a formalized division of labor was the best way to increase efficiency in decision‐making and productivity. Hence, in scientific management, communication ideally needed to be task related, focused on a specific work process, and placed under the control of the individual at work and his or her immediate manager. The communication channels of supervisors and employees were supposed to operate on a face‐to‐face basis, but they were also supposed to be vertical and based on employees’ written manuals and rules. Communication was not a concern at the level of the organization. Instead, its scope was considered to be restricted to the relationship between employees and managers with power over employees. It was management’s job to provide clear and unambiguous goals so that it was possible for workers to concentrate wholly on carrying out the required task (Clegg & Dunkerley, 1980, p. 88). By distinguishing between conception and execution, Taylor envisaged the systematization of management and advocated that managers should adopt the

118

Jari Vuori, Kaidi Aher, and Marika Kylänen

role of “generalized wiseman” because they had the vision to understand what was good for workers (Clegg & Dunkerley, 1980, p. 90). Taylor has been heavily criticized for his disdainful attitude toward workers, since he believed that only managers need to be intelligent and that workers are and should remain ignorant (Modaff & DeWine, 2002). Therefore, in scientific management, the manager was supposed to plan every single detail of the work, communicate this plan to the worker, and train him or her in this task. Communication was meant to flow only one way, from manager to worker, with no input needed from workers. As a result, employees became seen as commodities, and they were not given the chance to use their full brain capacity (Modaff & DeWine, 2002). It could be argued that, around the world, some public sector managers still communicate with employees using principles borrowed from scientific management as it was first introduced by Taylor and later applied in milder form alongside strategic management (Stoney, 2001) and NPM theories to increase efficiency. The search for efficiency and leaner systems puts a lot of pressure on managers, and in some instances it can lead to an authoritarian management style and rigid communication. Responsive and successful public sector communication is considered crucial to the survival of public sector organizations, policy makers, and professionals. According to Canel and Luoma‐ aho (2015), communication is about leadership and influence, with communication shaping public sector management through engagement. Therefore, if the organization has managers who undervalue communication, distrust employees’ intellectual abilities, and adhere to rigid principles of control, this can have detrimental effects throughout the organization.

What Is Weberian Bureaucracy? In Weber’s original definition, bureaucracy is the most rational, efficient, powerful, and hierarchical apparatus of state administration. Bureaucracy is an idealized form of organization whose characteristics include a clear division of labor, hierarchical control, promotion by merit with career opportunities for employees, and administration by rule (Weber, 1947). Weber never claimed that the “ideal type of bureaucracy” is best, but he did believe that bureaucratic organizations would prevail in society because of their technical efficiency (Swedberg & Agewall 2005). In brief, the six core principles of ideal bureaucracy are span of control, hierarchy, rules, impersonality, fixed salary, and technical competence (for more detail, see Weber, 1947, pp. 231–232, cf. Miller, 2015). It must be realized that bureaucracy is not singular. Rather, according to many authors, it has become a diverse and evolving organizational device (Courpasson, 2000; Du Gay, 2005; Kallinikos, 2004). Different countries have developed distinct bureaucratic administrative apparatuses. Therefore, it is always necessary to be precise about which bureaucratic ethics, comportments, or capacities one is trying to defend or criticize (Du Gay, 2005). For example, this article focuses on the influence of the bureaucratic values of hierarchies, authority, rules, and impersonality on an organization’s communication. Bureaucracy has been criticized a lot by social theorists and management specialists, and some have even gone as far as to imply that bureaucracy has become obsolete and should not be used in contemporary organizations (see, e.g., Castells, 1996; Giddens, 1998; Peters, 1989). Bureaucracy has also been criticized, especially by system theorists, for not fitting environments with high degrees of unpredictability and instability and for stifling creativity and innovation (see, e.g., Burns & Stalker, 1962). However, there are also those who argue that bureaucracy is not obsolete and that it might be worthwhile to reconsider and rediscover bureaucracy (see Olsen, 2006). According to Evans and Rauch (1999), merit‐based bureaucracy fosters economic growth and is associated with low corruption. General rules can create trust in public sector organizations, if they are implemented impartially and without corruption (Rothstein, 2003). According to Olsen (2006, p. 18), “Bureaucratic

The Influence of Weber and Taylor on Public Sector Organizations’ Communication

119

organization is part of a repertoire of overlapping, supplementary, and competing forms coexisting in contemporary democracies, and so are market organization and network organization.” Several authors defend bureaucracy as a responsible and effective system of governance. Alvesson and Thompson (2004) indicate that bureaucracy is still flourishing in organizations and is simply changing and hybridizing. Jaques (1976) claims that bureaucracy is the best way of achieving results, because among all forms of organizations it is the only one to take into account size, complexity, and the need for accountability. In addition, according to Thompson and Alvesson (2005), although bureaucracies may possess many virtues, it is necessary for any discussion of them to be sensitive to context and delimited in terms of what claims can meaningfully be made, and explanations and attitudes must be evaluated in terms of the interplay of the ideologies, interests, and practices of different actors.

Bureaucracy and Communication The foundation for most public sector organizations is Weber’s bureaucracy, which has strongly influenced public sector values and organizational culture all around the world. For example, a study conducted by Parker and Bradley (2000) found that public sector organizations continue to emphasize values grounded in bureaucratic (hierarchical) organizational culture. While bureaucracy has its merits as a clear and efficient organization system, hierarchies and written rules can make it complicated to ensure flexible and inclusive communication in public sector organizations. In Max Weber’s ideal type of bureaucracy, communication was highly formalized. Weberian public sector communication is impersonal and formal, using hierarchical layers with written communication. The principles of the ideal type of bureaucracy emphasize formal communication channels, and organization members’ conduct is derived from the structures defined by the organization’s power and pattern of authority concentration (see La Porte, 1971, p. 42). Weber says that the characteristics of bureaucracy, as generally ordered by rules, laws, or administrative regulations, exist in public sector organizations as “bureaucratic authority” and in private organizations as “bureaucratic management” (La Porte, 1971, p. 77). In bureaucratic organizations, a manager informs employees or public servants in advance about the approach to work that they must take and requires them to accept that approach. As previously noted, Taylor also promotes a similar approach in his scientific management. Good communication may need a certain amount of creativity and flexibility to make sure that messages reach all relevant stakeholders. Such qualities can be difficult to maintain in a traditional bureaucracy. Landry and Caust (2017) have put forward the idea of a “creative bureaucracy,” within which they claim that bureaucracies should shift to involving their stakeholders more, switch to network thinking, and break down traditional disciplinary boundaries to create conditions that better harness the imaginations, creativity, and competences of public sector employees. This approach might also be valuable for public sector communicators. In rigidly hierarchical and overly regulated organizations, it can be very difficult or nearly impossible to speak out, even over important issues. This can cause employee dissatisfaction, and communication crises may arise if suppressed information leaks out in the wrong context. According to Hugman (2012), a considerable body of literature records the extent to which open communication about risk in healthcare is suppressed and the way in which fear of speaking up, even amongst senior personnel and in all kinds of organizations, threatens safety and produces ethical problems in many human activities. Another issue related to communication and bureaucracy is the heavy reliance of bureaucratic organizations on dense and lengthy documentation, which can be difficult for citizens to understand and make sense of. The European Union has started a clear communication campaign, in which it tries to teach civil servants to use clearer and more precise language and shorter texts that are easier for citizens to understand. Many countries are trying to make the language used in

120

Jari Vuori, Kaidi Aher, and Marika Kylänen

legislation and governance easier for citizens to follow and understand; examples here include Finland and Estonia. This should lead to fewer barriers between the state and its citizens and increase possibilities for citizens to be included in governance and in developing new legislation. Bureaucracies tend to embrace meetings, which can waste a lot of time and resources if they are conducted ineffectively. According to Hugman (2012, p. 1016), “Meetings consume vast numbers of staff hours and burn stacks of cash. They often have similarly demotivating and stress‐inducing effects as paperwork in pursuit of productivity gains which range from substantial to zero.” Organizations need to be flexible and react quickly to their environments, and so they may need to rethink their communication systems and make sure that meetings are efficient and useful. When communication and bureaucracy are under consideration, it is also necessary to discuss crisis communication, since all organizations may run into crises. According to Hugman (2012, p. 1008): Ponderous responses can be seen vividly in the extreme circumstances of crisis when rigid organizations are shown to be incapable of fleet‐footed reaction to fast‐moving events and of responding effectively to the urgent communications, emotional and other needs of multiple audiences. Even when crisis plans exist, disasters almost always require improvisation and creativity which no bureaucratic Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) can provide for.

During a crisis, it can be very damaging to the organization if it responds too slowly or gives off an impression of hiding facts or being dishonest. Hugman (2012) lists the major issues in bureaucratic communications as follows: the ethics of public communications, especially when it comes to transparency; the integrity of the information on which risk messages are based; and the social context in which they are delivered. Relying too heavily on a hierarchical bureaucratic communications system in a crisis situation can make the organization look as if it is trying to hide something, because it may not be able to respond quickly enough to developments, or it may have overly rigid rules about who can give out information. As Hugman (2012, p. 1013) points out: “The naive bureaucratic view of risk communication (provide ‘one size fits all’ information, for example tick boxes or complex and time‐consuming forms) illustrates this implacable deficiency of technocratic management of problems with profound human and social dimensions.”

The Influence of Taylor and Weber on Public Sector Communication The particular organizational and communicational context at a given time can influence both the organization’s level of publicness and privateness and the communication activities required to ensure citizens’ welfare. Taxpayers, politicians, investors, and stakeholders in Western societies pressure all organizations to do more with less and to continuously and publicly explain their decisions and choices. About a hundred years ago, when Weber’s and Taylor’s ideas were first introduced, the core discipline of Taylorism was industrial engineering and management, whereas Weber’s thought has its scientific roots in administrative and political sciences and organizational sociology. At that time rigid, hierarchical, and rule‐based communication in organizations was the norm, and societies mainly used mass communication methods. Around the 1960s, the role of citizens and a client‐based focus were seriously heeded for the very first time in the context of public services, and private organizations moved from questions of production volumes to ones of product quality (e.g., quality management). In short, people buy and sell goods and services in global markets and based on the knowledge available to them. Thus, in this time period economic restructuring aimed at turning an industrial society into a service‐based one and governments’ willingness to privatize public services for the very first time worldwide have produced new challenges for public sector communication. The value

The Influence of Weber and Taylor on Public Sector Organizations’ Communication

121

of ­communication inside organizations was first acknowledged and developed in contributions such as Likert’s four management systems theory (1961). Later, as the application of information systems in the public sector (e.g., egovernment) became more prevalent (see, e.g., Reddick, 2012), the role of citizens’ participation and responsibility were strengthened. Moreover, private companies tried to increase productivity and quality using information technology, and process automation communication became increasingly important, with citizens demanding more involvement and more access to information. With the recent introduction of robots, increasing digitalization, and self‐designed services, public sector communication has needed to change dramatically. And public interests concerning climate change, population structures, and migrations of peoples have seriously challenged all kinds of organizations and their representatives. All public sector organizations have been expected to improve their efficiency since the wave of privatization that began in the 1980s. Citizens expect their governments to undertake transparent, inclusive, and timely communication. At the same time, society is increasingly complex, fast paced, and challenging for communication managers. According to rational‐legal authority, policy makers can seldom make decisions that benefit all, and it is important to clearly communicate the need for changes. When change is introduced in an organization, it is important to have a transformational leadership style and clear communication in order to have employees participate in the implementation of change (Van der Voet, Kuipers, & Groeneveld, 2015). This becomes even more important when attempts are made to implement changes or innovation in society as a whole. The public sector is under a lot of pressure to constantly change. According to the public sector literature, many different kinds of change are taking place in the sector—for example, innovative change (the introduction of new technologies, management styles, and ways of working), restructuring change, transformational change, changes due to austerity measures, politically driven change, and changes in organizational culture (see Brown, Waterhouse, & Flynn, 2003; Driscoll & Morris, 2001; Gauld, 2003; McHugh, 1997; Morley & Vilkinas, 1997; Parker & Bradley, 2000). Since both Weberian bureaucracy and Taylor’s scientific management are very rigid in their approach to communication, undue reliance on these methods can stop the public sector from adapting fast enough to implement the changes needed in today’s information society. Change process also calls for more flexible, trust‐based communication, which is difficult to find in organizations that use Weberian or Tayloristic principles. Quite a few authors have pointed out that public sector organizations will remain fragile while there exist the illusions that change can be controlled via merely giving orders and that ex post adaptations are enough (Bourgon, 2009, 2011; Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2018). According to Canel and Sanders (2012), the complex and diverse structures of public sector organizations can make it difficult for lower‐level employees or citizens to understand or implement change objectives. Using the rigid communication lines of bureaucratic communication can make the speed of decision making in change processes much slower. In addition, rigid bureaucracy and adherence to scientific management principles make it much harder for both the employees and stakeholders to make sense of changes. Pollitt and Bouckaert (2011) list the legal context (bureaucracy and legislation) as one of the five forces that affect change in public sector organizations, so the level of bureaucracy in an organization can influence its efforts to bring about change and its ability to communicate its key change messages. In bureaucracies, rules, policy, and orders come from the top, and this makes the organization vulnerable to all the risks of flaws arising from autocratic, managerial, paternalistic, or hierarchical prejudices (Hugman, 2012). These risks can often be lessened in organizations with more dynamic and participatory cultures. According to Hugman (2012), Such topdown imposition inevitably meets a range of significant obstacles to smooth implementation, especially when it challenges ‘the way we do things round here,’ is unpopular, is under‐ resourced, appears out of touch with the demands of day‐to‐day operation or is practically unenforceable.

122

Jari Vuori, Kaidi Aher, and Marika Kylänen

Responsive and successful public sector communication is crucial to the survival of public sector organizations, policymakers, and professionals. As Lynn, Heinrich, and Hill (2001, p. 3) ask, “Can government improve its performance continuously so that citizens … and their elected representatives once again view their governments in a positive light?” If people, citizens, and profit and nonprofit organizations lose trust in public sector representatives, it becomes nearly impossible to have inclusive public communication. The Weberian top‐down model of formal communication can inhibit the understanding between public sector organizations and their stakeholders. While citizens are increasingly coproducers of public services, they need open, friendly, and inclusive communication. This chapter has argued that public sector organizations should examine their bureaucratic rules with a view to finding ways to communicate clearly with stakeholders, increase inclusiveness, and place the welfare of citizens at the core of their activities. It follows that public sector organizations that have embraced the ideas of Taylor and Weber indiscriminatingly in their organizational culture can create many challenges for their communication team both inside and outside the organization. Hopefully, this short overview contributes to identifying possible problems and finding ways to solve them.

Conclusion and Suggestions for Further Research Most public sector organizations have been built on the foundation of Weber’s bureaucracy. Moreover, having focused on productivity for years, public sector organizations have become increasingly dependent on the scientific management paradigm. While many of the principles of bureaucracy and scientific management are still useful in order to maintain an efficient, transparent, and rule‐based public sector, there are also negative side effects, especially for communication. An excess of bureaucratic hierarchical processes and too much focus on austerity and efficiency can cause serious obstacles for humane, effective, transparent, and flexible communication. A very important part of public sector communication is the building of citizen engagement. As societies become more networked and pluralistic, public sector policymakers, public managers, and public relations officials need to understand the new forms of communication required for personalized public services, egovernment, self‐organized eservices, and so on. Since these new forms of communication require flexibility and the ability to adapt quickly, it is especially important to be aware of bureaucracy and scientific management principles, which may bring unnecessary rigidity to the communication processes of public sector organizations, and to make public sector communication more open, flexible, and inclusive. Weber saw citizens as passive and dependent for their welfare on public administration. Citizens were expected to abide by public rules and to be grateful for the benefits and services that they received from the state. This view bears little relation to citizen behavior in Europe, the United States, and many other countries nowadays, where people are actively demanding their right to take part in public decision making and often take state‐provided benefits for granted. To a large extent, public sector organizations have changed into service providers, with the next step being coproduction and cocreation of value (see, e.g., Osborne, Radnor, & Strokosch, 2016). This change has turned citizens into consumers who are increasingly demanding when it comes to public sectors and governments. Therefore, public sector communication faces the additional challenges of finding new and inclusive ways to communicate and of preventing the demands of “citizen‐consumers” from leading to communication crises for public sector organizations. Nowadays, public services are seen as having to bring about outcomes that citizens deem to be valuable (Bovaird & Loeffler, 2012). This means that public sector organizations need to find out what their citizens need and want and to package their services accordingly, forcing them to put more effort into both continuous and open communication with their stakeholders and

The Influence of Weber and Taylor on Public Sector Organizations’ Communication

123

reputation management. Bovaird and Loeffler also argue that there has been a shift from “public services for the public” toward “public services by the public” that would represent the public interest instead of the narrower interest of public service consumers. It is a serious challenge for public sector organizations to maintain all that is valuable in bureaucracy and scientific management while retaining the flexibility and creativity required to ensure good and open communications. It might be interesting to explore further how to achieve this from a communication perspective. There are many possibilities for investigating this further and bringing out the best practices globally. Given that bureaucracy and scientific management have been adapted and used in different ways around the world, it would be interesting to implement some comparative studies to find the best ways to communicate within these frameworks. Another important question is the following: As bureaucracy and scientific management may no longer be the best management styles for public sector organizations, what would be the most ideal management style to promote more flexible, adaptive, and inclusive communication in the public sector? In addition, it might be interesting to study how communication can help in changing the bureaucratic‐ and efficiency‐based organizational culture prevalent in public sector organizations. With the world around us changing constantly, it is useful to reflect on where many of the principles and values embedded in the organizational cultures of many public sector organizations actually come from. Such reflection will allow organizations to keep adapting bureaucratic and management principles according to the demands placed on them by society and citizens and to better meet the different challenges in public sector communication.

References Alvesson, M., & Thompson, P. (2004). Post‐bureaucracy? In S. Ackroyd, R. Batt, P. Thompson, & P. Tolbert (Eds.), A handbook of work and organisation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https:// doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199299249.003.0025 Bourgon, J. (2009). New directions in public administration: Serving beyond the predictable. Public Policy and Administration, 24 (3), 309–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076709103813 Bourgon, J. (2011). A new synthesis of public administration: Serving in the 21st century. Washington, DC: McGill Queen’s Press, MQUP. Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2012). From engagement to co‐production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. Voluntas, 23, 1119–1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11266‐012‐9309‐6 Brandeis, L. D. (1911). Scientific management and railroads. New York, NY: The Engineering Magazine Co. Braverman, H. (1974). Labour and monopoly capital. London, UK, and New York, NY: Monthly Review Press. Brown, K., Waterhouse, J., & Flynn, C. (2003). Change management practices: Is a hybrid model a better alternative for public sector agencies? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 16(3), 230–241. Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1962). The management of innovation. London, UK: Tavistock Publications. Canel, M., & Luoma‐aho, V. (2015). Building intangible assets in the public sector: An introduction. In Introductory paper for the ICA preconference “public sector communication – The challenge of building intangible assets”, sponsored by Political Communication Division & Public Relations Division, San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 21st 2015 (pp. 1–13). Puerto Rico: International Communication Association. Canel, M., & Luoma‐aho, V. (2018). Public sector communication. Closing gaps between public sector organizations and citizens. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Canel, M. J., & Sanders, K. (2012). Government communication: An emerging field in political communication research. In H. Semetko & M. Scammell (Eds.), The Sage handbook of political communication (pp. 85–96). London, UK: Sage. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Clegg, S., & Dunkerley, D. (1980). Organisation, class and control. London, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

124

Jari Vuori, Kaidi Aher, and Marika Kylänen

Cooke, M. L. (1915). Scientific management of the public business. American Political Science Review, 9(3), 488–495. Courpasson, D. (2000). Managerial strategies of domination. Power in soft bureaucracies. Organization Studies, 21(1), 141–161. Driscoll, A., & Morris, J. (2001). Stepping out: Rhetorical devices and culture change management in the UK civil service. Public Administration, 79(4), 803–824. Du Gay, P. (2005). The values of bureaucracy. Oxford: OUP Oxford. Evans, P., & Rauch, J. (1999). Bureaucracy and growth: A cross‐national analysis of the effects of “Weberian” state structures on economic growth. American Sociological Review, 64(4), 748–765. Follett, M. P. (1919). Community is a process. Philosophical Review, 38(11), 576–588. Gauld, R. (2003). The impact on officials of public sector restructuring: The case of the New Zealand health funding authority. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 16(4/5), 303–319. Gerrish, E. (2015). The impact of performance management on performance in public organizations: A meta‐analysis. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 48–66. Giddens, A. (1998). The third way. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hopkins, G. B. (1912). The New York Bureau of municipal research. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 41, 235–244. Hugman, B. (2012). Protecting the people? Risk communication and the chequered history and performance of bureaucracy. Drug Safety, 35(11), 1005–1025. Jaques, E. (1976). A general theory of bureaucracy. London, UK: Heinemann/Halsted Press. Kallinikos, J. (2004). The social foundations of the bureaucratic order. Organization, 11(1), 13–36. Kuipers, B. S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J., & Van Der Voet, J. (2014). The management of change in public organizations: A literature review. Public Administration, 92(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12040 La Porte, T. R. (1971). The recovery of relevance in the study of public organizations. In F. Marini (Ed.), Toward a new public administration. The Minnowbrook perspective (pp. 17–47). New York, NY: Chandler Company. Landry, C., & Caust, M. (2017). The creative bureaucracy & its radical common sense. Gloucestershire, UK: Comedia. Likert, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw‐Hill. Lynn, L. E., Heinrich, C. J., & Hill, C. J. (2001). Improving governance: A new logic for empirical research. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. McHugh, M. (1997). Trouble in paradise disintegrated strategic change within a government agency. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 10(6), 433–443. Miller, K. (2015). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. Modaff, D. P., & DeWine, S. (2002). Organizational communication. Foundations, challenges, misunderstandings. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishing Company. Morley, K., & Vilkinas, T. (1997). Public sector executive development in Australia: 2000 and beyond. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 10(6), 401–416. Olsen, J. P. (2006). Maybe it is time to rediscover Bureucracy. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 16, 1–24. Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co‐production and the co‐creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18(5), 639–653. https://doi.org /10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927 Parker, R., & Bradley, L. (2000). Organisational culture in the public sector: Evidence from six organisations. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 13(2/3), 125–141. Peters, T. (1989). Thriving on chaos. London, UK: Pan Books. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis: New public management, governance, and the NeoWeberian state. London, UK: Oxford University Press. Reddick, G. C. (2012). Public administration and information technology. Burlington, MA: Jones & Barlett Learning. Rothstein, B. (2003). Social capital, economic growth and quality of government: The causal mechanism. New Political Economy, 8(1), 49–71. Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry to into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London: Strahan and T. Cadell.

The Influence of Weber and Taylor on Public Sector Organizations’ Communication

125

Stoney, C. (2001). Strategic management or strategic Taylorism?: A case study into change within a UK local authority. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 14(1), 27–42. Swedberg, R., & Agevall, O. (2005). The max Weber dictionary: Key words and central concepts. Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Sciences, Stanford University Press. Taylor, F. (1911/1947). The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Harpers & Brothers. Thomas, J. C. (2013). Citizen, customer, partner: Rethinking the place of the public in public management. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 786–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12109 Thompson, P., & Alvesson, M. (2005). Bureaucracy at work: Misunderstandings and mixed blessings. In P. Du Gay (Ed.), The values of bureaucracy (pp. 89–115). Oxford: OUP Oxford. Van der Voet, J., Kuipers, B., & Groeneveld, S. (2015). Held back and pushed forward: Leading change in a complex public sector environment. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 290–300. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Oxford University Press.

8

Formal and Functional Social Exchange Relationships in the Public Sector Ben Farr‐Wharton, Yvonne Brunetto, and Kate Shacklock

Introduction Public sector communication refers to the exchanges that occur between the people responsible for public administration, governance, policy and service delivery, and the broader public whom they serve. This chapter focuses on the behavioral elements that shape, and are shaped by, public sector communication. Published studies that focus on behavioral elements of public administration are few in number when compared with more prominent themes like policy analysis, networks, and modeling. This presents a void in the literature, since trail‐blazing scholars, such as Herbert Simon, Dwight Waldo, Michael Lipsky, and their contemporaries, have positioned the behavior and psychology of front‐line public sector employees as fundamental lynchpins between policy intentions and desired outcomes (such as delivering public value). Building on Lipsky’s (1980) “street level bureaucrat” theory, the chapter herein highlights the power of front‐line public sector employees, through their communication, in diluting or ruining “good intentions” (policy or service directives) or innovating, enhancing, and improving ill‐conceived plans through autonomous decision‐making. To explore these issues, the chapter examines social exchange relationships, because such relationships underpin the pathways and networks through which communication takes place. The seminal role of certain social exchange relationships is acknowledged in facilitating either functional or dysfunctional outcomes in public sector environments, the most notable of which may be the relationship between a front‐line government employee and his/her immediate line manager (Dulebohn, Bommer, Liden, Brouer, & Ferris, 2012). The delivery of effective public ­service is challenging when there is under‐resourcing and government cutbacks. When communication, via supervisor–employee relationships, can assist to enhance public sector outcomes, then it is of great interest to public sector organizations and their management. For example, the quality of communication between the organization (managers/supervisors) and employees is the vehicle through which effective social exchanges are either developed or stymied (Brunetto, Farr‐Wharton, & Shacklock, 2012). If social exchanges are positive and productive, a platform of mutually reciprocal outcomes (such as higher employee performance,

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

128

Ben Farr-Wharton, Yvonne Brunetto, and Kate Shacklock

leading to greater organizational effectiveness) becomes a possibility (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). In particular, Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005, p. 887) argued: The degree to which people and cultures apply reciprocity principles varies. Clearly, further investigations of how exchange orientation influences organizational relationships are of great importance.

To respond to this call for further investigations, the chapter explores the prominent dimensions that social exchanges take in public sector contexts, noting the impact that context has on shaping the kinds of relationships formed between public employees. In so doing, evidence is presented, emanating from a significant body of work amassed over almost 15 years, concerning the way that public organizations and their employees operate, and the impact of this on one form of communication (social exchange relationships). Through this, the chapter contributes to the emerging field of behavioral public administration (see Grimmelikhuijsen, Jilke, Leth Olsen, & Tummers, 2016), and a behavioral understanding of communication and its consequences, at the individual level of analysis of public organizations. The chapter concludes with a postulation regarding the future needs for research in the field.

Supervisor–Subordinate Communication Relationships The supervisor–subordinate communication relationship comprises four communication constructs capturing the frequency, mode, content, and flow of communication (Johlke & Duhan, 2000). The frequency of communication is the quantity of interactions between supervisors and subordinates, and this determines the quality of the relationship that develops (Kacmar, Witt, Zivnuska, & Gully, 2003). The mode of communication concerns the development of an effective supervisor–subordinate relationship, which depends on whether formal or informal modes of communication are used. Formal communication processes refer to hierarchical means of communications, such as organizational documents and manuals, or addresses by the CEO or manager. In contrast, informal communications that involve a two‐way communication process, such as office conversations or informal meetings that permit two‐way conversations, more quickly build effective workplace relationships between supervisors and subordinates (Johlke & Duhan, 2000). The content of communication refers to the direct or indirect nature of communication. Indirect communication strategies refer to supervisor practices that empower employees by sharing responsibility and decision‐making and involve open communication channels so that employees’ ideas can be heard and discussed. Direct means of communication involve supervisors using their hierarchical power to ensure a command style of communication, which is likely to suppress the development of an effective supervisor–subordinate relationship (Fisher, Maltz, & Jaworski, 1997). The flow of communication is embedded within the supervisor–subordinate relationship. Relationships between supervisors and subordinates build when there are embedded bicommunication mechanisms, so that employees are able to ask questions, make suggestions, and ­generally interact in the workplace (Gray & Laidlaw, 2002). Based on the literature, using all four constructs suggests quality relationships can be expected to build when the workplace is characterized by frequent and informal communication, using indirect means that facilitate bidirectional communication between supervisors and their subordinates. It is the combination of these particular constructs of communication, and used within social exchange relationships, that is this chapter’s focus.

Formal and Functional Social Exchange Relationships in the Public Sector

129

Social Exchange as Pathways in Public Organizations Social exchanges comprise the interactions that generate perceived obligations between people. The type of relationship formed, in addition to the actors and agents who form the relationship, affect its quality (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Past research indicates that the context (i.e., public, not‐for‐profit or private; organization type) cannot be ignored in shaping social exchange relationships (Brunetto, Xerri, Nelson, & Farr‐Wharton, 2016; Vecchi, Farr‐Wharton, Brusoni, & Farr‐Wharton, 2015; Xerri & Brunetto, 2013). Social exchange theory (SET) proposes that the quality of relationships (ranging between high and low, as reported by the actors) between actors involved in an activity, is influential in determining a positive outcome. Research has highlighted that these “softer” exchange pathways are significant in generating desired outcomes, particularly in light of a reported weak link between “harder” systems, such as bureaucracies, and organizational performance measures (Guest, 2011; Nishii, Lepak, & Schneider, 2008). One reason for this is that, when people form positive and productive relationships, all parties receive benefits that flow from mutual obligation and reciprocity (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005; Graen & Uhl‐Bien, 1995). Scholars acknowledge that within organizations, the quality of relationships is a product of the communication pathways and interactions that occur within formal reporting structures and teams, in addition to informal organizational networks (Graen & Uhl‐Bien, 1995; de Ruyter & Wtzels, 2000). Communication is the key here, and is ­optimized when the mode of communication is more informal, the content is indirect (allowing employees to be empowered), there is bidirectional flow, and the frequency matches both parties’ needs. Over the last 15 years, groups of public management scholars have examined the impact of particular exchange relationships, and how these relationships are similar or different across public, private, and third‐sector contexts, across different professions, and across different countries. What is presented in the chapter herein are informed assertions and overarching claims stemming from this significant body of work, incorporating comparative and benchmarking studies, which have led to insights concerning not just the organizational, but also the contextual, contingencies that lead to the formation of different dimensions of exchange relationships, and the impact of these upon desired outcomes. Drawing from this literature, the following conceptual model (Figure 8.1) is posited to capture the dimensions of exchange relationships as they present in public organizations.

Antecedents

Degree of Relational Formality

Labor Type (e.g., professional/non professional)

Institutional Contingencies

Workplace Relationships and Communication (frequency, mode, content, and flow)

Consequences

Public Value Outcomes

Employee Outcomes

(e.g., NPM)

Degree of Relational Functionality

Figure 8.1  Conceptual model, social exchange relationships in the public sector.

130

Ben Farr-Wharton, Yvonne Brunetto, and Kate Shacklock

In Figure 8.1, the antecedents comprise the contextually bound contingencies at the labor‐ type level, and more broadly at the institutional/public sector level. Labor‐type contingencies primarily refer to the organizational field‐level influences specific to the kind of employees local to the public organization in question. In comparing public organizational contexts, in general “a tale of different labor groups” can be perceived. To this end, professionals (including university‐trained nurses and engineers) and nonprofessionals (military and police—who typically do not require university training for job entry) have differing relationships with supervisors and colleagues, although the country context also plays a role in such differences. These relationships are played out in terms of both the degree of relational formality (i.e., whether the relationship is formal or informal between supervisors and their staff) and the degree of relational functionality (i.e., whether the relationship is positive and mutually beneficial), both of which affect the type of communication used. Simultaneously, the quality of the supervisor–subordinate relationship affects the communication (frequency, mode, content, and flow); hence, the bidirectional arrows in Figure 8.1. All of these elements then affect the consequences—public value outcomes and employee outcomes. Public value refers not only to the efficiency and effectiveness, but also the goal of delivering value to the public as a result of public administration (Moore, 1995). Increasingly, the creation of public value is considered to be the true test of the effectiveness of public administration. Public sector employee outcomes, such as well‐ being and engagement, are important antecedents in creating public value.

Qualifying Social Exchange Relationships in the Public Sector Public organizations are bound to a kind of public sector logic (institutional contingencies) that influences practice through means including the investment of public money and resources (Diefenbach, 2009), the devolution of public services and leading to competition from private and not‐for‐profit actors (Keast, 2011; Osborne, 2010), and political pressure. These broader macro forces impact on the way public organizations operate, and on the quality of exchange relationships and their outcomes for public sector employees. Notwithstanding the discourse on social exchange compositions, public organizations have a role in shaping the degree of formalization in the relationships (ranging from formal to informal) between employees at different hierarchical levels, and the degree of functionality (ranging from functional to dysfunctional) underpinning an exchange relationship. However, like all forms of reductionism, condensing the dimensions of social exchange to only two dimensions, formality and functionality, and between supervisors and their staff, has some limitations. Indeed, as Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) point out, there is a variety of typological compositions of social exchanges that occur within the context of work. These include work teams (team‐member exchange), supervisors and subordinates (leader–­member exchange, LMX) and the exchange between employees and their organizations more broadly (perceived organizational support). Yet, primarily owing to the hierarchical nature and bureaucratic structures of public organizations, the supervisor–subordinate relationship is salient over other relationships in such settings (however, a broader array of typological compositions could justifiably form a third axis on the posited conceptual model in a more extended deliberation). Public sector organizations have traditionally been hierarchical and bureaucratic as a result of perceived needs to advance accountability and integrity (Gregory & Hicks, 1999). Irrespective of whether hierarchy, accountability, and integrity are actually positively related to each other, and notwithstanding the broader changes across public sectors involving the devolution of services, at the micro (employee) level, the relationship between front‐line supervisors and their subordinates is central to the delivery of public service (Grimmelikhuijsen et al., 2016; Lipsky, 1980). Thus, in regards to the formality dimension of the presented conceptual model, there is a body of evidence underpinning the theory of LMX as it applies to the hierarchical (formally arranged) nature of supervisor–subordinate relationships in organizations (Dulebohn et  al., 2012; Graen & Uhl‐Bien, 1995).

Formal and Functional Social Exchange Relationships in the Public Sector

131

Noting that public organizations can be more hierarchical, the nature of LMX is often a formal exchange relationship that is present across a range of public organizations. As an exchange relationship, LMX has two components. The first component concerns whether a subordinate is in the “in‐group,” or the “out‐group.” Those in the “in‐group” have a positive relationship with their supervisor and with others in their in‐group team, and probably even have similar characteristics to their supervisor (Shacklock & Brunetto, 2012). In contrast, those employees in the “out‐group” are excluded from beneficial exchanges from the supervisor, and are subject to negative reinforcement, and also from in‐group members (Graen & Uhl‐Bien, 1995). The second component concerns whether an LMX relationship is reciprocal or transactional. Reciprocal relationships are perpetually beneficial, where extra effort on the part of the supervisor is reciprocated by the subordinate, and vice‐versa, in a continuous process. However, if a relationship is transactional, a subordinate responds to the commands of a supervisor, but extra effort is not contributed by either supervisor or subordinate, and a long‐term obligation to give back is not established (Graen & Uhl‐Bien, 1995). The level of authenticity of a supervisor, plus their leadership qualities, affects whether a relationship is reciprocal or transactional (Avey, Avolio, & Luthans, 2011). A discussion on pertinent findings from this analysis occurs later in this chapter. The second social exchange dimension in the conceptual model presented above—that of functionality, concerns the degree to which exchange relationships between public employees are positive and beneficial. Owing to the diminished profile of a behavioral interpretation of public administration, scholars rarely view public organizations as hotbeds for negative work outcomes, such as bullying, harassment, and employee stress. Against the discourse on public efficiency and policy effectiveness, society at large often forgets that public employees are human, and public organizations have a heterogeneous distribution of power across their hierarchy (Alford & O’Flynn, 2009). As a result, workplace dynamics (relationships between public employees, their colleagues, and their managers) can be dysfunctional. Certain organizational and institutional contingencies can influence at least to some degree the level of functionality that exists between exchange relationships, particularly between supervisors and their subordinates in the fields of public nursing and policing. When relationships are dysfunctional, this can have a significant effect on the quality of public service provision. The final component of the conceptual model warranting qualification concerns the consequences that ensue as a result of organizational and institutional antecedents and their effect on social exchange relationships in public organizations. At the micro level, employee performance proxies such as employee engagement, psychological well‐being, affective commitment, and turnover intentions are common. Through benchmarking these outcomes across different countries, “soft” enhancements that public organizations (particularly in health care) can implement to address critical skills shortages can be garnered. Research also has begun to look at the impact of social exchanges upon more macro‐level performance indicators, including public value outcomes. In the context of health care, medical accidents pose a significant threat to hospitals and the public in general (Dadich et al., 2015). Recent research has highlighted the way in which certain supportive exchange relationships are conducive to safer employee practices, with likely positive flow on effects to the recipients of public health (Brunetto, Xerri, et al., 2016). Similarly, in the area of public infrastructure and asset management, an activity central to government functionality, the types of social exchange relationships between staff appear to have a significant impact on the way such assets are maintained (with broader public safety implications). These components account for the public value consequences present in the presented conceptual model. The next section of this chapter examines these components in detail by presenting empirical evidence. Through this, the chapter seeks to offer a deeper level of the theoretical and empirical support to inform (and perhaps convince) the reader regarding the seminal role of social exchange in the operations and outcomes of public organizations.

132

Ben Farr-Wharton, Yvonne Brunetto, and Kate Shacklock

Antecedents: Labor‐Type and Institutional Contingencies Labor‐Type Contingencies Labor‐type contingencies are the field/profession‐level arrangements that help shape employee behavior. As noted, recent research has sought to understand the way that different public ­sector employees experience heterogeneous distributions of the social exchange dimensions of formality and functionality. Unlike Bullock, Stritch, and Rainey (2015) the aim of this research has not been to compare public sector motivation or income across countries. Instead, the focus of this body of work has been to compare the impact of workplace relationships across specific sector in some countries and across the public–private sector divide (see, e.g., Brunetto, Xerri, Trinchero, et  al., 2015 and Farr‐Wharton, Azzopardi, et  al., 2016). Such studies have spanned multiple countries including Australia, Brazil, Italy, Malta, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States of America (USA), and through empirical comparisons of social exchange measures—most notably LMX, some general organizational idiosyncrasies that are bespoke to certain labor‐types have emerged. Yet, at the outset, it is also important to disclose that such claims are local to the specific context of these studies—i.e., what is present in healthcare organizations in Australia is somewhat different from what happens in Brazil and Italy (Brunetto, Shacklock, et al., 2015). Professionals are different from other types of employees because of their particular knowledge and skills (and in turn, values and beliefs); their entry to the profession is restricted by a gatekeeper (university/professional body); they undergo a socialization process from the time they begin training; and they are more difficult and expensive to replace (Farr‐Wharton et al., 2012). Their skills and knowledge base give professionals far greater autonomy to make decisions in the workplace, although that autonomy is dependent upon relationships with their supervisor (Farr‐ Wharton, Brunetto, & Shacklock, 2011; Noordegraaf, 2007). Research examining nurses and engineers shows that, in comparison with nonprofessionals, professionals experienced better relationships with their supervisors and higher levels of autonomy (Brunetto et al., 2014). Yet when comparing the public and private sectors in Australia and the UK, both private sector nurses and engineers reported better relationships with their supervisors and higher levels of autonomy than did those in the public sector—although, the difference was not significant for engineers (Xerri, Nelson, and Brunetto, 2015; Brunetto, Farr‐Wharton, & Shacklock, 2011, Brunetto, Farr‐ Wharton, Shacklock, & Robson, 2012). Interestingly, and as mentioned about the important role of context, there was no difference in the quality of nurses’ supervisor–subordinate relationships between the private and public sectors in Italy (Brunetto, Shacklock, Teo, et al., 2015). The nature of the relationship for professionals begins differently because all parties are bound by similar professional values and beliefs, which provides a platform of commonality. In a sense, it privileges the exclusive members because they share a language (based on professional knowledge) that facilitates greater communication, which in turn builds trust via their professional socialization processes. For example, when engineers attend meetings to discuss maintenance issues with management, they find a more open audience from those managers who worked in engineering positions previously, and therefore are more easily able to discuss safety issues because both are bonded by their knowledge (Xerri, Nelson, & Brunetto, 2015). In contrast, whilst every society expects police and soldiers to protect them, police themselves do not tend to perceive high levels of support from their supervisors. Both police and soldiers are examples of nonprofessional labor. Research on police and soldiers in Australia showed they perceive somewhat negative reinforcement from organizational management, resulting in low perceptions of well‐being (Brunetto, Xerri, et  al., 2016). In contrast, US police officers p ­ erceive much higher LMX, higher perceptions of autonomy, and higher well‐being (Farr‐Wharton et al., 2016).

Institutional Contingencies Some logics permeate across the public sector, and are thus institutional contingencies that influence the nature of social exchange in public organization. Globally, different government

Formal and Functional Social Exchange Relationships in the Public Sector

133

bureaucratic styles such as the Westminster system in the United Kingdom, Australia, and to a lesser extent the United States, and the Napoleonic system present in southern European and Latin American countries, impact on the way public organizations operate in contrast to their international equivalents. Kuipers et al. (2014) argues that the implementation of new public management (NPM)—a public administration reform that a emphasizes a reductionist interpretation of service efficiency and effectiveness, has presented the biggest change agenda facing public sectors across many countries for the past three decades (at least). They argue that change is shaped by many challenges, including budgetary pressure (especially in the past decade since the global financial crisis), coupled with increased public demand. To this end, Pollitt and Bouckaert (2011) differentiate between core‐NPM countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia, and NPM‐laggard countries such as Germany, Italy, and other southern European countries that have implemented minimal management changes. There are significant differences in employee wellbeing in core‐NPM countries compared with NPM‐laggards. In some recent research comparing the Maltese public police force with that of police officers in the United States and Australia, Malta, as an example of a NPM‐laggard country, has a higher perception of LMX, yet significantly lower levels of discretionary power (Brunetto, Azzopardi, Shacklock, & Farr‐Wharton, 2016). It is likely that the implementation of NPM in Australia and the United States has stripped resources from front‐line police, requiring management to adopt more transactional and poorer quality relationships with police, all‐ the‐while increasing their levels of liability and responsibility. From the perspective of the audit‐run public sector (Pollitt, 2010), the increased discretionary power of employees was a necessary tool for ensuring employees were responsible for delivering more outcomes with less resources; however, its impact on employee effectiveness has been negative (such as lower levels of employee engagement), (Brunetto, Azzopardi, et al., 2016; Farr‐Wharton et al., 2016). From a cultural dimensions perspective, scholars examining the Brazilian context have highlighted the way in which power is distributed in the Brazil hospitals is quite different to Anglophone contexts (Brunetto, Shacklock, et al., 2015). While recognizable hierarchies are present in the Brazilian public sector, the multitude of employment contracts means that some nurses (for example) report to the state authority, while other nurses working side‐by‐side with those who are state‐employed, are directly employed by the public hospital. This administrative system strains the supervisor–subordinate exchange relationship, as the supervisor has little power as to which employees receive what. In this context, informal networks appear to thrive—and there is a cultural term for this in Brazil, Gentinho (Brunetto, Shacklock, et al., 2015; Nelson, 2012).

Dimensions of Social Exchange in the Public Sector Formality As already established, LMX represents a formal social exchange relationship with prominence and applicability to public organizations. It is classed as formal, because in the supervisor–subordinate relationship is a hierarchical reporting structure that is central to the standard practice of work (Lipsky, 2010). The salience of this formal relationship in generating desired outcomes cannot be understated; equally though, we cannot ignore the role of informal networks have in influencing outcomes, particularly in public organizations. A recent development in the behavioral public administration literature concerns the informal power structures present in public organizations that provide the mechanism for corruption. From a network theory perspective, this kind of relationship is already entrenched in theory— and is termed a dark network (Lauchs, Keast, & Yousefpour, 2011). However, the idea warranted further development from a SET perspective, in order to move it beyond an automatic negative connotation—noting that informal power structures can be quite important in generating positive outcomes as well (Oh, Chung, & Labianca, 2004; Sparrow, Liden, Wayne, & Kraimer, 2001). The resulting development became known as informal leader–member exchange

134

Ben Farr-Wharton, Yvonne Brunetto, and Kate Shacklock

(iLMX), which seeks to capture the informal exchange relationship that an employee might form with someone powerful in an organization, who is not their line manager (Brunetto, Xerri, Nelson, et al., 2016). A tool was developed to measure iLMX, and results show how iLMX it is different to LMX, and also important, in the context of the management of public assets. The iLMX study examined 272 surveys from engineers, asset managers, and technical employees that were in charge of maintaining public assets such as energy, logistics, transport, and education infrastructure. In this study, iLMX was a more significant predictor of resource adequacy than formal LMX for these employees. The study also revealed that iLMX was a significant contributor to the innovative behavior and a proactive maintenance approach to managing these public assets (Brunetto, Xerri, Nelson, et al., 2016). In the context of managing public assets in a resource‐ poor, NPM context, iLMX provided a mechanism for this group of employees to source additional resources to ensure the robust safety‐focused operations of this infrastructure. In this instance, a “corruption” of formal, hierarchical reporting structures actually led to the safer operation of public assets. In so doing, the research argues that a “corrupt” process might not necessarily lead to “corrupt” outcomes as with the association of a “dark network” interpretation of informality and favor. This is an area of research that needs further development in the future.

Dysfunctionality Another focus of social exchange research in public sector contexts has been on what has come to be known as negative work acts (i.e., bullying and harassment) and workplace stress. In the current, connected times, it is easy to forget that two decades ago these “dysfunctionalities” were very taboo, not only undiscussed within an organization but also largely neglected in scholarly research. The pioneering and seminal work of Einarsen and Skogstad (1996) and also Salin (2001, 2003) initiated an important impirical and conceptual dialogue concerning the impact of negative work acts within the context of public administration. By viewing bullying, harassment, and workplace stress through the lens of SET, scholars have studied these issues in public and private contexts in nursing, policing, and military organizations in Australia, England, Malta, Brazil, and the United States. Work harassment differs from bullying in that whereas, both refer to repetitive, negative activities aimed at someone less powerful and both lead to the victims experiencing negative psychological and/or physical ramifications; work harassment affects significantly more frontline public sector employees (Brunetto, Xerri, et al., 2015). In general, what has been found is that the LMX relationship, in particular, is significant in enabling or inhibiting workplace stress, bullying, and harassment in public sector contexts. To this end, the research indicates that when supervisors are given increased discretionary power as a means of managing within the context of resource inadequacy (a common component of NPM reforms), there is an upsurge of work harassment (Brunetto, Shacklock, et al., 2015, Brunetto et al., 2015; Brunetto, Rodwell, et al., 2016). Supervisors, in turn, engage in work harassment with their employees as a kind of negative reinforcement used to promote and enhance work performance, when the scarcity of resources means that other options (such training, or rewards and incentives) are not available. Ironically, research has consistently shown that this approach is not only damaging for the work performance (measured in respect to employee engagement, wellbeing, task performance) of employees, but also contributes to lower perceptions of emotional attachment to an organization (affective commitment) and an increased intention to turnover (Rodwell, Brunetto, et al., 2014; Tummers, Brunetto, & Teo, 2016). In relation to workplace stress, unsurprisingly scholars have found that public sector work is quite stressful, particularly at the frontline level (Brunetto & Farr‐Wharton, 2006). One of the reasons for this, aside from the emotional and physical drain associated with public service provision of health care and public safety (policing), is that accountability and transparency require significant administrative processes that fall under the banner of “red tape.” In recent research examining the workplace stress of police officers in Malta and the United States, it was found that LMX is negatively correlated with workplace stress. Furthermore, the supervisor–­subordinate

Formal and Functional Social Exchange Relationships in the Public Sector

135

relations is a predictor for police officers’ psychological capital (internal emotional state encompassing self‐efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism), and that these attributes help reduce work stress (Farr‐Wharton et al., 2016). This finding is really important, as it suggests that within the public sector, a good exchange relationship with a supervisor helps the individual develop their stress coping mechanisms. Altruistically, the broader society would hope that public managers take on mentoring roles for their subordinates (as a moral good). However, this research has shown that this activity is not only morally good but also thwarts dysfunctionalities such as workplace stress and enhances the productivity of employees.

Consequences: Employee and Public Value Outcomes Employee Outcomes Thus far, this chapter has tracked through many of the positive consequences that result from quality social exchange relationships. In general then, it can be summarized that consistently, quality LMX relationships are a significant contributor to a range of positive work outcomes for public employees, including increased employee engagement, psychological well‐being, in‐role performance, affective commitment, and decreased turnover intentions. These outcomes are very important in certain public contexts. For example, in the case of nursing, globally there exists a workforce shortage. Indeed, there has been a plethora of research conducted concerning the challenges in retaining nurses (particularly in the public sector), where things such as relatively low pay, highly stress work environments, bullying, and emotionally draining work all contribute to higher‐than‐average turnover in this sector. Against this backdrop, the social exchange research has “shone a light” on the deciding factor: supervisor–subordinate relationships, in either easing these burdens and resultant nurse turnover intentions (when the LMX relationship is of quality), or enhancing the positive effects and outcomes (Brunetto, Rodwell, Shacklock, Farr‐Wharton, & Demir, 2016). Yet, research also highlights that, in comparison to the private sector, public sector nurses are not typically offered the same training opportunities. As nurses are professionals, driven to provide a high quality of care, the availability of training has been shown to be a factor that enhances their commitment (Brunetto, Farr‐Wharton, & Shacklock, 2012). In the public sector, in many of the locations and contexts examined (except for Brazil) nurses’ relationships with their managers are a significant predictor of the training opportunities they are afforded. However, in a climate of fiscal scarcity, public managers in health care will likely have more challenges in affording nurse training than in private contexts. A second point to note is that public organizations are not always equipped with managers that have leadership capability to form effective LMX relationships with their staff (Boyne, 2002). In the global nursing research, evidence suggests that public sector employees report generally lower LMX scores. This poses a continual challenge to executive public management, as the provision of adequate leadership training and development appears to be one pathway, albeit a potentially expensive one, to enhance LMX across the board.

Public Value The creation of public value has been trumpeted as the new global aim of public organizations. At the empirical level, development of the public value concept is very much in its infancy. However, from the research examined above, it is suggested that social exchange relationships, in the context of public service delivery, fall under the domain of public value generation. In research exploring safety culture in hospitals, and also in public asset management contexts, social exchange relationships, including LMX and teamwork, are correlated with enhanced employee safety practice (Brunetto, Xerri, Nelson, et  al., 2016; Trinchero & Farr‐Wharton, 2015; Xerri, Nelson, & Brunetto, 2015). In these contexts, professionals are delivering public value by ensuring safe outcomes when they use their formal and informal workplace relationships to ensure safety‐focused practices, even though such decisions are initially more resource

136

Ben Farr-Wharton, Yvonne Brunetto, and Kate Shacklock

intensive. These decisions ensure that there is a way forward to address the growing body of evidence examining how to mitigate safety outcomes in organizations; accidents, disasters, and other poor safety outcomes that continue to negatively impact many organizations, and society as a whole (Manapragada & Bruk‐Lee, 2016).

Future Research Directions When communication, via supervisor–employee relationships, can assist to enhance public sector outcomes, then it is of great interest to public sector organizations and their management. However, outside of academic research, and certainly in the practice of public management, this perspective is less salient against NPM rhetoric, which focuses on efficiency (Pollitt, 2010), in turn, compromising the relational components of organizations. Perhaps the exception to this is within the context of public healthcare organizations, where there is a general acceptance of legitimate role of social exchange relationships in generating positive service outcomes. The nature of health care, often involving multiple teams of specialist professionals in delivering a health‐care experience for clients, means that teamwork and communication are understood as core components of effective care. However, in more traditional environments, such as the police and military organizations, these “softer” pathways of exchange are perceived as less legitimate in the eyes of executive management when compared with “harder” policy interventions. Practically speaking, in order for scholars to affect positive change in these kinds of public organizations, there needs to be an improvement in the way that research is communicated so that it is relatable and engaging. It should be acknowledged that examining and improving public sector communication through social exchange relationships, specifically in the domain of the public sector, is more challenging than in the private sector (but likely less challenging than in the third or not‐for‐ profit sector). As noted, public organizations in general suffer from resource inadequacy in addition to a bureaucratic logic that arguably positions formality, hierarchy, and transparency as being more important than functionality. Thus, even though initiatives to enhance the quality of social exchange relationships in public organizations are likely to be impactful, there is not the current market imperative, resourcing, nor the required level of legitimization from executive management, to advance this. This situation poses continual challenges and opportunities for scholars to overcome now and into the future.

References Alford, J., & O’Flynn, J. (2009). Making sense of public value: Concepts, critiques and emergent meanings. International Journal of Public Administration, 32, 171–191. Avey, J., Avolio, B., & Luthans, F. (2011). Experimentally analyzing the impact of leader positivity on follower positivity and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 22, 282–294. Boyne, G. (2002). Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 97–122. Brunetto, Y., Azzopardi, J., Shacklock, K., & Farr‐Wharton, R. (2016). Comparing the impact of management on police outcomes in Australia, USA and Malta. Newcastle‐upon‐Thyne: Brittish Academy of Management. Brunetto, Y., & Farr‐Wharton, R. (2006). The commitment and satisfaction of lower‐ranked police officers: Lessons for management. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 26(1), 43–63. Brunetto, Y., Farr‐Wharton, R., & Shacklock, K. (2011). Supervisor‐nurse relationships, teamwork, role ambiguity and well‐being: Public versus private sector nurses. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 49(2), 143–164. Brunetto, Y., Farr‐Wharton, R., & Shacklock, K. (2012). Communication, training, well‐being, and commitment across nurse generations. Nursing Outlook, 60(1), 7–15.

Formal and Functional Social Exchange Relationships in the Public Sector

137

Brunetto, Y., Farr‐Wharton, R., Shacklock, K., & Robson, F. (2012). Supervisor relationships, teamwork, role ambiguity and discretionary power: Nurses in Australia and the United Kingdom. International Journal of Public Administration, 35(8), 532–543. Brunetto, Y., Rodwell, J., Shacklock, K., Farr‐Wharton, R., & Demir, D. (2016). The impact of individual and organizational resources on nurse outcomes and intention to quit. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13081 Brunetto, Y., Shacklock, K., Teo, S & Farr-Wharton, R. (2014). The impact of management on the engagement and wellbeing of high emotional labour employees International Journal of Human Resource Management 25 (17) 2345–2363. Brunetto, Y., Shacklock, K., Teo, S., Farr‐Wharton, R., & Nelson, S. (2015). Nurses’ supervisors, learning options and organisational commitment: Australia, Brazil and England. Journal of Nursing Management, 23(8), 1029–1038. Brunetto, Y., Xerri, M., Farr‐Wharton, B., Shacklock, K., Farr‐Wharton, R., & Trinchero, E. (2016). Nurse safety outcomes: old problem, new solution–the differentiating roles of nurses’ psychological capital and managerial support. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(11), 2794–2805. Brunetto, Y., Xerri, M., Nelson, S., & Farr‐Wharton, B. (2016). The role of informal and formal networks: How progressionals can be innovative in a constrained fiscal environment. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20(3), 165–192. Brunetto, Y., Xerri, M., Shacklock, K., Farr‐Wharton, B., & Farr‐Wharton, R. (2016). Management, bullying and the work outcomes of Australian paramilitary. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminolgy. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865816647429 Brunetto, Y., Xerri, M., Trinchero, E., Farr‐Wharton, R., Shacklock, K., & Borgonovi, E. (2015). Public‐ private sector comparisons of nurses’ work harassment using SET: Italy and Australia. Public Management Review, 18(10), 1479–1503. Bullock, J. B., Stritch, J. M., & Rainey, H. G. (2015). International comparison of public and private employee’s work motives, attitudes, and perceived rewards. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 479–489. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(December), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602 Dadich, A., Fulop, L., Ditton, M., Campbell, S., Curry, J., Eljiz, K., … Symth, A. (2015). Finding brilliance using positive organizational scholarship in healthcare. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 29, 750–777. Diefenbach, T. (2009). New public management in public sector organizations: The dark side of managerialistic ‘enlightenment’. Public Administration, 87(4), 892–909. Dulebohn, J. H., Bommer, W., Liden, R., Brouer, R., & Ferris, G. (2012). A meta‐analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader‐member exchange. Journal of Management, 38(6), 1715–1759. Einarsen, S., & Skogstad, A. (1996). Bullying at work: Epidemiological findings in public and private organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(2), 185–201. Farr‐Wharton, B., Azzopardi, J., Brunetto, Y., Farr‐Wharton, R., & Herold, N. (2016). Comparing Malta and USA police officers’ individual and organizational support on outcomes. Public Money and Management, 36(5), 333–340. Farr‐Wharton, R., Brunetto, Y., & Shacklock, K. (2011). Professionals’ supervisor–subordinate relationships, autonomy and commitment in Australia. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(17), 3496–3512. Farr-Wharton, R., Brunetto, Y & Shacklock, K (2012). The use of intuition, nurse-supervisor relationships and the impact on empowerment and affective commitment Journal of Advanced Nursing 68 (6), 1391–1401 Fisher, R., Maltz, E., & Jaworski, B. (1997). Enhancing communication between marketing and engineering. Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 54–70. Graen, G., & Uhl‐Bien, M. (1995). Relationship‐based approach to leadership: Development of leader‐ member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. Gray, J., & Laidlaw, H. (2002). Part‐time employment and communication satisfaction in an Australian retail organisation. Employee Relations, 24(1&2), 211–218. Gregory, R., & Hicks, C. (1999). Promoting public service integrity: A case for responsible accountability. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 58(4), 1–15. Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Jilke, S., Leth Olsen, A., & Tummers, L. (2016). Behavioural public administration: Combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 45–56.

138

Ben Farr-Wharton, Yvonne Brunetto, and Kate Shacklock

Guest, D. (2011). Human resource management and performance: Still searching for some answers. Human Resource Management, 21(1), 3–13. Johlke, M., & Duhan, D. (2000). Supervisor communication practices and service employee job outcomes. Journal of Services Research, 3(2), 154–165. Kacmar, K., Witt, L., Zivnuska, S., & Gully, S. (2003). The interactive effect of leader‐member exchange and communication frequency on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 764–772. Keast, R. (2011). Joined‐up governance in Australia: How the past can inform the future. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(4), 221–231. Kuipers, B., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grania, J., & Van Der Voet, J. (2014). The management of change in public organization: A literature review. Public Administration, 92(1), 1–20. Lauchs, M., Keast, R., & Yousefpour, N. (2011). Corrupt police networks: Uncovering hidden relationship patterns, functions and roles. Policing and Society, 21(1), 110–127. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street‐level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Sage. Lipsky, M. (2010). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: The Russell Sage Foundation. Manapragada, A., & Bruk‐Lee, V. (2016). Staying silent about safety issues: Conceptualizing and measuring safety silence motives. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 91, 144–156. Moore, M. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nelson, S. (2012). Affective commitment of generational cohorts of Brazilian nurses. International Journal of Manpower, 33(7), 804–821. Nishii, L., Lepak, D., & Schneider, B. (2008). Employee attributions of the ‘why’ of HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviours, and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61(3), 503–545. Noordegraaf, M. (2007). From “pure” to “hybrid” professionalism present‐day: Professionalism in ambiguous public domains. Administration & Society, 39(6), 761–785. Oh, H., Chung, M., & Labianca, G. (2004). Group social capital and group effectiveness: The role of informal socializing ties. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 860–875. Osborne, S. (2010). Delivering public services: Time for a new theory? Public Management Review, 12(1), 1–10. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform. A comparitive analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Pollitt, C. (2010) Cuts and Reform, Society and Economy, 32, 17–31. Rodwell, J., Brunetto, Y., Demir, D., Shacklock, K., & Farr‐Wharton, R. (2014). Abusive supervision and links to nurse intentions to quit. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 46(5), 357–365. de Ruyter, K., & Wtzels, M. (2000). Determinants of a relational exchange orientation in the marketing‐ manufacturing interface. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 257–276. Salin, D. (2001). Prevalence and forms of bullying among business professionals. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 425–441. Salin, D. (2003). Ways of explaining workplace bullying. Human Relations, 56(10), 1213–1232. Shacklock, K., & Brunetto, Y. (2012). The intention to continue nursing: Work variables affecting three nurse generations in Australia. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(1), 36–48. Sparrow, R., Liden, R., Wayne, S., & Kraimer, M. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 316–325. Trinchero, E, and B Farr‐Wharton. 2015. Psychometric properties of the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture: Italian findings. Academy of Management Conference, Vancouver. Tummers, L., Brunetto, Y., & Teo, S. (2016). Workplace aggression: Introduction to the special issue and future research directions for scholars. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(1), 2–10. Vecchi, V., Farr‐Wharton, B., Brusoni, M., & Farr‐Wharton, R. (2015). Managerial flow to implement local development policies. New York, NY: Routledge. Xerri, M., & Brunetto, Y. (2013). Social exchange, employee commitment and innovative behaviour. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(16), 3163–3177. Xerri, M., Nelson, S., & Brunetto, Y. (2015). Importance of workplace relationships and attitudes toward organizational change in engineering asset‐management organizations. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(5), 641–655.

9

How Does the Idea of Co‐Production Challenge Public Sector Communication? Sanna Tuurnas

Defining the Topic This chapter takes a public management and public administration viewpoint to examine public sector communication. As a way of discussing the altering public sector communication, I use the concept of co‐production. The aim is to study how co‐production changes public sector communication from the viewpoint of public sector agencies? Through this question, the chapter illustrates the way that the trend of co‐production poses for public management especially from the new communicative aspects. The chapter first defines the topic, focusing on the concept of co‐production and its connection with public sector communication. The next two sections handle the theoretical background more in depth, first discussing the idea of co‐production in the context of public sector reform. Second, the different understandings of the (fuzzy) concept of co‐production and their origins are presented. These sections are followed by a presentation of case of a neighborhood co‐production project. The case highlights different aspects of changing patterns of communication through co‐production. The case also brings out critical viewpoints concerning the implementation and management of communication in co‐production. After the presentation of the case, critics, and challenges conclude the main issues related to communication reflected from the case. Finally, conclusions are drawn from the literature and the case, concentrating on the question of why public agencies face problems in the realization of co‐production and the creation of interaction and dialogue with citizens, and presents some concepts and ideas for improving the communication. Also topics for future research are elaborated. To start with, co‐production has become a desirable way of delivering public services in many countries around the world over the last decade (OECD, 2011). Co‐production is also seen as a key model in newer trends of governance, highlighting collaboration between nongovernmental organizations, citizens, and public authorities (Greve, 2015). In this post‐NPM (new public management) phase of public sector reform, the idea of citizenship has been broadened from seeing citizens as mere objects of care to viewing them as active co‐producers (Ryan, 2012). In addition, the underlying principle of public sector activities has become more about services than products (Thomas, 2013). Co‐production of public services is currently seen as an ideal

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

140

Sanna Tuurnas

practice to tackle austerity measures and transform fragmented and outdated public service infrastructures (Durose, Mangan, Needham, Rees, & Hilton, 2013). Conceptually, co‐­ production can be described both as an arrangement and as a process, wherein communities, individual citizens and clients participate in the planning, production, and evaluation of public services (Bovaird & Löffler, 2012; Osborne & Strokosch, 2013; Verschuere, Brandsen, & Pestoff, 2012). Additionally, the pressure to increase interaction between public agencies and the public does not just come from the top down as a part of public sector reform. The citizens have also raised their expectations concerning their power to influence various public service functions (Verschuere et al., 2012; Luoma‐aho & Canel n.d.). Therefore, as Luoma‐aho and Canel (p. 18) note in the Introduction to this book, interaction between public administrators and the public is changing “from one‐way feedback to real‐time dialogue within a variety of arenas.” They further note that this change cannot be regarded merely as an add‐on for more inclusive public services, but rather as a necessity for maintaining the legitimacy of public sector organizations that depend on citizens’ approval. Accordingly, there are demands to promote and increase dialogue and interaction, stemming from both the top and bottom. However, changing the patterns and habits of communication may be difficult for public sector agents who work as administrators, authorities, and service‐level professionals in public sector organizations, as they may be used to concern citizens as subjects rather than partners. Thomas (2013, p. 790) notes that the public sector organizations should reexamine their own role and that of the public in service delivery through co‐production. The repositioning of the different stakeholders’ roles can thus be chiefly considered a question of cultural transformation (Tuurnas, 2016a). Another essential question for public administrators is to understand how to communicate with citizens (cf. Thomas, 2013). Communication with citizens in their different roles as residents, customers, or voters requires different approaches and, as will be demonstrated, calls for strategic communication. Here, I present three aspects, highlighted in research, that are essential for (co‐)creating communication with the citizens: 1 The definition of “target group” for co‐production. Citizens have varying roles as clients, residents, voters, patients, or obligates (cf. Alford, 2002; Bäcklund, Kallio & Häkli, 2014). In these different roles, they possess different kinds of knowledge, with different expectations toward the public sector organizations and their relations with the same. These roles also define the relations between the public agents and the citizens (Osborne & Strokosch, 2013; Thomas, 2013; Tuurnas, 2016a). For instance, the prisoners are obligates in relation to prison authorities. Yet, the authorities may ask for voluntary inputs for creating more effective service paths for the prisoners as co‐producers (cf. Brandsen & Honingh, 2015). It is essential for the public agencies to understand the different mechanisms for interaction that underlie these different roles (cf. Osborne & Strokosch, 2013). This can be considered a key starting point for public sector‐led co‐production initiatives, emphasizing the need for co‐production strategies (Verschuere et al., 2012). 2 The definition of scope of interaction in terms of service delivery chain. Another point to consider in co‐production is the point in the service delivery chain where contributions from the citizens or clients are hoped for. Co‐production can take place at various points of the service chain, from planning to delivering, and monitoring to evaluation of the services (cf. Bovaird, 2007). These different parts of the service chain include different methods and strategies. This not only makes a difference to the outcomes in terms of at which point of the service delivery chain co‐production is utilized, it also requires different amounts of citizen contribution and effort. To elaborate, co‐production in the planning phase can include methods such as participatory budgeting or open design laboratories. This often requires short‐term commitment from the citizens. Then again,

How Does the Idea of Co‐Production Challenge Public Sector Communication?

141

some other forms of co‐production require more long‐term commitment. This is the case for instance, when citizens co‐produce services alongside the professionals as volunteering experienced experts in social services. These types of co‐production may require training and long‐term commitment. Naturally, this is also connected to the definition of the target groups. When the contributions are needed for evaluation of a certain service, the target group is may be easily limited to those who have used the services. Then again, when co‐production is planned for engaging residents in designing a new recreation area, for instance, the target group is broader and may be more difficult to define and limit. Therefore, as Thomas (2013, p. 789) notes, the agencies should carefully consider what they “need or want to ask of the public.” 3 Finding the right platforms for creating interaction, or as Luoma‐aho and Vos (2010) define it, finding the right issue arenas for realizing co‐production. Issue arenas can be described as “virtual or tangible surroundings” where different stakeholders communicate (Luoma‐aho & Vos, 2010, p. 11). The different stakeholders may take an active role or remain passive as an audience. In addition, issue arenas can be used for boundary‐spanning as they bring together a variety of different actors to create shared meanings and, consequently, collaboration (ibid.; Wenger, 1998). Finding the right issue arenas (and a variety of them) is essential for co‐­ production, especially from the viewpoint of equality and representativeness (Lowndes & Sullivan, 2008). This is especially the case in development projects or initiatives, where the ideas of citizens or clients are gathered to develop better services or nicer neighborhoods. Here, as Luoma‐aho and Vos (2010, p. 13) note, issue arenas can also be used to bring forth actors’ own agendas. There is a risk that the actors or groups who are well‐off and have the loudest voices will be heard at the expense of more marginalized citizens (Lowndes & Sullivan, 2008). Thus, securing equality and representativeness is one of the core dilemmas of co‐production when operating in the public sphere (cf. Jakobsen & Andersen, 2013). This chapter uses these aspects of communication with the citizens, alongside the notion of cultural transformation included in co‐production as a point of departure. Through these starting points, the chapter studies how co‐production challenges public sector communication from the viewpoint of public sector agencies.

Co‐Production and Public Sector Reform The concept of co‐production was developed in the 1970s by Elinor Ostrom and her research group in the United States. The concept was formed as a result of the research groups’ work on a metropolitan reform. Here, the concept of co‐production was used for bringing out the importance of citizen contribution to public services (Ostrom, Parks, Whitaker, & Percy, 1978). According to the group’s argument, citizens contribute to public service delivery in different ways, for example, by calling the police after noticing something unusual. In this way, as Ostrom et al. (1978, p. 383) note, citizens “become co‐producers with the police.” Ostrom and her colleagues also wanted to highlight the importance of the mundane forms of citizen‐government interaction and participation that take place at the micro‐level of service delivery. These mundane forms include everyday encounters, like informing the police when noticing something unusual or meeting a social worker. The emphasis on these informal modes of interaction was considered as a “continuum” for the existing models of citizen participation, which focused on more formal interactions, like voting or hearings. For instance, Whitaker (1980) criticized citizen participation programs for their ineffectiveness, saying that they consisted of “nothing more than a few public hearings” (Ibid., p. 241). Whitaker thus highlighted that participation should reach public administration as an enforcing institution, alongside government as a decision‐making institution. In addition, Sharp (1980, p. 115) described

142

Sanna Tuurnas

co‐production as a model that “goes beyond conflict over decisions, offers the potential for cooperative linkages between citizens and urban service bureaucrats, and highlights the value of many everyday commonplace, yet important citizen activities.” The creation of interaction between government agencies and the citizen is also valuable for democracy (Marschall, 2004; Pestoff, 2009). Some authors, such as Marschall (2004), have considered that the mundane forms of participation (i.e., co‐production) can potentially also lead to the formal activation of citizens. However, the novel concept of co‐production differs from that of citizen participation in its emphasis on interaction taking place more in the implementation phase of service delivery, as well as in its raising of the role of citizens as active co‐producers of public activities. Furthermore, the concept of co‐production can be connected to the public sector reform. The trend of marketization and the NPM models gained more and more attention in the mid‐ 1980s, diminishing the practical and academic interest in co‐production models risen in the early 1980s. As Alford (1998, p. 198) explained: It [co‐production based on voluntarism] is seen as being much too dependent on altruism which, in a climate where market incentives are the dominant currency, seems far too unreliable a motivation on which to base important public functions.

In the subsequent years, the NPM models gained a lot of critics. The criticism was concerned specifically with the simplistic role of citizens as mere customers. Here, citizens may have been given the opportunity to vote with their feet, but not necessarily a chance to influence the development of services. In the same way, the critics highlighted the lack of a community element in NPM as citizens were seen as only selfish consumers. Later governance models also considered citizens as members of the community who strive for their public interest as citizens (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2002; Osborne, 2010). Accordingly, in the last decade, co‐production has re‐emerged, especially as a core element of the new public governance (NPG) literature. As a paradigm, NPG is based on institutional and network theory, stating that, as a new approach to governance, it entails a pluralistic philosophy of the state. The plural state consists of interdependent actors contributing to public services, whereas the pluralist state emphasizes the various multidimensional policy‐making processes. As an ideology, NPG emphasizes partnerships and networks between the service users, the third sector and private and public organizations (Osborne, 2010). Yet, it should be noted that NPG is also a highly debated concept, and there are many different alternatives for those trying to find “the next big thing” in the post‐NPM phase (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011, p. 19). For instance, Greve (2015, p. 50) posits NPG as a synonym of “collaborative governance,” presenting public value management, digital‐era governance, and collaborative governance as core ideas for public management and public sector reform in the 2010s. Although these concepts offer different viewpoints with which to analyze the directions of public sector reform in this decade, they converge to highlight active citizenship, co‐production, and responsiveness as well as bottom‐up legitimacy. As Brandsen and Honingh (2013) point out, the latest, collaborative trend in public management has meant changes in the environments where public agencies (and here, specifically, the public service professionals) operate. To demonstrate, the autonomy of professionals is more and more contested within collaborative network and co‐production stakeholders through co‐ production, for instance. The communities for interaction include a set of different actors who possess different kinds of knowledge. All in all, the “shifts in governance,” as the authors call it, have widened the operating environment of public agencies. It should be noted, though, that in practice, these shifts and therefore the operation logics still coexist in many ways (ibid.). Therefore, the different logics and the pressure to open up make public sector communication a complex issue in the collaborative governance settings.

How Does the Idea of Co‐Production Challenge Public Sector Communication?

143

Different Understandings of the Co‐Production Concept and Their Origins Public sector reform creates a framework to examine the different conceptualization of co‐­ production. As presented, co‐production was first used to describe and highlight the role of citizens in service production; Through the decades of co‐production research, the researchers have highlighted the different variations of the concept. To demonstrate, Brudney and England (1983, p. 63) categorized co‐production as individual co‐production, group co‐production, and collective co‐production. Alford (2002), meanwhile, drew attention to client co‐production. Lately, the influence stemming from business management studies has brought the idea of value co‐creation to the discussion and the concepts of co‐creation and co‐production have been used as synonyms (Voorberg et al., 2013). That said, there are differences in these concepts. Overlap between them occurs, especially when the analysis covers citizen‐agent interaction in the creation of the service development through, for instance, co‐creation (Lusch & Vargo, 2006). Yet, co‐creation as a concept is less used to describe arrangements, where citizen make a long‐term commitment to produce a public service alongside the public agents. Then again, co‐production has also been used to refer to these arrangements; for instance, when a group of citizens maintain public parks through co‐production (see, e.g., Rosol, 2011). Co‐production has also been used as a synonym for citizen participation (see, e.g., Pestoff, 2014; Voorberg, Bekkers, & Tummers, 2014), although there are differences in the connotations of these concepts. One difference can be identified on the basis of motives. Originally, the focus of citizen participation was on power relations and democracy (see, e.g., Arnstein, 1969). Then again, the core motive of co‐production can be understood as the improved quantity and/or quality of public services (e.g., Bovaird & Löffler, 2012; Pestoff, 2012; Verschuere et al., 2012). Naturally, this is not to say that democracy would not be a major issue in co‐production, too. In fact, the seek for a balance between equity and representativeness in user‐centered service models is one of the core challenges faced by service organizations operating in the public sphere (Tuurnas, 2016a). Consequently, it is possible to recognize the fuzziness of the co‐production concept. As an attempt to make sense of this conceptual fuzziness, I have outlined three different interpretative perspectives on co‐production, presented below, based on their close concepts, their underlying motives, and—essential for this chapter—their take on communication as presented in Table 9.1. It is essential to note that these interpretative frameworks are all interlinked and do not form any Table 9.1  Interpretative Perspectives on the Co‐production Concept. Close concepts

The underlying motives

Co‐production as state‐civil society partnerships

Volunteering, active citizenship

Co‐production as a model to enhance participatory democracy Co‐production as interactive service processes

Citizen participation, engagement

Tackling austerity by promoting civil society’s role as a partner for public service organizations Enhancing legitimacy of public activities and fostering democracy and empowerment

Co‐creation, co‐design

Note. Adapted from Tuurnas, 2016a, p. 38.

Service‐user orientation of public services

Communication between public agencies and citizens Based on dialogue for framing and negotiating the co‐production tasks Based on interaction, but the processes not necessarily include dialogue

Based on dialogue between different stakeholders for value‐creation

144

Sanna Tuurnas

temporal continuums as they all may co‐exist in co‐production models. Therefore, the presented outlining offers gross generalizations and simplify a conceptual universe that is very difficult to explain unambiguously. The first perspective presented in Table 9.1 highlights the state–civil society partnerships, with a focus on citizens and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) as active producers of public services, to complement or replace the state functions weakened by austerity (Eriksson & Vogt, 2013). In this framework, co‐production has often been linked to neoliberal agendas, such as the “Big Society” program in the United Kingdom (see, e.g., Bailey, 2011; Davies and Pill, 2012). The main motive is to strengthen community and third‐sector input in public service production in order to tackle austerity by introducing new modes of partnerships between public agencies and (local) communities (Brannan, John, & Stoker, 2006). Here, the role of communication may vary, depending, for instance, on the level of self‐organization of the community groups and the need for actual co‐production between public agencies and civil society. The second perspective stresses the importance of co‐production to enhance participatory democracy and engagement. The underlying motive can be considered as citizen empowerment and increased democracy of public service delivery (Sørensen & Torfing, 2012; Voorberg et al., 2014). From this interpretive perspective on co‐production, the citizen–public agency interaction has a value in itself (whether or not it leads to impressive outcomes). Emphasizing the importance of participation, Pestoff (2012), for instance, notes that greater citizen involvement in public services is itself an innovation. In addition, Voorberg et  al. (2014, p. 9) point out that sometimes the purpose of co‐production is simply citizen involvement. From this perspective, communication is based on interaction, but not necessarily dialogue. For instance, citizens may participate as “consultants” by answering a survey about the development of a public service, but this may trigger any dialogue between the public service agents and the citizens. The third perspective posits co‐production in the micro‐scale of service delivery. From this perspective, co‐production is seen as an unalienable element of service process. This is due to the ontological principle that services always entail co‐production, despite the level of willingness of the parties (see also Brandsen & Honingh, 2015; Osborne & Strokosch, 2013). In this perspective, the main motive is to promote more user‐centered processes in public service delivery and to elicit user‐led innovations for more efficient public service systems (Osborne & Strokosch, 2013). Quite logically, communication is based on dialogue in order to co‐create value as an outcome of the service process. Yet, this is not an easy task. Osborne and Strokosch (2013) underline the importance of finding the right mechanisms for releasing the potential of user knowledge. Therefore, the co‐production parties need to possess the right skills in order to utilize this potential (Ibid., p. 40). Nonetheless, Alford (2014) raises an important limitation of this approach: it fits well in individual forms of co‐production, but problems may arise when the focus is on wider citizenry and its often‐conflicting viewpoints. As a way of mixing the individual service user experience with the voice of larger citizen groups, it requires new interaction techniques, and in a wider sense, new approaches for communication culture of public agencies. These challenges are further discussed through a case study presented in the following section of this chapter.

Case Analysis: How a Co‐Production Experience Challenged the Patterns of Communication of a Finnish Local Government This section of the chapter presents a case of a co‐production pilot in a neighborhood community development in the city of Tampere, Finland. The case illustrates the important role of public sector communication in the planning and management of co‐production initiatives and

How Does the Idea of Co‐Production Challenge Public Sector Communication?

145

programs. As it will be demonstrated, the inclusion (from the public agencies’ viewpoint) of different groups of citizens in their different roles is foremost a question of communication. In the same way, the cultural change that the trend of co‐production brings along is strongly linked to the patterns of communication in the public activities. To contextualize the case, the Finnish welfare system has traditionally been based strongly on professionalism and citizen‐initiated bottom‐up reforms have not been common (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011). However, this role share is shifting. There are also more and more citizen‐ driven initiatives, especially concerning urban planning and peer‐to‐peer services (Botero, Paterson, & Saad‐Sulonen, 2012). At the macro‐scale, the roles of state and society are therefore being reconsidered. As a micro‐scale interaction, this shift of roles concerns public agents and citizens. Currently, there is a strong trend toward co‐production and co‐creation in the Finnish public sector. Various initiatives and projects aim to strengthen interaction between the public actors and citizens. These projects may include development of services through “experience experts” (cf. Falk, Marjo, Rissanen, Sini, & Sinkkonen, 2013). Public spaces, such as libraries, are built using co‐design models (cf. Central Library, 2016). There are also widely focused urban development schemes, such as the case illustrated here, where residents, clients, and communities are engaged in the improvement of living conditions and development of services in the spatial context of a neighborhood (Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities, 2015; City of Tampere, 2013). The examined case project followed the strategy of the City of Tampere, which emphasizes collaboration and co‐production as future methods of public service delivery. The project targeted the creation of innovative solutions for public services in a socially challenging neighborhood. The aim of the pilot project was to develop co‐production and co‐design approaches in the development of the neighborhood services as well as to strengthen the sense of community in the neighborhood by energizing the residents and communities. Public agencies from various fields of service production, such as social work, health care, early education and day‐care services, youth work and school, took part in the project planning and realization (Tuurnas et al. 2015). Having a multisectorial focus, the project was also aimed at intensifying the network cooperation between the public actors. The data was collected during an 18‐month participatory observation period that lasted throughout the duration of the project. During the observation period, key actors were interviewed (N = 20). Two journal articles (Tuurnas, 2015, 2016b) present and discuss the results of the case study in more depth. Here, the case description is based on three aspects presented in the introduction of this chapter: the definition of “target group” for co‐production, the definition of scope of interaction in terms of service delivery chain, and finding the right platforms for creating interaction. These aspects, all essential for planning and managing co‐production from the viewpoint of communication, are reflected to the implementation of the co‐production pilot. This way, the aspects are used as a way of demonstrating the challenges that the public agencies face when they try to find new modes and arenas for increasing interaction with the citizens in their different roles.

“Target Groups” for Co‐Production In the examined case, the initial idea was to include both service users and residents in the co‐production pilots that were implemented under the umbrella of the project. Despite this starting point, the service users were not contacted as a target group: the communication was planned merely with citizens in their role as residents of the neighborhood. The different roles (citizens as service users and as residents) seemed to cause distress and confusion among the

146

Sanna Tuurnas

project members. The following quotation adequately captures this confusion concerning the different roles and the difficulty of “targeting” strategies: Whose opinions do we need – the clients’ or the residents’? There are two groups; although they might be the same persons, they have different roles, depending on the day and the needs. Maybe we get mixed up in our own work too with these concepts, we try to find citizen knowledge from clients and vice versa. It is quite essential, when we try to develop different services in a certain area. Whom will we contact in which cases? Whom will we torment? Whom are we offering opportunities? (Focus group discussion)

The underlying reason for the uncertainty was that the different interpretative perspectives of co‐production (presented in Table 9.1), as a means of empowering the residents by fostering participation, and co‐production as a means of developing public services through (client) co‐creation were used simultaneously in the rhetoric of the project planning. The importance of understanding the target group and communication strategy in those terms is a question that touches not just this single case, but is a broader concern in the planning of communication in co‐production. As Thomas (2013, p. 789 asks): What do agencies need or want to ask the public, and what does the public expect in its different roles? Clearly, the latter were not questioned before the project was launched, and clearly, there was not strategy concerning communication with the citizens in their different roles.

Scope of Interaction in Terms of Service Delivery Chain The residents were sent a survey to attain ideas for the project activities. This way, the residents were co‐creating the ideas for the neighborhood development. However, the idea of developing the project activities alongside the residents did not proceed as planned. Unlike in the initial project plans, the different project pilots were mostly carried out by the project workers, for the residents of the neighborhood instead of with them. Despite being a project aimed at creating new forms of interaction and partnerships with the residents, the direction of communication remained more unidirectional than two‐way. The resident‐participants acted more as consultants instead of being members of the planning “team.” Participation is one thing, but how to really involve the residents in developing and planning the services is another […]. Not like, “what do you think about this plan that we made?”, but to really equally discuss with some limited group […] because we can’t discuss with every citizen in this city. I have to admit that it is all confusing for me […] (Interview 8).

To continue, the project members also had to face the dilemmas of asking the public. After sending out the survey concerning the development ideas on how to improve the neighborhood and its services, they faced problems in terms of how to use the ideas. The project only had limited (financial) means to implement the ideas that emerged from the survey. Many of the ideas were also beyond the power of the project members and would have required cooperation with the police or infrastructural department. Therefore, the interviewees stressed the importance of being honest about the possibilities and limitations of realizing the wishes and ideas of the residents, and communicating those issues properly: the citizens need to feel that their contribution has been taken into account. This, too, is an essential notion in the attempt to create dialogue between the public agencies and the public. Thomas (2013, p. 794) made a similar remark in his guidelines for public managers in responding to the public: Do not initiate a process of public involvement unless the relevant authorities are committed to utilizing the results.

How Does the Idea of Co‐Production Challenge Public Sector Communication?

147

Finding the Right Platforms for Creating Interaction Now what we have done here is to organise meetings where most participants were officials or representatives of organisations. Everyone was meaning well, but the meetings just weren’t interesting enough for the residents to take part (Interview 1).

This quotation leads to the third aspect of the platform. As described, in the first phase of the project, the residents were given a chance to participate by sending ideas for the project by answering a survey. As the project continued, pressure to create new ways of interaction and new platforms for real dialogue increased. Therefore, the project members offered the residents a possibility to take part in the planning meetings as a way of enhancing these goals. However, the project meetings, organized in the local school premises in the evening hours, did not attract the residents to show up. Another channel for interaction was then created: online chats. The idea was to invite public authorities, politicians, and public managers for weekly chats with the residents. Yet, the turnout of participants remained limited. Eventually, the professionals carrying out the projects considered that the creation of interaction, not to mention real dialogue with the residents was highly challenging.

Critique and Challenges The case demonstrates the challenges that public agents face when attempting to change their ways to interact with the citizens. As the case illustrates, despite the orientation toward the creation of citizen–public agency dialogue set in the original project plans, the communication seemed to be more of a one‐way informing process with the citizens, rather than an interactive one. Here are some essential remarks, which explain the asymmetry between the project plans and the outcomes. First, it would be necessary to learn to approach the citizens in new ways if the aim is to create real dialogue through co‐production initiatives. Instead of organizing rather superficial opportunities to participate, there is a need to find meaningful and effective ways for creating dialogue and utilizing the citizens’ knowledge in the creation of innovative solutions for public services. This includes the widening of the ideas concerning the issue arenas (Luoma‐aho & Vos, 2010). As the authors (Ibid., p. 20) note, the communication itself is altering; there is a wide variety of ways to reach the citizens. This notion challenges the public agents to learn about communication. In the light of the examined case, there is a lot of work ahead in this sector. In addition, in order to find new arenas for creating dialogue, the public agents could also attend issue arenas created by nonpublic communities. This would mean that the public agents would need to step outside their “comfort zone” and their traditional role, but at the same time, it could send a message to citizens that the power relations are truly being reconsidered (cf. Ibid, p. 19). Second, those who carry out co‐production projects should understand their variations concerning the target groups and the points of the service delivery chain, in order to find the right scope for the activities. Brannan et al. (2006, p. 1005) point out that “civic renewal” has been handled “as both a solution to problems (a means) and as (a) policy objective (and end in itself).” From the viewpoint of communication, this means that the idea of increasing communication per se should be seen as a separate topic from the question; in other words, what is actually done with the information and the ideas that the citizens provide. Third, the case also stresses the need to look beyond the simple ideals of the participatory projects and to maintain realistic expectations concerning the outcomes. The residents expect that the public agents respond to their ideas. If nothing happens, the beautiful idea of dialogue may be translated into mistrust toward the agencies (Thomas, 2013; Tuurnas, 2016b).

148

Sanna Tuurnas

Finally, the case draws attention to the difficulty faced by the public agents in opening up their processes to the citizens. The internal communication of the project team was successful and the project members could, based on the interviews, learn a lot from the discussions with the other professionals. Yet, as demonstrated, the external communication was less successful. To change this closed, professional culture, there is a need for organizational learning alongside individual learning. Here, face‐to‐face interaction and reciprocity can be considered as key elements, again drawing attention to the importance of changing the patterns of communication (Rashman, Withers, & Hartley, 2009).

Conclusions and Future Research When moving from rhetoric to practice, public agents seems to lack tools and methods for creating interaction and dialogue with the citizens. The idea of co‐production challenges the professionally oriented culture and the established ways in which the public agents are used to operating and interacting. Here, the role of learning can be highlighted: for the public agents, the idea of co‐production is often novel in terms of their professional culture (Tuurnas, 2015). Co‐production also makes demands on the public agents’ capacities in terms of motivating the citizens in their different roles. Therefore, there is a need for strategic communication to better meet the goals and targets set in the co‐production initiatives. Reflecting this notion to the different perspectives of co‐production presented in Table 9.1, we can pick up that co‐­ production as interactive service processes and as a state‐civil society partnership requires dialogue. Moreover, for creating dialogue, the parties should be motivated for co‐production. Both reaching the different parties and motivating them to co‐produce is not an easy task, and thus require careful planning. Strategic communication would also be needed in the co‐production models, where the aim is to empower the citizen through participation. In the examined case, this was seen especially at the point where the project team had to face the consequences of asking the public and meeting the expectations. Here, the idea of expectation management could help. As Olkkonen & Luoma‐aho (2014, p. 234) note: “In essence, an organization with good expectation management matches behavior with what is communicated and avoids creating unintended or misleading expectations.” To further elaborate the role of communication in co‐production, the three interpretative perspectives can again be used as a thread. In general, the point of this kind of categorization is to demonstrate the multidimensional nature of the concept. For examining communication specifically, co‐production may be understood as a process that triggers interaction but not always dialogue. This depends on the underlying motives: whether the motive is to active citizens for self‐organization and partnerships in the service delivery, or to empower the citizens by engagement, or to actually co‐create something new (a process or a service) together with the citizens. This is an essential point for professionals realizing co‐production, and it positions the citizens, groups of citizens, and clients in different roles as well. It also—again—highlights the role of strategic communication in co‐production. Moreover, the various roles assigned to professionals, citizens, citizen volunteers, or clients still require further investigation. In addition, the “public” is not a homogenous group, but rather, one that includes diverse interests; values and motivations to take part (see Luoma‐aho & Canel, p. 20). Therefore, studies concerning public value and public value creation are essential concerning public sector communication: in the light of the growing interest in co‐production, the formulation and content of public value becomes increasingly a matter of negotiation with different stakeholders instead of being “shepherded” by public authorities (Duyvendak, Knijn, & Kremer, 2006). This also means that there will be more conflicts as different groups of citizens with differing values and motives are involved in the definition of what public value is about (Pekkola, Tuurnas, Stenvall, & Hakari, 2015).

How Does the Idea of Co‐Production Challenge Public Sector Communication?

149

Another essential issue for future research concerning co‐production and public sector communication is negotiation of risks (Osborne, 2010). If co‐production becomes a norm of public service delivery, it will increase complexity and, if not well managed, accountability gaps (Tuurnas, Stenvall, & Rannisto, 2016). To avoid playing the blame game with public agents, Renn (2008) suggests the concept of risk governance, wherein the stakeholders involved in co‐production negotiate the accepted level of risk. Here, empirical studies on risk negotiations and governance could have both academic and practical value. Finally, the case presented in this chapter takes place in the context of a Nordic country with a tradition of strong welfare state and professions (Bertilsson, 1990). This may explain the cultural difficulties that the public agents faced in attempting to change their communicative patterns with the citizens. However, the position of public actors as experts and authorities has been recognized as a key challenge for co‐production across different societies (cf. Bovaird, 2007; Osborne & Strokosch, 2013; Voorber et al., 2014). Therefore, the results of the presented case study could be similar in other country contexts. Finally, as co‐production becomes more favorable across Western societies (Verschuere et al., 2012), it will also be a key issue for public agencies in those societies to question their communicational culture with the citizens.

References Alford, J. (2014). ‘The Multiple Facets of Co‐Production: Building on the work of Elinor Ostrom’, Public Management Review, 16(3), 299–316. Alford, J. (1998). A public management road less travelled: Clients as co‐producers of public services. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 57(4), 128–137. Alford, J. (2002). Why do public‐sector clients coproduce? Towards a contingency theory. Administration and Society, 341, 32–56. Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities. 2015. Guidelines for the development of municipal democracy at the center. Retrieved from http://www.kunnat.net/fi/palvelualueet/demokratia/ Documents/demokratia210x210.pdf Bäcklund, P., Kallio, K. P., & Häkli, J. (2014). Residents, customers or citizens? Tracing the idea of youthful participation in the context of administrative reforms in Finnish public administration. Planning Theory and Practice, 15(3), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2014.929726 Bailey, S. (2011). The evolving governance of public services in England: Extending competition, choice, co‐design and co‐production. In A.‐V. Anttiroiko, S. J. Bailey, & P. Valkama (Eds.), Innovations in public governance (pp. 69–80). IOS Press. Bertilsson, M. (1990). The welfare state, the professions and citizens. In R. Torstendahl & M. Burrage (Eds.), The formation of professions: Knowledge, state and strategy (pp. 114–133). London: Sage. Botero, A., Paterson, A. G., & Saad‐Sulonen, J. (Eds.) (2012). Towards peer production in public services: Cases from Finland. Helsinki: Alto University. Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community co‐production of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860. Bovaird, T., & Löffler, E. (2012). From engagement to co‐production: How users and communities contribute to public services. Voluntas, 23, 1119–1138. Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2015). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 427–435. Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2013). Professionals and shifts in governance. International Journal of Public Administration, 36(12), 876–883. Brannan, T., John, P., & Stoker, G. (2006). Active citizenship and effective public services and programmes: How can we know what really works? Urban Studies, 43(5/6), 993–1008. Brudney, J. L., & England, R. E. (1983). Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Public Administration Review, 43(1), 59–65. Central Library. 2016. A website of the Central Library. Retrieved from http://keskustakirjasto.fi/en/2016.

150

Sanna Tuurnas

City of Tampere. (2013). Tampere, working together for a bright future: Tampere city strategy 2025. Retrieved from: http://www.tampere.fi/material/attachments/t/5m6pXm17U/Tampere_City_Strat egy.pdf Davies, J. S., & Pill, M. (2012). Empowerment or abandonment? Prospects for neighborhood revitalization under the big society. Public Money & Management, 32(3), 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09540962.2012.676276 Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2002). The new public service: Serving, not steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559. Durose, Catherine, Mangan, Catherine, Needham, Catherine, Rees, James and Hilton, Matthew. (2013). Transforming local services through co‐production: A policy review. Retrieved from www.birmingham. ac.uk/documents/college‐social‐ sciences/government‐society/inlogov/briefing‐papers/transforming‐ local‐public‐ services‐co‐production.pdf Duyvendak, J. W., Knijn, T., & Kremer, M. (2006). Policy, people, and the new professional: De‐professionalisation and re‐professionalisation in care and welfare. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Eriksson, K., & Vogt, H. (2013). On self‐service democracy: Configurations of individualizing governance and self‐directed citizenship. European Journal of Social Theory, 162(2), 153–173. Falk, Hanna, Kurki Marjo, Rissanen, Päivi, Kankaanpää Sini and Sinkkonen, Nina. 2013. Kuntoutujasta toimijaksi– kokemus asiantuntijuudeksi. National Insitute for Health and Welfare. Working paper. Retrieved from https://www.julkari.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/110670/URN_ISBN_978‐952‐302‐028‐3. pdf?sequence=1. Greve, C. (2015). Ideas in public management reform for the 2010s: Digitalization, value creation and involvement. Public Organization Review, 15(1), 49–65. Jakobsen, M., & Andersen, S. C. A. (2013). Coproduction and equity in public service delivery. Public Administration Review, 17(5), 704–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12094 Lowndes, V., & Sullivan, H. (2008). How low can you go? Rationales and challenges for neighborhood governance. Public Administration, 86(1), 53–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9299.2007.00696.x Luoma‐aho, V., & Vos, M. (2010). Towards a more dynamic stakeholder model: Acknowledging multiple issue arenas. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(3), 1–31. Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). The service‐dominant logic of marketing: Reactions, reflections, and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6(3), 281–288. Marschall, M. (2004). Citizen participation and the neighborhood context: A new look at the coproduction of local public goods. Political Research Quarterly, 57(2), 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 106591290405700205 OECD (2011). Together for better public services: Partnering with citizens and civil society. OECD Publishing. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264118843‐en Olkkonen, L., & Luoma‐aho, V. (2014). Public relations as expectation management? Journal of communication management, 18(3), 222–239. Osborne, S. (2010). The (new) public governance: A suitable case for treatment? In S. Osborne (Ed.), The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance (pp. 1–16). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Osborne, S., & Strokosch, K. (2013). It takes two to tango? Understanding the co‐production of public services by integrating the services management and public administration perspectives. British Journal of Management, 24, 31–47. Ostrom, E., Parks, R. B., Whitaker, G. P., & Percy, S.,. L. (1978). The public service production process: A framework for analyzing police services. Policy Studies Journal, 7, 381–389. Pekkola, E., Tuurnas, S., Stenvall, J., & Hakari, K. (2015). Public value in localized service delivery: Exploring different rationales. Kunnallistieteellinen Aikakauskirja, 4, 341–354. Pestoff, V. (2009). Towards a paradigm of democratic participation: Citizen participation and co‐­production of personal social services in Sweden. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 80(2), 197–224. Pestoff, V. (2012). New public governance, co‐production and the third sector social services in Europe: Crowding in and crowding out. In V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), New public governance, the third sector and co‐production (pp. 361–380). New York: Routledge. Pestoff, V. (2014). Collective action and the sustainability of co‐production. Public Management Review, 6(3), 383–401. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis: New public management, governance and the Neo‐Weberian State (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

How Does the Idea of Co‐Production Challenge Public Sector Communication?

151

Rashman, L., Withers, E., & Hartley, J. (2009). Organizational learning and knowledge in public service organizations: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(4), 463–494. Renn, O. (2008). Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Earthscan. Rosol, M. (2011). Community volunteering as neoliberal strategy? Green space production in Berlin. Antipode, 44(1), 239–257. Ryan, B. (2012). Co‐production: Option or obligation? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 7(3), 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8500.2012.00780.x Sharp, E. B. (1980). Toward a new understanding of urban services and citizen participation: The co‐ production concept. Midwest Review of Public Administration, 14(6), 105–118. Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2012). Introduction: Collaborative innovation in the public sector. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 17(1), 1–14. Thomas, J. C. (2013). Citizen, customer, partner: Rethinking the place of the public in public management. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 786–796. Tuurnas, S. (2015). Learning to co‐produce? The perspective of public service professionals. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(7), 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM‐04‐2015‐0073 Tuurnas, Sanna. (2016a). The professional side of co‐production. Academic dissertation. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 2163. Tampere: Tampere University Press. Tuurnas, S. (2016b). Looking beyond the simplistic ideals of participatory projects: Fostering effective co‐production. International Journal of Public Administration, 39(3), 1077–1087. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01900692.2016.1178284 Tuurnas, S., Stenvall, J., & Rannisto, P.‐H. (2016). The impact of co‐production on frontline accountability: The case of the conciliation service. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 28(1), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314566010 Tuurnas, S., Stenvall, J., Rannisto, P.‐H., Harisalo, R., & Hakari, K. (2015). Coordinating co‐production in complex network settings. European Journal of Social Work, 18(3), 370–382. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13691457.2014.930730 Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2012). Co‐production: the state of art in research and the future agenda. Voluntas. https://doi.org/10.1007/s 11266‐012‐9307‐8 Voorberg, W., Bekkers, V.J.J.M. and Tummers, L. (2013, September). Co‐creation and co‐production in social innovation: A systematic review and future research agenda. In Proceedings of the EGPA Conference (pp. 11–13). http://www.lipse.org/userfiles/uploads/Co‐creation%20and%20Co‐ production%20in%20Social%20Innovation%20‐%20a%20Systematic%20Review%20and% 20Research%20Agenda,%20Voorberg,%20Bekkers%20&%20Tummers.pdf. Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2014). A systematic review of co‐creation and co‐production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review. https://doi. org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505 Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Whitaker, G. (1980). Co‐production: Citizen participation in service delivery. Public Administration Review, 40(3), 240–246.

10

Change Communication: Developing the Perspective of Sensemaking and the Perspective of Coworkers Charlotte Simonsson and Mats Heide

Introduction This chapter focuses on communication‐centered change research and its implications for public sector organizations. Traditionally, public sector organizations have been regarded as quite stable entities—they have even been criticized for being too inert and not very good at keeping pace with new demands and conditions. That seems no longer to be the case. Constant changes and continuous improvements are now part of the dominant norm of how public organizations should be managed (White, 2000). In spite of this, there is not much change research that specifically addresses public sector organizations (Kuipers et al., 2014) or change communication in organizations of this kind. It should also be noted that existing public management research on change focuses mainly on the sectoral or national level rather than change as an organizational process (Van der Voet, Kuipers, & Groeneveld, 2016). However, in this chapter, the focus will be on the organizational level and the communication processes through which changes are enacted. We will depart from communication‐centered change research in general and discuss its possible implications for public sector organizations. Special attention will be given to coworkers and how they make sense in times of changes. While previous research has concentrated on managers and how they can be helped to bring about the change desired by the organization, it is to time address the perspective of and communications with coworkers—that is, those who are to bring about the actual change. Sensemaking processes play a crucial role in organizational changes; if managers and employees find it difficult to make sense of a current change, there will, to put it in simple terms, be no change. In effect, changes tend to trigger a process of active sensemaking among organization members. Changes are events that involve a disruption within the organization’s ongoing activities and its well‐known patterns of action, which means that people actively search for meaning in change situations. Sensemaking can be defined as a process of social construction that occurs when discrepant cues interrupt individuals’ ongoing activities and that involves the retrospective development of plausible meanings that rationalize what is happening (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010, p. 551). Questions such as the following typically arise in changes situations: Why is this change happening? What is it about? What will happen to me?

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

154

Charlotte Simonsson and Mats Heide

Who will I be after the change? What should I do? Sensemaking is vital since it informs and constrains both identity and action (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). The aim of this chapter is twofold: First, we wish to highlight the complexity of changes and discuss specific prerequisites for changes in public sector organizations. Second, and related to the fist aim, we will discuss the vital role of sensemaking from a coworker‐oriented perspective.

What Change Is: Definitions and Perspectives The fundamental reason for establishing organizations is to better manage uncertainty and equivocality (Weick, 1995). By organizing people into organizations, a temporary social structure is produced that makes it easier to act in a complex reality. Thus, organizations tend to develop dynamic conservatism—that is, a force that preserves the structure against changes (Schon, 1973). At the same time, there is also a force that works to change and adapt the organization. Hence, two forces always prevail in organizations: one that will preserve and another that seeks to change. The coexistence of these is what makes organizational changes challenging. In the broadest sense, change is an organizational response to pressures or forces. Ford and Ford (1995) claim that differences in conditions, states, or moments of time are the core aspect of change. This definition assumes that there is a normal state when organizations are stable, but in practice organizations are always changing. Scholars have distinguished several dimensions of change in an attempt to sort out and define different kinds of changes. For example, change can come about in terms of process (planned or unplanned), sources (external or internal), substance (technology, structure, culture, administration, and so forth), and magnitude (first‐, second‐, and third‐order changes) (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2016; Kuipers et al., 2014). Further dimensions of change are scope (small or large) and form (which may be material—for example, a merger—or discursive—for example, new policies). Changes in public organizations are often explained by external factors, which may be political (for example, outsourcing), technical (for example, e‐government), cultural (for example, secularization), demographic (for example, immigrants), or economic (for example, recession) (Child, 2005). Remarkably, many organizational changes are the result of a current management fashion—for example, new public management. But organizational changes can also be an effect of internal factors such as new technology, changes of mission, or new administrative routines. However, in practice it is difficult to draw a clear line between internal and external forces since they are intertwined. In many cases, there are several parallel changes—multi‐changes—taking place, and these add to the already complex process of conducting change (Lewis, 2011). Weick and Quinn (1999) distinguish between episodic and emergent change perspectives, a distinction that reflects different perceptions of change and the role of communication in change processes. In the following section, we will discuss how these two perspectives differ but also how they complement each other.

Episodic or Emergent Changes Traditional change research follows the episodic approach, which suggests that changes are discontinuous, infrequent, and intentional (Weick & Quinn, 1999). Changes appear as management‐ driven programs that are to be carried out during a given period. The programs follow a linear, rational model and develop through general phases, such as the three steps of unfreezing, changing, and refreezing in Lewin’s (1951) well‐known model. While politicians and/or the senior administrative management team are perceived as active change agents, employees tend to be regarded as passive actors to be motivated or persuaded by inspiring leaders (Graetz & Smith, 2010). Furthermore, employees are assumed to have an inherent unwillingness to change and, consequently, there is a strong interest in how to overcome inertia and resistance (e.g., Ford,

Change Communication

155

Ford, & McNamara, 2002). Carefully planned communication processes, openness, and involvement are put forward as important communication principles following the transmission‐oriented view of communication (e.g., Kotter, 1996). Johansson and Heide (2008a) describe the transmission view as follows: “Communication is reduced to a tool for declaration and explanation of the planned change, often with a focus on the ‘what, when, who, and how,’ and to transport organizational members’ feedback of their attitudes and feelings” (p. 292). The emergent perspective, which has in part developed as a critique of the rationalistic, episodic approach, understands change as a continuous and unpredictable process that requires improvisation rather than detailed planning. Within this alternative perspective, changes are seen as evolving gradually during a longer time period without a clear beginning or end (Weick & Quinn, 1999). The emergent view does not reject the value of strategies and plans, but it argues that we often tend to exaggerate their impetus. By means of plans, senior managers can initiate and influence the direction of change, but plans are reinterpreted and changed—often in an unpredictable way (Balogun, 2006). Change is thus considered as a process in which sensemaking plays a key role. How organizational members interpret and make sense of changes will have consequences on their actions and, hence, on the outcome of the change process. From this follows a focus on daily microprocesses and local interpretations that increases our understanding of the pluralism of the feelings, attitudes, and experiences that prevail in times of change (Weick & Quinn, 1999). In line with a social constructionist approach, communication is seen as having a constituting role. The emphasis on sensemaking as a social process implies that informal communication among coworkers is just as important and interesting as formal communication from managers to employees. Categorizations such as the one between episodic and emergent change perspectives are always simplifications. Nevertheless, the distinction captures essential dividing lines in change research. The distinction between episodic and emergent change perspectives is addressed in both general organizational change literature and in public administration literature (Kuipers et al., 2014). Kuipers et al. (2014) argue that in public sector literature, the term reform—referring specifically to intentional, designed changes—is more widely used than the broader concept of change. Van der Voet (2016) also argues that changes in public sector organizations often emanate from reforms and top‐down policies, and this further indicates that research as well as practice follows the traditional episodic approach. In this chapter, we argue that the complexity of changes needs to be considered and therefore that it is vital to combine different perspectives on change rather than adopting a singular one (cf. Graetz & Smith, 2010). The traditional, episodic approach may provide a basis for action in providing structure and process to the complex task of strategy‐making. Yet it may be blind to issues such as ambiguity and the way in which coworkers bring about (or do not bring about) change in their daily communication. On the other hand, the emergent perspective may offer valuable insights into contradictory sensemaking and local communication processes, but it may fall short when it comes to offering guidance on how to manage changes, something that needs to be done in order to solve identified problems.

The Research Field of Organizational Change Ever since the Greek philosopher Heraclitus of Ephesus (500 BCE) observed that “everything changes and nothing stands still” (it is a misconception that he stated that “there is nothing permanent except change”), change has fascinated human beings. A natural consequence of this is that change is one of the greatest themes within the natural and social sciences. An endless stream of research investigates and analyzes the development, transformation, and regression of social and natural systems. Consequently, it is an almost impossible task to map out earlier research on change. Even when it comes to the narrower field of organizational change, a lot of

156

Charlotte Simonsson and Mats Heide

research has been conducted since the beginning of the 1970s (Greenwood & Hinings, 2006). The topic has been studied by researchers in fields such as psychology, sociology, political science, economics, and management. Prior to the 1970s, organizational change was rarely explicitly focused on, and change was not understood as something problematic. This is reflected in early texts such as Kurt Lewin’s (1947) model of organizational change. Moreover, another explanation for the low interest in organizational change prior to the 1970s is that the need for changes was rather modest. Both the context and strategies were relatively stable. However, from the end of the 1970s, organizational change was perceived as something complex and problematic. According to Greenwood and Hinings’s (2006) theories from this time, such as resource‐dependency theory, configuration theory, institutional theory, and ecological theory, all emphasized obstacles that hinder change. From the mid‐1980s, neoinstitutionalization theory emerged as one of the most important theories used in analyzing organizational change. To recap, it is almost impossible to summarize all the research on organizational change that has been conducted, and there are no universally accepted conclusions. The field of change management in public organizations is quite disperse. In an overview, Kupers et al. found over 20 different theoretical perspectives in investigating change, 2 of which were dominant: general change management literature and institutional theory. The change management literature has a clear managerial and functionalistic approach, and this research is simply descriptive and prescriptive, with little consideration of contextual aspects (cf. changes as episodic). On the other hand, institutional theory has added a richer analysis of the context and the importance of coworkers, but it has avoided studying the actual implementation process. In this chapter, the focus is on communicative aspects of organizational change. Existing research within the field of change communication is dominated by a rational management ideal—that is, an episodic approach (Lewis, 2014). Its goal is thus to help organizations communicate more efficiently before, during, and after a change process. As we mentioned earlier, past theories have assumed that organizations and employees cannot be controlled and managed through communication. As early as 1948, Coch and French underlined that changes can be successful if senior management communicates the need to change and involves coworkers in planning it. There seems to be a general agreement that openness is an important communication principle for the purposes of reducing employees’ inherent resistance toward change. “Open communication” appears as a sound and ethical communication principle, but what it is important to be open about (the actual content) and how to time openness in an optimal way (communicate) are not self‐evident (cf. Laurie K. Lewis, Schmisseur, Stephens, & Weir, 2006). For instance, Lewis, Laster, and Kulkarni (2013) found that the early announcement of possible negatives did not increase initial favorability or judgements of credibility of implementers. Another communication principle that scholars in the field seem to agree on is involvement and participatory communication. However, change managers do not seem to follow this communication principle. Lewis and Russ (2012) found that participatory processes are underused, and once managers involve employees they tend to do so “to protect what has already been invested in the change by the key decision makers” (p. 289). Participatory communication is therefore too often used primarily as a means for overcoming resistance rather than as a means for creating learning, understanding, or participation (Balogun, 2006; Simonsson, 2008). The strong focus on overcoming resistance indicates that change per se is seldom critically examined or questioned. Rather, it is presumed that change is a good thing that is needed, and any signs of negative attitudes, feelings, or behavior toward the change are perceived as resistance (cf. Lewis, 2014). A concept that is closely related to resistance is cynicism, which builds on stakeholders’ previous experience of organizational changes. Cynicism is “critical consideration of the motives, actions, and values of one’s employing organization” (Cole, Bruch, & Vogel, 2006, p. 463). Furthermore, cynicism is in practice often related to pessimism and critical actions toward the employing organization. Lewis (2014) argues that different forms of resistance to change make an excellent opportunity for communication researchers to study the role of communication

Change Communication

157

in producing and reproducing negative attitudes, feelings, and behavior in respect of an organizational change. As we have already mentioned, research on change in public organizations is rather rare (Kuipers et al., 2014). One explanation for this is that public sector conditions and circumstances differ substantially between countries, which makes it more difficult to produce generalizations based on case studies than it is when the focus is on the private sector (Bringselius, 2010). Nevertheless, many public organizations have certain characteristics that differ compared to corporations, where there are normally fewer stakeholders to judge if a suggested organizational change is justified. Ericsson (2016) has identified three typical characteristics of public organizations: 1 They are both an expression of and instrument for the will of people. 2 They play host to conflicting logics and interests. 3 They have a particular ethos. The first characteristic concerns democratic political decisions, since public organizations serve citizens. One consequence of this is governance by written rules and laws. The second characteristic concerns the multifunctionality of public organizations: they have several missions and serve various stakeholders, and these can often conflict with each other. The third characteristic is a public ethos that guides coworkers in terms of right and wrong, and this typically involves striking a balance between economic and democratic values. Public organizations do not have a unified goal, and they are often more complex than private profit‐maximizing organizations are. Additionally, public organizations have a more complex decision‐making structure, since they are often both politically and professionally managed (Trottier, Van Wart, & Wang, 2008).

Exploring Communication The specific characteristics of public organizations have certain implications for communication related to organizational change, and these will be explored in this section. The primary focus will be on four characteristics and their communicative implications: 1 Existence of many goals that may conflict with one another. This creates multi‐changes and hence difficulties for employees when they attempt to make sense of them. 2 The plurality of stakeholders who have influential voices. Their voices may challenge leaders’ role as managers of meaning. 3 Strong professional identities and a strong public ethos. This can make resistance toward management decisions quite legitimate. 4 Expectations of openness and transparency. The “public quality” (brought about through, for example, being funded by tax money) is both an expression and instrument of public will and is governed by laws rather than by the market. This per se brings high expectations of openness and transparency and, in turn, makes the interplay between internal and external communication even more complex than it is in private organizations. The examples that we refer to here are primarily from a Swedish context, which may appear as quite unique. Certainly, there are some aspects that are specific to Sweden—for example, a law that gives public employees the freedom to anonymously supply information to the media, with the employer having no right to make inquiries about who provided the information. However, we think that the four characteristics of public sector organizations that we have chosen to focus on here are applicable to public sector organizations in most countries, and therefore our discussion

158

Charlotte Simonsson and Mats Heide

about the communicative implications should be applicable to a broader context than just Sweden or Scandinavia.

Many and Conflicting Goals: Multi‐Changes and Sense Dimming Changes in public sectors may occur at different levels (e.g., the sectoral or organizational levels); they may have different initiators (e.g., politicians or administrative managers); and change may serve different and sometimes conflicting goals and logics (e.g., developing democracy, improving services for citizens, and saving money). As a result, there are often several parallel changes going on, further adding to the already complex process of conducting change. Järventie‐Thesleff, Moisander, and Villi (2015) introduced the term multi‐change, which refers to “a bundle of either simultaneous or partly overlapping change projects, each of which contains project specific and meticulously expressed directions” (p. 533). A few years ago, we conducted a case study within a Swedish university hospital. The hospital was created out of a recent and rather sudden merger between two former hospitals in two different cities. When the merger was to be implemented, there were many new change projects initiated as part of realizing the merger. At the same time, there were some ongoing cost‐cutting programs, and these made it difficult to carry out the merger, since the fusion process itself demanded extra time and resources. It was also noted that some previously initiated reform programs such as lean management were slowed down or “dropped” after the merger. This example clearly shows that dealing with multi‐changes is a complex matter and that parallel changes with different purposes may contradict each other. Multi‐changes also make it difficult to convey clear, consistent messages in the organization, and organization members may have to struggle hard in making sense of the overall change within the organization. Järventie‐Thesleff et al. (2015) label this sense dimming: “Confusion, ambiguity, and contradictory interpretations of the multiple change projects and their corresponding objectives” (p. 542).

Plurality of Stakeholders: A Complex Arena of Sense Givers Change situations are opportunities in which employees actively search for meaning, and what their leaders say and do are often important cues in this sensemaking process (cf. Deetz, Tracey, & Simpson, 2000). Since the publication of Gioia and Chittipeddi’s (1991) seminal article, there has been a growing body of research focused on senior and middle managers’ sensemaking capabilities (e.g., Balogun, Bartunek, & Do, 2015; Balogun & Johnson, 2005; Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007; Rouleau, 2005). In this literature, there is often a distinction between sensemaking and sense giving. Sensemaking is concerned with managers’ attempts to construct meaning for themselves based on available information and interactions, whereas sense giving deals with their efforts to influence the sensemaking of others toward what they see as a preferred redefinition of organizational reality (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Rouleau, 2005). In line with the dominance of the episodic, rationalistic perspective, most research has focused on how managers act as sense givers and “sellers” and on what impact managers have on change outcomes (Maitlis & Sonenshein, 2010). However, in the general leadership literature, there is an increasing critique of the idea of the manager as a lonely hero, and it makes calls for more attention to be paid to leadership as a social, mutual process (e.g., Alvesson & Spicer, 2010; Raelin, 2016). In the literature about sensemaking in organizational change, this trend can be noticed in a development toward a focus that offers a greater balance between how managers understand and communicate about the change on the one hand and how relational and contextual aspects influence their strategies and the outcome of those strategies on the other (e.g., Balogun et  al., 2015; Rouleau & Balogun, 2011). Rouleau and Balogun (2011) argue that previous research has focused on unidirectional sensemaking and has not considered the importance of understanding multiple stakeholder interactions as part of sensemaking.

Change Communication

159

Considering the importance of multiple stakeholder interactions and relational aspects, there are some specific conditions in the public sector that can make the process of sense giving even more complex. A manager never has a monopoly on influencing coworkers’ perception of reality, but a public sector organization is by definition permeable and “open,” which makes the arena of sense givers larger and more complex. Employees can find a lot of information about their organization in external media, and they may also have friends who have been in contact with their employer and who express their attitudes and feelings about it. Politicians with divergent opinions communicate about the organizations that they govern, and in doing so they send signals to the employees. Hence, as sense givers, managers in the public sector have many “competitors,” and this may make it much more difficult to influence coworkers’ perceptions and actions in a change process. Research has also shown that managers do not always engage actively in sense giving (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007). Leaders tend to miss opportunities to frame or reframe events, to explain the reason for and the consequences of decisions, and to secure commitment from employees. Alvesson and Sveningsson (2016) even talk about “symbolic anorexia” in arguing that managers’ symbolic practice is very meager—that is, managers tend not to use stories, personal examples, or new ways of doing workshops or meetings in their communication about changes. Not engaging in the sensemaking process means that managers abandon their leadership role and leave the floor open to other actors such as the media, politicians, professional groups, and the public. In our case study of the university hospital, some examples of this issue were identified (Heide & Simonsson, 2015). While employees talked about current change processes as having evolved into an organizational crisis, their managers did not want to frame the situation as a crisis, since they thought that doing so could worsen the situation. But the opposite may also have been true—that is, silence might have added to the interpretation of there being a crisis, especially since the media reporting was both very intensive and negative during the same period.

Strong Professions and Public Ethos: Increased Change Resistance Bringselius (2008) has identified two different dimensions of resistance in public organizations: horizontal and vertical. The horizontal dimension is resistance between employees who belong to different units or organizations and who are supposed to cooperate or merge. Vertical resistance is linked to different hierarchical levels—that is, between coworkers and managers. Bringselius’s research shows that vertical resistance is stronger and more common in public organizations than it is in private corporations. This resistance could be a result of strong professions—for example, physicians who have a powerful position in health care organizations and who give priority to patient safety rather than to management decisions and economic values. The public ethos and the role as guardians of democracy also make employee resistance against management decisions legitimate, and such resistance is sometimes even seen as a public servant’s responsibility. Furthermore, in public organizations, a planned, intended change will not be perceived as legitimate until it is supported by law or several stakeholders—for example, the union, stakeholder organizations, and professional groups (Bringselius, 2010). Paradoxically, Bringselius claims that coworkers in public organizations are usually more involved in decision‐making than are their counterparts in corporations and that they simultaneously have a stronger acceptance of a manager’s authority in decision‐making. While resistance is traditionally understood as something pathological, it could also be perceived as a natural part of change processes. Researchers such as Ford, Ford, and D’Amelio (2008) claim that resistance toward organizational change should be welcomed and understood as something healthy. Bringselius (2008) argues that we need a better understanding not only of the expressions of resistance but also of the content or substance of it. Hence, resistance contains important knowledge that could be used for learning and development within public organizations.

160

Charlotte Simonsson and Mats Heide

Public servants’ resistance could be interpreted as a sign of coworker engagement and a willingness to participate in developing the organization.

Expectations of Transparency: The Complex Interplay Between Internal and External Communication As the ultimate goal of public sector organizations is to serve the public and increase citizen welfare, there is often a complex interplay between internal and external communication. Given this goal, it is quite natural that public organizations are subject to intense media coverage, which shapes internal communication processes in times of change. The university hospital we studied was not exempt from strong media coverage. The internal media had no chance to compete with the speed and volume of the external media coverage, and employees confirmed that they often used the websites of the regional press, radio, and television to obtain the latest information about what was happening within their own organization in times of turbulence (Heide & Simonsson, 2015). Critical media scrutiny is a vital part of a well‐functioning democratic society, and it is not something that managers and communication professionals can or should try to prevent. What is problematic, however, is when the external media picture is not commented on or discussed in a systematic way within the organization. Thus, in a situation characterized by sparse internal communication and strong external media coverage, the latter can be expected to have a strong influence on how employees make sense of a current change situation. Sparse internal communication during a change process can become even more worse while it in some public organizations exist organizational silence, often described as coworkers’ unwillingness to speak up (cf. Perlow & Williams, 2003). The mass media frequently reports—for example, in the cases of the Swedish police and the Swedish migration agency—that public employees are victims of organizational silence. In these cases, it is reported that employees who have openly criticized top management or acted as whistle blowers have been punished—for example, through being transferred to another post or being treated with hostility by managers and coworkers. Börnfelt and Fransson (2010) found in a study that, based on a fear of sanctions, employees in 43 out of 70 public organizations withheld their criticism of, for example, a planned organizational change. The same study also shows that 40% of public managers explicitly signaled to employees that it is not acceptable to report or discuss internal business with external stakeholders such as the media or politicians. This situation is even more problematic in view of the fact that Swedish law states that public employees have the freedom of expression to, for instance, inform the media about an unsatisfactory state of internal affairs, and from mid‐2017 a new law will protect whistle blowers from sanctions. At the same time as there are signs of increased organizational silence, we can also see that the principle of public access and the right of employees to provide information in conjunction with a strong loyalty to the public service mission (rather than to the organization as an employer) foster a culture with high expectations of openness and acceptance of critical employee voices (cf. Bringselius, 2010). If there are no viable internal forums for dialogue and criticism, employees may put forward their critiques in external media, which has consequences for the public image of the organizations concerned. In the wake of the merger and cost‐savings programs at the university hospital in which we conducted our study, there were several examples of employees expressing negative opinions toward their employer in external papers and television broadcasts. There was also an open Facebook group (with thousands of members) titled “Save the university hospital,” in which not only external stakeholders but also employees put forward strong criticism of the managers and politicians responsible (Heide & Simonsson, 2015). The complex interplay between external and internal communication applies also to private companies, but due to legal conditions and the mission of public sector organizations it is even more noticeable there.

Change Communication

161

Critique and Challenges The field of change communication in general has one dominant characteristic: an ­e pisodic, rationalistic approach in which studies are conducted from a managerial perspective. A weakness following on from this managerial approach is that the perspective of coworkers is neglected, which implies a rather narrow understanding of phenomena. Furthermore, the rationalistic approach also entails a ruling methodology—a positivism that renders quantitative measures. The predominant use of quantitative surveys is problematic when it comes to analyzing and studying the outcomes of an organizational change process and the role of communication in such a process. We will further discuss these weaknesses below. The predominance of quantitative studies within the field directs what changes and communication are investigated and how investigation of them is undertaken. An obvious example is how the effects of organizational changes are measured. A common “truth” about organizational change is that 70% of all change initiatives fail. This claim was established by two articles published in Harvard Business Review by Beer and Nohria (2000a, 2000b) and Kotter (1995). Since the publication of the articles, this “truth” has repeatedly been reproduced in the literature. However, Hughes (2011) has critically examined the rationales behind the claim. Hughes concludes that there is only weak empirical material—or even none at all—to back up the claim, which is related to the problem of measuring the outcome of organizational change. Organizational changes are difficult to evaluate, and researchers tend to focus on indented changes rather than on unanticipated outcomes. Many evaluations of organizational changes are only directed toward issues that can be measured quantitatively. This strong tendency can be explained by practicalities. As Handy (1995, p. 215) notes, “The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured.” The predominance of quantitative measures also has practical consequences, not least for communication professionals, who tend to direct communication initiatives toward efforts that are possible to measure quantitatively. When it comes to change communication, professionals tend to stick to the role of content and media specialist and do not to take a broader responsibility for communication processes and their constituting quality (Johansson & Heide, 2008b). In other words, qualitative aspects of changes are far too often ignored and understudied. Furthermore, various organizational members understand and make sense of change from their own perspective, which aggravates the evaluation. Another problem with evaluating organizational change is the “fluidity, pervasiveness, open‐endedness, and indivisibility” that characterize it (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002, p. 570). In the literature, changes are often regarded as a single event but, as Pettigrew (1990) concludes, change can be understood as an ongoing process that occurs during a longer period with many strategic changes under several years (cf. above about multi‐changes). Ever since researchers started to pay attention to this area, the managerial perspective has been prevalent. As far back as the 1970s, Kahn (1974) underlined that there is too much focus on productivity and profitability and that much less attention is paid to coworkers’ experience, interpretation, identification with tasks and missions, and satisfaction. This applies to both research and practice, and unfortunately the same priorities are generally still valid. A characteristic of public organizations is a strong tradition of listening to citizens’ voices. This focus is an integral part of the mission of public organizations, but it might involve a tendency to ignore the perspective of coworkers. There are too few studies on change communication in public organizations or in corporations that put coworkers in the limelight (cf. Heide & Simonsson, 2011). This situation is worth noting because coworkers are fundamental for the existence of organizations, and their understanding and actions are crucial if changes are to be carried out.

162

Charlotte Simonsson and Mats Heide

Suggestions for Future Research To close this chapter, we would like to acknowledge five different issues that can both deepen and widen knowledge about change communication in public organizations: 1 Additional metatheoretical assumptions. To further develop the research field of public sector communication, it is critical to reflect on the dominating philosophy of science among researchers. It is far too common among researchers to ignore the basic ideas and understanding of knowledge production and to adopt the existing predominant view. Therefore, we encourage researchers to go beyond a purely management‐centered focus and pay attention to organizational efficiency. Considering that the public sector is driven by legislative goals and democratic values (such as equality, safety, and fairness), it is highly relevant to include metatheoretical assumptions that invite a broader perspective that takes the complexity and plurality of public sector organizations into account. An approach that can be rewarding in this context is social constructionism, which includes an ambition to produce a better understanding of a phenomenon—in this case, change communication—from the perspective of a variety of actors and stakeholders, who may include not only coworkers (Heide & Simonsson, 2011, 2014, 2015) but also other stakeholders such as citizens, patients, and local residents. Moreover, social constructionism involves a recognition of the constituting function of communication in change processes (cf. Craig, 1999). Organizations are enacted and accomplished in communication processes (Cooren, Kuhn, & Cornelissen, 2011). In 2015, the Swedish police initiated the largest organizational change process in its history with the goal of reducing the distance between citizens and the force. The change process implied measures such as reducing the number of hierarchical levels, centralizing support functions, and decreasing the number of police areas. Coworkers protested intensively both internally and in the mass media. Organizational change processes such as this would be an excellent opportunity to study sensemaking processes and their importance in relation to coworkers’ interpretations and understandings of the intended organizational change. 2 Putting coworkers in the limelight. The general, negative picture of coworkers as an illegitimate force for resistance that per se is negative about every change initiative should be challenged. Instead, it would be rewarding to start regarding coworkers as communicative assets that are vitally important for the result of a change process. It is important to study change processes from coworkers’ perspectives since their interpretations strongly influence the end result. In day‐to‐day working processes, it is coworkers who translate, interpret, understand, and implement change processes (Golsorkhi, Rouleau, Seidl, & Vaara, 2015). Consequently, the microactivities of coworkers have macroeffects at an aggregated organizational level. Coworkers’ communication and conversations are not only important for their own thinking and doing; they are also relevant from outsider and stakeholder perspectives. Public servants have an important role as organizational ambassadors and hence as strategic communicators. As an example, a nurse’s understanding of a planned change process at a hospital can be shared with patients, friends, journalists, and citizens through communication undertaken on a face‐to‐face basis or via social media. Presumably, different stakeholders will find coworkers’ opinions of a change process more reliable than the official version announced by management. In relation to coworkers’ communication with stakeholders, it is possible to distinguish some vital differences between public and private sector organizations. While employees in a private organization can be expected to be loyal to their employer, the loyalty of an employee in a public organization—that is, a public servant—is much more complex. The public servant is expected to serve the public at the same time as he or she is to implement decisions that are sometimes influenced by managerial ideals or political interests. By putting coworkers in the limelight, researchers will gain an alternative

Change Communication

163

understanding of change communication within public organizations—one that will undoubtedly differ from the management’s point of view. 3 The roles of middle managers in the change process. A position that hitherto has not received much attention in research on change communication within public organizations is middle managers (van der Voet, 2016). They have double roles as change recipients and change agents. Undoubtedly, they have an important role as sense givers and translators in helping coworkers to frame and understand a planned organizational change (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). As change agents, middle managers are important because they have the best opportunities to translate a vision of change into actions and execute the implementation. Middle managers are also important as intermediaries who convey coworkers’ opinions and concerns to the top management group, and they can additionally act as internal boundary spanners between different units and levels (Lewis, 2011). However, research has shown that middle managers can have both destructive and constructive roles in change processes (Meyer, 2006). Our experience is that many middle managers do not think they have the required prerequisites to help coworkers to make sense of change. All too often, middle managers themselves have not been given the chance to make sense through a dialogue with senior managers. Instead, often they are simply given an information package from the communication department. Along similar lines, Balogun and Johnson (2005) found that middle managers’ sensemaking activity primarily occurred trough lateral and informal communication with colleagues in the absence of senior managers. Previous research seems to have mainly focused on middle managers in corporations, but there is a need for more research on their importance and roles in public organizations undergoing change processes. As discussed above, the permeable and open character of public sector organizations may make the role of managers as sense givers especially challenging. 4 Understanding multi‐changes. For many reasons, public organizations are complex in terms of their structure, culture, and size. They also have a complicated decision‐making structure that involves both administrative and political decision makers. In such complex organizations, there will always be several change processes that are occurring at the same time. Hence, a planned change process in a public organization is almost always intertwined with other change processes, which make it even more complicated for coworkers to understand and make sense of an intended change initiative. Covariance is an aspect that up to now has not been focused on to any great extent. Since multi‐changes are rather common in complex public organizations, future research should pay more attention to how different simultaneously occurring change processes affect coworkers’ communication, sensemaking, and actions. Earlier research has shown that multi‐changes tend to produce sense dimming (Järventie‐Thesleff et al., 2015). 5 Close‐up, comparative studies. Kuipers et al. (2014) argue that previous research on change management in public organizations has paid little attention to the actual change process— that is, to how changes are carried out. In order to learn more about the change process, there is a need for more close‐up studies in which researchers follow a social constructionist epistemology and consequently focus on how organizational members make sense of and enact the reality before, during, and after a change initiative is implemented (cf. Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2016). Too many earlier studies are based on surveys or qualitative interviews, but a more frequent use of ethnography in studies of change communication would be valuable and contribute to richer empirical material. A challenge when using interviews alone is that there may be a difference between interviewees’ discourses and their actions. Researchers who use both interviews and observations often find that there is a difference between what organizational members say they do and what they actually do. Hence, observation as a method is suitable when researchers are interested in the communication practices during a change process. The suggestion to conduct more ethnographic research is valid beyond the context of public sector organizations, but due to the lack of knowledge about the implementation of changes in this sector, it seems especially relevant.

164

Charlotte Simonsson and Mats Heide

Another recommendation for future research is to conduct comparative studies between public and private organizations. These two different types of organizations have different conditions, prerequisites, goals, and management structures, and we could, for instance, learn more about the complex interplay between internal and external communication and about the role of strong professional groups by comparing change communication in private and public sector organizations. Public sector organizations are today expected to exhibit and follow many of the same ideals as private organizations (e.g., efficiency, innovation, and entrepreneurship). There are certainly positive aspects of this development, but it is equally important to understand and preserve some of the unique respective characteristics and goals of private and public sector organizations.

References Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (Eds.) (2010). Metaphors we lead by: Understanding leadership in the real world. New York, NY: Routledge. Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2016). Changing organizational culture: Cultural change work in progress. New York, NY: Routledge. Balogun, J. (2006). Managing change: Steering a course between intended strategies and unanticipated outcomes. Long Range Planning, 39(1), 29–49. Balogun, J., Bartunek, J. M., & Do, B. (2015). Senior Managers’ sensemaking and responses to strategic change. Organization Science, 26(4), 960–979. Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26(11), 1573–1601. Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000a). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, 78(3), 133–141. Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (Eds.) (2000b). Breaking the code of change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Börnfelt, P.‐O., & Fransson, S. (2010). Få törs slå larm om brister på jobbet. Göteborgs‐Posten. http:// www.gp.se/nyheter/debatt/få‐törs‐slå‐larm‐om‐brister‐på‐ jobbet‐1 Bringselius, L. (2008). Personnel resistance in public professional service mergers: The merging of two national audit organizations. Lund, Sweden: Lund Business Press. Bringselius, L. (2010). Resistance to change in public sector mergers. Nordiske Organisasjonsstudier, 4, 30–51. Child, J. (2005). Organization: Contemporary principles and practice. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Coch, L., & French, J. R. P. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1(4), 512–532. Cole, M. S., Bruch, H., & Vogel, B. (2006). Emotion as mediators of the relations between perceived supervisor support and psychological hardiness on employee cynicism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 463–484. Cooren, F., Kuhn, T., & Cornelissen, J. P. (2011). Communication, organizing and organization: An overview and introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1149–1170. Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 119–161. Deetz, S. A., Tracey, S., & Simpson, J. (2000). Leading organizations through transitions: Communication and cultural change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ericsson, D. (2016). Förändringsprocesser i stora organisationer [Change processes in large organizations]. Stockholm, Sweden: Statskontoret. Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 541–571. Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362–377. Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & McNamara, R. T. (2002). Resistance and the background conversations of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 105–121. Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12(6), 433–448.

Change Communication

165

Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D., & Vaara, E. (2015). Introduction: What is strategy as practice? In D. Golsorkhi, L. Rouleau, D. Seidl, & E. Vaara (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of strategy as practice (pp. 1–20). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Graetz, F., & Smith, A. C. T. (2010). Managing organizational change: A philosophies of change approach. Journal of Change Management, 10(2), 135–154. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. B. (2006). Radical organizational change. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organization studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Handy, C. B. (1995). The empty raincoat: Making sense of the future (New ed.). London, UK: Arrow. Heide, M., & Simonsson, C. (2011). Putting co‐workers in the limelight: New challenges for communication professionals. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 5(4), 201–220. Heide, M., & Simonsson, C. (2014). Developing internal crisis communication: New roles and practices of communication professionals. Corporate Communications, 19(2), 128–146. Heide, M., & Simonsson, C. (2015). Struggling with internal crisis communication: A balancing act between paradoxical tensions. Public Relations Inquiry, 4(2), 223–255. Hughes, M. (2011). Do 70 Per cent of all organizational change initiatives really fail? Journal of Change Management, 11(4), 451–464. Järventie‐Thesleff, R., Moisander, J., & Villi, M. (2015). Strategic communication during change. In D. R. Holtzhausen & A. Zerfass (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of strategic communication. New York, NY: Routledge. Johansson, C., & Heide, M. (2008a). Speaking of change: Three communication approaches in studies of organizational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 13(3), 288–305. Johansson, C., & Heide, M. (Eds.) (2008b). Kommunikation i förändringsprocesser. Malmö, Sweden: Liber. Kahn, R. L. (1974). Organizational development: Some problems and proposals. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 10(4), 485–502. Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kuipers, B. S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J., & Van Der Voet, J. (2014). The management of change in public organizations: A literature review. Public Administration, 92(1), 1–20. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, 1(2), 143–153. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change. Creating change through strategic communication. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell. Lewis, L. K. (2014). Organizational change and innovation. In L. L. Putnam & D. K. Mumby (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication (pp. 503–524). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lewis, L. K., Laster, N., & Kulkarni, V. (2013). Telling ’em how it will be: Previewing pain of risky change in initial announcements. Journal of Business Communication, 50(3), 278–308. Lewis, L. K., & Russ, T. L. (2012). Soliciting and using input during organizational change initiatives: What are practitioners doing? Management Communication Quarterly, 26(2), 267–294. Lewis, L. K., Schmisseur, A. M., Stephens, K. K., & Weir, K. E. (2006). Advice on communicating during organizational change: The content of popular press books. The Journal of Business Communication, 43(2), 113–137. Maitlis, S., & Lawrence, T. B. (2007). Triggers and enablers of sense giving in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 57–84. Maitlis, S., & Sonenshein, S. (2010). Sensemaking in crisis and change: Inspiration and insights from Weick (1988). Journal of Management Studies, 47(3), 551–580. Meyer, C. B. (2006). Destructive dynamics of middle management intervention in postmerger processes. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(4), 397–419. Perlow, L., & Williams, S. (2003). Is silence killing your company? Harvard Business Review, 81(5), 52–58. Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 1, 267–292. Raelin, J. A. (2016). It’s not about the leaders. It’s about the practice of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 45(2), 124–131.

166

Charlotte Simonsson and Mats Heide

Rouleau, L. (2005). Micro‐practices of strategic sensemaking and sensegiving: How middle managers interpret and sell change every day. Journal of Management Studies, 42(7), 1413–1441. Rouleau, L., & Balogun, J. (2011). Middle managers, strategic sensemaking, and discursive competence. Journal of Management Studies, 48(5), 953–983. Schon, D. (1973). Beyond the stable state: Public and private learning in a changing society. New York, NY: Norton. Simonsson, C. (2008). En modell för lyckad förändringskommunikation. In C. Johansson & M. Heide (Eds.), Kommunikation i förändringsprocesser (pp. 181–202). Malmö, Sweden: Liber. Trottier, T., Van Wart, M., & Wang, X. (2008). Examining the nature and significance of leadership in government organizations. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 319–333. Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–583. Van der Voet, J. (2016). Change leadership and public sector organizational change: Examining the interactions of transformational leadership style. The American Review of Public Administration, 46(6), 660–682. Van der Voet, J., Kuipers, B. S., & Groeneveld, S. (2016). Implementing change in public organizations: The relationship between leadership and affective commitment to change in a public sector context. Public Management Review, 18(6), 842–865. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–422. White, L. (2000). Changing the “whole system” in the public sector. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 13(2), 162–177.

11

Public Sector Communication and Mediatization Magnus Fredriksson and Josef Pallas

Introduction If we want to understand the circumstances within which public sector organizations operate, their governance, and the ways in which they are organized and managed, we have to take the media into account. To some extent, this is because the media functions as a fourth branch of government (the executive, legislature, and judiciary being the others). Through this role, the media is given extensive—and often constitutionally supported—liberties to scrutinize and critically examine the actions of public organizations and their representatives. This order of things was set up to uncover policy failures, corruption, inefficiency, and other forms of malfunctions. The media therefore assists citizens to exercise their legitimate right to control and evaluate public officials and hold them accountable for their actions. Such activities are supposed to have preventive as well corrective effects on organizations (Norris, 2008). This role, and the understandings it provides in relation to how we can conceptualize the media in a public sector context, is of great significance, but it is only part of the story, due to a large extent to the processes of mediatization. Mediatization has become a way to understand how the media intervenes in organizations’ activities in a wide variety of sectors and fields, and not just in public sectors. It is commonly understood as a process whereby ideas regarding the media’s functionalities, values, working methods, and effects are widely distributed across sectors and fields. To become mediatized, therefore, means that organizations integrate ideas about the media in contexts where the media was absent previously, and eventually these ideas affect organizational activities, routines, decisions, resource allocation, and communication. The aim of this chapter is to provide a general overview of mediatization as a theoretical and analytical notion, as well as of the way it has been understood in different research traditions. That said, we will pay some attention to the application of mediatization in studies on public sectors, in which at least two streams of research can been discerned. Both streams take an institutional understanding of mediatization as their point of departure. But they differ in terms of the way in which they understand what it means to be mediatized. Some would argue that organizations can uphold a rational and strategic posture toward the media and its logic. According to such perspectives, the media is something that organizations intentionally adapt to

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

168

Magnus Fredriksson and Josef Pallas

in order to gain advantages in other relations (Asp, 2014). Others, including our own work, would argue that in the wake of mediatization, organizational activities become mobilized by “ideas” of the media. These ideas facilitate the creation and distribution of activities, routines, organizational structures, and other organizational responses, not on the basis that they are the most effective, but because they give meaning to these activities and are thereby seen as appropriate (Pallas, Fredriksson, & Wedlin, 2016). That is, if we want to understand what it means to be mediatized in a context of public sector organizations, we are better off paying attention to how ideas about the media are made sense of, interpreted negotiated, resisted, and adopted (or not adopted, as the case may be).

The Significance of the “Media” Mediatization is an attempt to capture the significance of the media—in its many different forms—in different social contexts, the way in which media developments intervene in social interactions, and the consequences that this intervention might have. The concept does not refer to a single theory. Rather, it is a conceptualization that makes it feasible to understand different roles played by the media in society (Couldry & Hepp, 2016). Mediatization is thus a way to describe not only how a broad array of media transformations contributes to the ­formation, maintenance, and reformation of activities, organizations, institutions, and society as a whole, but also how the media in itself is transformed as it is intervened in human interactions. Contemporary research on mediatization is extensive, and it covers a wide variety of sectors, actors, activities, and phenomena, including politics, business, civic society, sports, (popular) culture, religion, education, science, migration, everyday life, consumption, homelessness, art, law, and others. Each of these sectors is given at least one chapter in Mediatization of Communication, a work edited by Knut Lundby (2014b). The scope of research on mediatization can be seen as an academic response to a fundamental transformation of society (Krotz, 2014) and an illustration of the importance that the media has acquired in almost all forms of human activities. The concept of mediatization was in use as early as the 1930s, when the German sociologist Ernest Manheim deployed it to describe the transformation of the way in which public opinions emerge and were transformed as the printed press came to be distributed widely. Over time, others have used mediatization to describe similar processes, but there are also examples of other usages. One example of the latter is Jürgen Habermas, who used it in a more technosociological sense to describe the use of delinguistified media—for example, money and power—to colonize the lifeworld (Averbeck‐Lietz, 2014).

Mediatization as a Definitive and Sensitizing Concept It is difficult to find a generally accepted definition of mediatization, and one reason for this might be the concept in itself. As a word, mediatization creates more confusion than clarification in many languages. In German and the Scandinavian languages, it fits well and offers a somewhat self‐evident description of how the media intervenes in other societal processes such as digitalization, individualization, or marketization. It was also used in public debates on the media’s role in politics before it became widespread in academia. In English, on the other hand, the term sounds awkward, and in other languages it is more or less meaningless and loses its cogency. In yet other cases, mediatization refers to other processes than the one that we focus on in this text. For example, in Bulgarian it is a legal term that refers to dispute resolution. In line with this, there are other concepts that refer (at least partially) to the same processes. In  the English‐speaking world, for instance, mediation has been used for a long time by

Public Sector Communication and Mediatization

169

scholars to understand the specific interplay between the media and society, democracy, culture, communication, identity, and power (Livingstone, 2009). There might be other reasons for confusion as well—ones that go beyond semantic issues. One is that mediatization, rather than being a definitive concept, is better understood as a sensitizing concept. This distinction is made by Jensen (2013) with support from the work of Herbert Blumer (1954). A definitive concept, according to Blumer, “refers precisely to what is common to a class of objects, by the aid of a clear definition in terms of attributes or fixed bench marks” (p. 7). Mediatization falls short of meeting these criteria. The literature does not provide a coherent description even when it comes to its most central term, media. In contrast to this, Blumer offers the idea of a sensitizing concept that “gives the user a general sense of reference and guidance in approaching empirical instances” (p. 7). As such, mediatization opens up and provides an approach for understanding the role of the media in social contexts without limiting our study to “media effects” or to “mediation.” As a sensitizing concept, mediatization offers several understandings of media: • Media as a technology used for distribution of information and for symbolic exchange between actors, in which different media create different possibilities, limitations, and conditions for communication (Lundby, 2014a). • Media (technologies) as cultural forms embedded in legal, social, cultural, and economic structures, the implication here being that the media is inseparable from, rather than external to, human interaction (Jansson, 2016). • Media as an actor that collects, produces, and distributes selected information such as news, entertainment, culture, sports, theater, music, opera, and so forth, meaning it has sovereignty to act in its own interest and is believed to have the ability to act rationally, control its actions, and take responsibility (Esser & Strömbäck, 2009). • Media as a forum used by others to take part in social interaction for the purpose of entering into debate and shaping public opinion, and also to allow individuals and organizations to create, share, and view different forms of content and thereby create, maintain, and develop their own social networks (Lundby, 2008). • Media as an institution that provides actors with symbolic and material resources and specifies certain activities at given times. As with other institutions that have norms, value systems, and principles, the media provides stability and predictability in social interactions (Hjarvard, 2008). What mediatization also offers is an understanding of communication as a dynamic process in which transformations are an integrated part of how mediatization plays out (Couldry & Hepp, 2016). There are few instances of communication in which actors do not adapt to each other in one way or another. A person responds to a question with a new question; an agency adjusts its information campaign to fit its target groups. It is also evident that communication changes in response to contextual circumstances. What a management group discusses behind closed doors differs from what it says during a press conference. In a similar manner, we are prepared to say things to a close friend when we are alone that we would not allow ourselves to say to him or her when others are present. There are also differences between mediated and nonmediated communication, and different media forms offer different possibilities for communication. All of these aspects—interactions, settings, and the use of media—demonstrate the dynamics of communication. However, by taking one aspect at a time, we fail to fully grasp how the aspect interacts with others and what consequences it might have on them. Here mediatization provides a way to appreciate the transformative properties of the media and communication. It helps us to understand how single aspects of communication are interlinked and interdependent relative to their social context and how changes in one aspect (might) have consequences for

170

Magnus Fredriksson and Josef Pallas

others, as well as how these aspects will affect the contexts in which they play out and how that in turn will change other aspects. In quantitative terms, mediatization captures the growing number of media interventions in an increasing number of settings. It is evident that over time the media—in all its different forms—has become a self‐evident aspect of communication in most social contexts. In qualitative terms, mediatization refers to the transformations of social life and how it develops when it intermingles with the media (Couldry & Hepp, 2013, 2016).

Research Traditions There is a vast body of research on mediatization, and the concept has been studied in a number of different disciplines, including culture studies, fashion studies, journalism studies, literature studies, management studies, organizational studies, political communication, political science, public administration, religious studies, and sociology. But most of the work has been conducted within media and communication studies. The current research on mediatization covers a number of different epochs, time spans, fields, types of actors, and types of activities, and it is possible to discern three different perspectives (Lundby, 2014a): 1 A cultural perspective. Here, mediatization is understood as a metaprocess that is inherent to the structural transformation of social worlds and that follows from increased use of the media in almost all forms of interactions. In this stream of research, mediatization is considered to be on a par with modernization, globalization, individualization, and commercialization (Krotz, 2009, 2014). It is seen as essential to the processes behind the emergence of social life, and mediatization is regarded as indispensable to what Berger and Luckmann (1967) termed “the social construction of reality,” which is paraphrased by Couldry and Hepp (2016) in their recent book The Mediated Construction of Reality. How mediatization constructs reality is described by Hepp (2013), who focuses on the notion of figurations, which he borrows from the German sociologist Norbert Elias. A figuration refers to four interdependent instances that include a constellation of actors, action‐ oriented thematic framing, forms of communication, and meanings. Mediatization is understood here as a process in which the communicative infrastructure of the social undergoes both radical and incremental transformation. Such a transformation leads to an altering of reality in terms of how we perceive it, internalize it, and act on it. The altered reality then constitutes the very conditions for and characteristics of the communicative infrastructure. 2 A material perspective. Materialists focuses on the tangible qualities of the media and the consequences of these qualities for mediatization. Under this perspective, it is argued that the media always has physical and technological attributes that are important for the processes of mediatization. There are obvious connections to medium theory and the work of Harold Inis, Marshall McLuhan, Joshua Meyerowitz, and others who stated that a medium, irrespective of its content, reshapes human existence due to its technical properties. Finnemann (2014) uses media systems and the work of Hallin and Mancini (2011) as an example of such a material perspective on mediatization. Each system is a matrix of almost the same types of news outlets (e.g., newspapers, radio, and television), but their usage and political positions differ greatly in and across each of the systems. Jansson (2014, 2016), on the other hand, shows how media technologies become naturalized in people’s everyday lives and make up the infrastructure for daily events. However, how this naturalization plays out is not given. Rather, naturalization of media technologies is a consequence of the “textures of everyday life,” whereby the media must be understood as what Raymond Williams defined as a cultural form. 3 An institutional perspective. In terms of research on organizations in general and on public sector organizations in particular, theoretical and empirical studies on mediatization are to a large extent guided by an institutional perspective. Here, mediatization is a way to capture how

Public Sector Communication and Mediatization

171

the media has become an institution in itself that to a decreasing degree intervenes in other institutions and in the actors that are embedded in them. The media has thus contributed to the formation of new patterns of communication in different social contexts (Hjarvard, 2014).

Mediatization as Institutional Transformations It is possible to discern two streams of research within the institutional perspective that have a bearing on a general theory of institutions and organizations (Scott, 2008). On the one hand, there is a rationalist approach, in which actors are conceptualized as strategic and goal oriented and as having the ability to both construct and relate to (formal) rule systems and other forms of governance (i.e., institutions) (Peters, 2011). On the other hand, there is a constructivist approach, in which social behaviors are understood as being underpinned by normative and cognitive systems (that is, institutions) that give meaning to activities and thereby facilitate the creation and distribution of social orders (Greenwood, Oliver, Sahlin, & Suddaby, 2008). In terms of mediatization, the first of these streams takes a reformulation of the question of media power as its point of departure. Instead of investigating and asking questions regarding whether the media has effects on its readers, listeners, or viewers, scholars have sought to investigate how the media affect other actors in the political system, including politicians (Asp, 1986, 2014) and bureaucrats (Salomonsen, Frandsen, & Johansen, 2016). This stream of research has primarily focused on the relations between politicians, bureaucrats, and the news media and on how the media to an increasing degree intervenes in the interactions between the politicians and bureaucrats, as well as on how the these, in response, adapt their decisions, activities, and communication. This transformation, as has been argued by individuals such as Strömbäck (2008), is dependent on four separate though highly interdependent processes. One is the increased belief among politicians and bureaucrats that the public makes use of news media as its primary source of information (Salomonsen et al., 2016). A second is the professionalization of journalism and its decoupling from other institutions (not least political institutions), which increases journalists’ abilities to act according to their own principles. A change in media content and in the way in which actors and their relations in the public sector are depicted is a third process. The fourth process refers not only to how organizations adapt to the media in their attempts to shape their media images but also to how they start to change their structures, routines, and resource allocation (Schillemans, 2012; Strömbäck, 2008). Essential to this understanding is the idea of a certain media logic—that is, a logic that represents the principles, norms, values, and working routines of the media. This logic, in turn, has become an essential part of how other actors act as they internalize the media logic into their everyday practices to secure a desired media image. For instance, Schrott (2009) argues that mediatization is best understood as an institutionalization of the mass media’s logic in other parts of the social—for example, education, religion, health, and culture—where it contests already established preferences, values, activities, practices, and relations. Mediatization is thus to be seen as a form of colonization in which, for instance, the logic of bureaucracy stands in conflict with the media’s logic, and in which the latter gains increasing importance. However, the idea of a media logic has been questioned on the basis that it is difficult to reduce all forms of media production and content to one coherent logic (Brants & van Praag, 2015). One way to solve the matter is suggested by Thorbjørnsrud, Figenschou, and Ihlen (2014) and by others who argue that, rather than thinking in terms of a general media logic, it is more relevant to single out a news logic. Such a logic describes the processes of production in different forms of news organizations where news content is edited according to journalistic principles and values and with a broad audience in mind. From a rational perspective, organizations’ adaptation to media logic is a result of strategic considerations, and first and foremost that of safeguarding a positive media image, which is

172

Magnus Fredriksson and Josef Pallas

believed to secure autonomy, resources, and position (Schillemans, 2012). Others raise doubts about the degree of intentionality and about the idea that mediatization unfolds alongside generic pathways in different organizations. Scholars who work based on a constitutive approach suggest that the consequences of mediatization can be better understood if we pay attention to how actors in organizations make sense of, interpret, negotiate, resist, adopt, or modify the ideas about the media—that is, how ideas about the media are translated (Laursen & Valentini, 2015; Pallas & Fredriksson, 2013; Pallas et al., 2016). A first step in facilitating analyses of this type has been to give up on the idea of a coherent media logic or a news logic. Instead, Pallas et al., (2016) show how mediatization is dispersed by way of an idea built on four separate but highly interdependent carriers (Scott, 2008): 1 Artifacts, This concept refers to ideas about what types of materials (e.g., press releases, Q&As, manuals, and guidelines) organizations are expected to produce so as to support organizational members in their encounters with journalists and other media representatives. But it also covers how these materials ought to be written, formatted, and distributed to gain (or avoid) media attention. 2 Routines. The second carrier is to be understood in terms of routines and specific prescriptions about how organizations ought to be set up, how they should allocate their resources, how they should respond to their media environments, and what activities and “standard operating procedures” organizations are expected to perform, including press conferences, media training, and so forth. 3 Relational systems. This includes organizations’ relational systems and notions of whom organizations need to create and maintain relationships with and what value these relationships need be infused with. This aspect includes the hiring of journalists as press officers on the basis that they are expected to have good contacts with other journalists, or the use of consultancies to gain “expertise” in times of crisis or other forms of extraordinary events. 4 Symbolic systems. Such systems include stories, instructions, laws, and other forms of discourses that suggest motives and principles behind media‐related activities. Here, professional education and training are an important component, as they provide organizational members with an adequate and coherent knowledge about how to deal with media‐related issues. With reference to the four carriers and the way they relate to each other in organizational contexts, it is less relevant to maintain the impression of a coherent (media) logic. Instead, the carriers of mediatization are to be seen as embedding an institutional idea and transporting this idea within and between organizations. This does not mean that mediatization only exist as a subjective understanding among organizational members. Mediatization—in a similar manner to that found in other institutions—is materialized in legal texts, instructions, models, and organizational systems that are set up to organize and to control organizations’ goals and activities (see Hasselbladh & Kallinikos, 2000). The way in which different carriers of institutions enter organizations—and how organizations understand and internalize them—varies between different contexts and different types of organizations (Czarniawska & Sevón, 1996). There is therefore reason to believe that public sector organizations will provide different responses to mediatization compared to, for instance private/profit‐making organizations, political parties, or nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Another reason for variation in responses to mediatization is the different settings that organizations provide to make their media‐oriented activities meaningful to their members. In the context of public sector organizations, such settings are especially important, as these organizations are occupied by a variety of professional groups that interpret and act upon mediatization differently. Different professions are guided by different norms, values, and standards, and they mobilize different interpretations and valuations—not only of the overall idea of media(tization), but also of its individual carriers. This is a major ­reason why mediatization unfolds unevenly, not only when different organizations are compared (Fredriksson, Schillemans, & Pallas, 2015) but also when different settings in one and the same

Public Sector Communication and Mediatization

173

organization are compared. It is evident, for instance, that professionals with a background in science translate the four aforementioned carriers of mediatization in ways that differ from the approaches taken by civil servants. The former give priority to scientific correctness, whereas the latter promote civic utility (Pallas et al., 2016).

Mediatization and the Organizing of Communication To grasp the consequences of mediatization and how it affects communication and its organization in public sector organizations, one has to understand that mediatization takes place in parallel with other changes in politico‐administrative systems. In most developed countries, there have been changes in how public policy is designed and delivered. A common trend is a shift in executive powers away from the political center toward those who carry out duties—for instance, frontline bureaucrats and administrative officials. In the wake of new public management reforms, performance measurement and output control have replaced detailed instructions and rules. In bureaucratic systems, rules and instructions were the foremost means of governance. Public sector organizations received directives from politicians that related not just to what to do but also to how to do it. These organizations thus gained their status mainly through being part of the political system, and their legitimacy was very much taken for granted. Public sector organizations were primed to implement and perform political duties decided upon by politicians, and as long as the politicians were legitimate, the organizations were expected to share this legitimacy. Contemporary public sector organizations such as governmental agencies, schools, and hospitals are assigned goals and given freedom to choose their own ways to reach them. They are thereby primed to earn their own legitimacy by showing how they contribute through their own activities to society. As a consequence, it has become increasingly important for organizations to distinguish themselves from others. To be able to gain trust and support, it must be obvious which organization is responsible for which activity and which organization is responsible for which outcome (Brunsson & Sahlin‐Andersson, 2000). To accomplish this, large bureaucracies have been broken down into smaller units that have responsibility for their own results—which are preferably formulated in quantitative terms—and their ability to achieve these goals will affect resource allocation and rewards. Senior managers have been given increasing responsibility to plan and execute activities, and a private sector style of management has been introduced. In general, this has entailed a move away from a civil service ethic to a greater focus on personal capacities and accountability (Hood, 1991). In this context, mediatization and the ideas about media have gained extensive scope as they are very much in resonance with a general idea of management (Pollitt, 2003). Therefore, ideas about the media are cherished, as they provide a solution to managers’ ambitions to bring about the following qualities: visibility (creating and maintaining positive news coverage); acceptance (producing material that are appealing and attention grabbing); coherence (making sure that the agency “talks with one voice”); simplicity (reducing complex reasoning to comprehensive statements and stories); timing (synchronizing the production and distribution of materials with media production cycles); and periodicity (ensuring a continuing production of newsworthy materials) (Pallas et al., 2016; Thorbjørnsrud et al., 2014). All these aspects are strong mobilizing factors when public sector organizations are about to organize their communication programs. Considerable attention is given to organizations’ media presence, and it is apparent that media activities are given priority in times when different communicative goals are in conflict (Fredriksson & Pallas, 2016). In contrast to many other forms of communication—ones that are more predictable and easier to control and that are delivered over long time periods and are therefore easier to postpone—media‐related questions and issues are unpredictable, and they are beyond organizations’ control and in need of direct response. Media activities are therefore given attention to a greater degree and in a more direct fashion, whereas other communication activities tend to be pushed back and restricted (Schillemans, 2012).

174

Magnus Fredriksson and Josef Pallas

This form of priority is evident when it comes to the resources that public sector organizations dedicate to media activities, including time, money, and personnel. To secure responsiveness and adequate replies to media scrutiny and questions from journalists, many public sector organizations have established routines and procedures for their media activities. They tend to be detailed and include not just senior management and communication personnel but also other departments, depending on issue and situation. Here, it is evident that media activities and those who are responsible for them have to an increasing degree been granted a significant mandate to interfere in other departments’ activities (Ihlen, Thorbjörnsrud, & Figenschou, 2014), especially in times of political turbulence or when an organization is subjected to critical (media) scrutiny (Deverell et al., 2014; Schillemans, 2012). Many of the routines set up by organizations are more or less standardized operating procedures, especially if organizations operate in contexts with strong normative pressures. For instance, in a context of production of business news, organizations often follow predetermined processes for the collection and production of media material to ensure that all material with respect to its content and format fits in the production and distribution structures shared by many other actors such as business media, business analysts, PR consultancies, and others that each contribute to the recursive ecology of news products (Grünberg & Pallas, 2013). The high level of routinizing and standardization is also to be understood as an endeavor to make sure that queries from journalists are handled promptly and accurately. Journalists are often in contact with public sector organizations to obtain facts, figures, and statements, and as Thorbjornsrud, Ustad Figenschou, and Ihlen (2014) show in their study of a Norwegian public bureaucracy, online journalism and the 24‐7 news outlet have increased their interest in and pressure on public organizations dramatically. It is therefore seen as being in the interest of the organization to make sure that queries are handled by members of staff who have the mandate, skills, and information needed to provide relevant and correct information. To centralize and formalize media interactions is thus a way to make sure that an organization’s official voice is secured. In organizations where members are trained to forward all inquiries to central units, it is easier for management to prevent certain information to become public—or at least to limit its circulation (Gammal, 1997). Well‐established routines and procedures and ensuring that all questions are directed and reported to the communication department provide opportunities for organizations to detect at an early stage issues that might require more substantial measurements if they are handled too late. In addition, media‐sensitive organizations often perform media monitoring as a part of their daily routines, and media reporting is often the point of departure for morning meetings and briefings of senior managers (Schillemans, 2012). The centralization of media contacts is a way for organizations to make sure that they get early warnings about events and moves in their surroundings. But it is also a way to relieve the pressure from specialists and departments that have to provide facts, figures, and materials to journalists on a regular basis. Often these questions require answers with very short notice, and queries that open up opportunities for organizations to slant and frame an issue are given priority. Accordingly, media requests tend to build up and create pressure on those who handle them, especially as these types of requests have increased substantially. In response, organizations prepare standardized answers and information packages. This is also common with databases, Q&As, and other forms of support structures that can facilitate appropriate responses. Other reactions—for instance, letting journalists wait— are never (or at least seldom) an alternative, as these might create opportunities for other actors to take precedence or frame the issue at hand, something most managers and communicators would regard as unthinkable (Pallas et al., 2016; Thorbjørnsrud et al., 2014).

Negotiations of and Resistance to Mediatization The routines and standards that public sector organizations have formulated to manage media activities and interactions with journalists are in many cases far reaching and detailed. They are an attempt to create and maintain control over an aspect perceived as essential to the organization’s

Public Sector Communication and Mediatization

175

success. However, adjustments do not take place without resistance, and it is obvious that there are employees in many organizations who refute and contest their organizations’ adaptations to mediatization. The reasons for resistance might differ, but as mentioned above, the resistance is often mobilized by professional norms and values. This is not to say that all professions disapprove of all types of media activities. Rather, there are hesitancies over the importance that media is given by management and communicators and over the willingness that they show in embracing the media’s formats, principles, and routines. A common critique from professional groups such as scientists, doctors, lawyers, and administrative officers is that when their organizations’ news material is adapted to fit media formats, facts and truth have to be abandoned. In their place, popularized press releases, social media status updates, interview one‐liners, decontextualized quotes, or dramatically interesting formulations and headlines become the rule. In terms of formats and framing, the professional groups tend to have a preference for nuanced and detailed information. A common argument put forward here is that complicated issues—political or not—cannot and should not be adapted to journalistic values and preferences that promote dramatization, simplification, and personalization. Such maneuvers are seen as a threat to reliable knowledge dissemination (Pallas et al., 2016). This is not just an issue of truth, facts, attention, or popularity. It is also a question of status, resources, and autonomy at the intra‐ and extraorganizational levels. From a managerial perspective, media attention is seen as important, not just for supporting the organization at hand but also for signaling proper management. Such a managerial perspective on media activities is often expected not only from the organizations’ principals but also from managers who represent other organizations that occupy the same sector or industry. This is due to an expected similarity between corresponding practices and activities that is necessary for cooperation and coordination between organizations. An adaptation that is difficult not to adhere to. Moreover, a distinctive and positive media image can also be used to bolster organizational and individual autonomy. As long as the public perception—which often relies on media reporting—of the organization is positive, the organization (and its management) will be able to keep principals at arm’s length (Jacobsson, Pierre, & Sundström, 2015; Strand, 2014) or gain other (political) advantages (Kunelius & Reunanen, 2012). The different professional groups occupying public sector organizations (such as experts and scientists, project managers, and bureaucrats) have less to gain from this type of attention as their prosperity is much more dependent on social acceptance among peers rather than among political principals or other managers. Their moves are therefore oriented toward the cultivation of an institutional setting in which their own role and position in their professional community as professionals are given priority. This is a strategy described by some as “conservation” (Terry, 2003) or “gardening” (Frederickson & Matkin, 2007). In this context, media attention is difficult to exchange for other forms of capital as it does not offer the integrity provided by professional knowledge. This posture implies a more inward‐looking approach, and professionals are therefore less inclined to devote their time to outward activities. There are apparent differences in how different groups refer to mediatization. As a consequence, mediatization plays out differently in dissimilar organizations and in different situations. Table 11.1 provides a typology of how different groups of employees in public sector organizations understand media through their value systems.

Critique and Challenges Mediatization has become a widespread way to understand the relations between organizations and media, and accordingly there have been critical voices regarding the concept and its applications. Among other things, critics have been vocal about the concept’s obscurity, and some have argued that it has been stretched far beyond its theoretical and empirical foundation. For

176

Magnus Fredriksson and Josef Pallas

Table 11.1  Mediatization Translated Through Managerial, Professional, and Bureaucratic Value‐Systems.

Aim of media work Preferred format Principles Concerns

Management

Profession

Bureaucracy

Producing news Popular Journalistic and result driven Agency and its identity

Providing knowledge Objective Intragroup driven The profession

Providing public good Relevant Utility driven General Public and its needs

Pallas et al., 2016.

instance, Deacon and Stanyer (2014) argue that the initial success of the concept and its “catchiness” have left scholars without the ability to more substantially, reflectively, and critically deal with the increasing appetite to expand the descriptive and explanatory power of mediatization. What Deacon and Stanyer also question is the tendency among scholars to be “mediacentric” in their ambitions to offer the theory of social change, as is the case when mediatization is put on a par with modernization, globalization, and individualization (Krotz, 2009, 2014). Critics have also questioned how mediatization, due to its conceptual construct and how it has been studied, leaves little space for other explanations regarding changes and transformations in social contexts. For instance, scholars studying the mediatization of politics have a tendency to see everything through a “media lens” and leave out other transformations in the political system when they go about explaining the rise of mediatization (cf. Strömbäck, 2008). We would argue that such a critique can be helpful in the search for new directions in research on mediatization and public sector organizations. If the critique is taken seriously, it might offer several possibilities for us to further our understanding of mediatization’s circumstances in terms of: the extent to which mediatization interplays with other societal and organizational processes; the way these interactions play out in different organizational and professional contexts; and the consequences that mediatization and the way in which it is understood internally have on organizational activities. There are at least two points we would make here. The first relates to the way in which mediatization intervenes in other institutions and institutional processes. Research on mediatization has a tendency to put the specifics of media systems (media ownership, media politics, funding, media consumption, and so forth) front and center, whereas other structural conditions such as politics and the economy are given only secondary importance. It is often argued that a given media system produces the conditions for how other actors define the rules and norms for media and how these interact with other entities. In empirical studies, this has led to questions about what configurations different media systems produce and the extent to which and the way in which these configurations affect other institutions and their actors. In contrast to this, we argue that an understanding of mediatization and its significance for public sector organizations must be seen not only in relation to transformations in media systems, but also in relation to transformations in politico‐administrative systems. These transformations, such as new public management or whole‐of‐government reforms, may support, obstruct, and/or transform how and to what extent mediatization has or could gain importance and momentum in public sector organizations. As we know from previous research, structural transformations always play out differently in different systems, and existing conditions in these systems have far‐reaching consequences on how these transformations might play out (Premfors, 1998). There are no reasons to believe that the properties of mediatization are fundamentally different in this sense (Schillemans, 2016). One should, however—and this is our second point—be careful in expecting linearity and uniformity between mediatization and the way in which public sector organizations understand and deal with the media. There has been an apparent tendency to understand and treat mediatization as a zero‐sum game and overlook the local conditions in which mediatization plays out

Public Sector Communication and Mediatization

177

across and between organizations. That is, mediatization tends to be dealt with as a process in which the media takes over or “colonizes” organizations at the expense of their inherent and original ways of doing things. This, in turn, leads to a more or less outspoken media focus and the replacement of established orientations and activities. We would argue that all this disregards the fact that different activities within public sector organizations are not only performed under different extraorganizational conditions, as we illustrated above. Organizations (and public sector organizations in particular) also meet different internal challenges that make them different from other organizations within the same sector. For instance, an agency assigned to control and supervise corporations has little in common with an elementary school in terms of its day‐to‐day activities and the extent to which those activities are regulated, controlled, and evaluated. But this also means that we have to take the diversity of single organizations under consideration, as one of the significant properties of public sector organizations is the multitude of activities that they perform. A single organization could simultaneously be a provider of support, an inspector, and an arbiter (Christensen & Laegreid, 2007). This means that the conditions for an organization to be mediatized are defined and formulated in relation to a variety of elements within the same organization. We could therefore expect frequent and fundamental negotiations about the role, means, and products of media activities not only among public sector organizations but also within them. Brought together, these remarks point out a direction for further analyses of mediatization in public sector organizational contexts. The importance of the media in these contexts is evident. But to fully understand its consequences, we must not forget that public sector organizations always act at the intersection of several institutions, and although mediatization is a strong force, it must be understood in the light of a number of other conditions and transformations such as those stemming from an increased rationalization, scientification, marketization, and globalization.

References Asp, K. (1986). Mäktiga massmedier. Studier i politisk opinionsbildning. Stockholm, Sweden: Akademilitteratur. Asp, K. (2014). Mediatization: Rethinking the question of media power. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization of communication (pp. 349–374). Berlin, Germany/Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter. Averbeck‐Lietz, S. (2014). Understanding mediatization in ‘first modernity’: Sociological classics and their perspectives on mediated and mediatized societies. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization of communication. Handbook of communication science (pp. 109–130). Berlin, Germany/Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter. Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise on the sociology of knowledge. London, United Kingdom: Penguin Press. Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10. https:// doi.org/10.2307/2088165 Brants, K., & van Praag, P. (2015). Beyond media logic. Journalism Studies, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.10 80/1461670X.2015.1065200 Brunsson, N., & Sahlin‐Andersson, K. (2000). Constructing organizations: The example of public sector reform. Organization Studies, 21(4), 721–746. Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (Eds.) (2007). Transcending in public management. The transformation of public sector reforms. Aldershot, United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2013). Conceptualizing mediatization: Contexts, traditions, arguments. Communication Theory, 23(3), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12019 Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2016). The mediated construction of reality. Wiley. Czarniawska, B., & Sevón, G. (Eds.) (1996). Translating organizational change. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Deacon, D., & Stanyer, J. (2014). Mediatization: Key concept or conceptual bandwagon? Media, Culture and Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443714542218 Deverell, E., Olsson, E. K., Wagnsson, C., Hellman, M., & Johnsson, M. (2014). Understanding public agency communication: The case of the Swedish armed forces. Journal of Public Affairs, 15(4), 387–396.

178

Magnus Fredriksson and Josef Pallas

Esser, F., & Strömbäck, J. (2009). Shaping politics: Mediatization and media interventionism. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization: Concept, changes, consequences (pp. 205–224). Oxford, United Kingdom: Peter Lang Publishing Group. Finnemann, N. O. (2014). Digitization: New trajectories of mediatization? In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization of communication (Vol. 21, pp. 297–322). Berlin, Germany/Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton. Frederickson, H. G., & Matkin, D. S. T. (2007). Public leadership as gardening. In R. S. Morse, T. F. Buss, & C. M. Kinghorn (Eds.), Transforming public leadership for the 21st century (pp. 34–46). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe Inc. Fredriksson, M., & Pallas, J. (2016). Diverging principles for strategic communication in government agencies. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(3), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1553118X.2016.1176571 Fredriksson, M., Schillemans, T., & Pallas, J. (2015). Determinants of mediatization. An analysis of the adaptation of Swedish government agencies to news media. Public Administration, 93(4), 1049–1067. Gammal, D. L. (1997). Relations between British government and the media in wartime: An analysis of the Falklands war (1982) and the Gulf war (1991). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (2008). Introduction. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organisational institutionalism (pp. 1–24). London, UK: Sage. Grünberg, J., & Pallas, J. (2013). Beyond the news desk–the embeddedness of business news. Media, Culture and Society, 35(2), 216–233. Hallin, D. C., & Mancini, P. (2011). Comparing media systems beyond the Western world. Cambridge University Press. Hasselbladh, H., & Kallinikos, J. (2000). The project of rationalization: A critique and reappraisal of neo‐ institutionalism in organization studies. Organization Studies, 21(4), 697–720. https://doi. org/10.1177/0170840600214002 Hepp, A. (2013). The communicative figurations of mediatized worlds: Mediatization research in times of the ‘mediation of everything’. European Journal of Communication, 28(6), 615–629. https://doi. org/10.1177/0267323113501148 Hjarvard, S. (2008). The mediatization of society. A theory of the media as agents of social and cultural change. Nordicom Review, 2, 105–134. Hjarvard, S. (2014). Mediatization and cultural and social change: an institutional perspective. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization of communication (Vol. 21, pp. 199–226). Berlin, Germany/Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. Ihlen, Ø., Thorbjörnsrud, K., & Figenschou, T. U. (2014). Mediatizations in new areas: the changed roles of public bureaucracies. In J. Pallas, L. Strannegård, & S. Jonsson (Eds.), Organizations and the media. Organizing in a mediatized world. London, UK: Routledge. Jacobsson, B., Pierre, J., & Sundström, G. (2015). Governing the embedded state: The organizational dimension of governance. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Jansson, A. (2014). Indispensible things: on mediatization, space and materiality. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization of communication (handbook of communication sciences, vol. 22) (pp. 273–295). Berlin, Germany/Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton. Jansson, A. (2016). Mediatization is Ordinary: A Cultural Materialist View of Mediatization. Paper presented at the The 66th annual ICA conference, Fukuoka, Japan, 9‐13 June 2016. Jensen, K. B. (2013). Definitive and sensitizing conceptualizations of mediatization. Communication Theory, 23(3), 203–222. Krotz, F. (2009). Mediatization: A concept with which to grasp media and societal change. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization: Concept, changes, consequences (pp. 21–40). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Krotz, F. (2014). Mediatization as a mover in modernity: Social and cultural change in the context of media change. In Handbook mediatization of communication (pp. 131–162). Berlin, Germany/Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton. Kunelius, R., & Reunanen, E. (2012). Media in political power: A Parsonian view on the differentiated mediatization of Finnish decision makers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 17(1), 56–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161211424207

Public Sector Communication and Mediatization

179

Laursen, B., & Valentini, C. (2015). Mediatization and government communication: Press work in the European parliament. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 20(1), 26–44. https://doi. org/10.1177/1940161214556513 Livingstone, S. (2009). On the mediation of everything: ICA presidential address 2008. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 1–18. Lundby, K. (2008). Digital storytelling, mediatized stories: Self‐representations in new media (Vol. 52, pp. 3–35). Peter Lang. Lundby, K. (2014a). Mediatization of communication. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization of communication. Berlin, Germany/Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton. Lundby, K. (Ed.) (2014b). Mediatization of communication. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton. Norris, P. (2008). The role of the free press in promoting democratization, good governance and human development. In M. Harvey (Ed.), Media matters. Perspectives on advancing governance & development (pp. 66–75). Brussels, Belgium: Global Forum for Media Development. Pallas, J., & Fredriksson, M. (2013). Corporate media work and micro‐dynamics of mediatization. European Journal of Communication, 28(4), 420–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323113488487 Pallas, J., Fredriksson, M., & Wedlin, L. (2016). Translating institutional logics: When the media logic meets professions. Organization Studies, 37(11), 1661–1684. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0170840616655485 Peters, B. G. (2011). Institutional theory in political science: The new institutionalism. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing USA. Pollitt, C. (2003). The essential public manager. London, United Kingdom: McGraw‐Hill International. Premfors, R. (1998). Reshaping the democratic state: Swedish experiences in a comparative perspective. Public Administration, 76(1), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐9299.00094 Salomonsen, H. H., Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2016). Civil servant involvement in the strategic communication of central government organizations: Mediatization and functional politicization. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(3), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553 118X.2016.1176568 Schillemans, T. (2012). Mediatization of public services. How organizations adapt to news media. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang. Schillemans, T. (2016). Fighting or fumbling with the beast? The mediatisation of public sector agencies in Australia and the Netherlands. Policy & Politics, 44(1), 79–96. Schrott, A. (2009). Dimensions: catch‐all label or technical term. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization: Concept, changes, consequences (pp. 41–62). Oxford, United Kingdom: Peter Lang Publishing Group. Scott, W. R. (2008). Institutions and organisations. Ideas and interests. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Strand, C. (2014). Semi‐autonomous organizations’ communication challenges in a mediatized society: a case study of the Swedish development cooperation agency. In J. Pallas, S. Jonsson, & L. Strannegård (Eds.), Organizations and the media. Organizing in a mediatized world (pp. 176–191). London, United Kingdom: Routledge. Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(3), 228–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161208319097 Terry, L. D. (2003). Leadership of public bureaucracies: The administrator as conservator. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe. Thorbjørnsrud, K., Figenschou, T. U., & Ihlen, Ø. (2014). Mediatization of public bureaucracies. In K. Lundby (Ed.), Mediatization of communication (pp. 405–422). Berlin, Germany/Boston, MA: Walter de Gryuter. Thorbjornsrud, K., Ustad Figenschou, T., & Ihlen, Ø. (2014). Mediatization in public bureaucracies: A typology. Communications—The European Journal of Communication Research, 39(1), 3–22.

Part III

Public Sector Communication and Practices Heidi Houlberg Salomonsen

Introduction Context matters—not least when public organizations and their managers are performing communication in practice, and when such endeavors are to be of a strategic nature. In 2013, Christopher Pollitt explicitly made the case for the importance of considering context when theorizing as well as studying public sector organizations, their management, and the policies that they develop and implement (Pollitt, 2013). This argument resonates with the point of view put forward by Pollitt 10 years earlier, which held that “the public sector is a very particular place, with some special characteristics” (Pollitt, 2003, p. 4). This pointing to the particular yet multiple characteristics of public sector organizations reflects the most recent development in the debate about what constitutes the publicness of public organizations. Although this position originated as a “core approach” to defining the publicness of public organizations and emphasized a relative binary understanding of organizations as being either publicly owned or privately held by private actors, a dimensional approach was later suggested (Bozeman, 1987, 2013; Bozeman & Bretschneider, 1994; Perry & Rainey, 1988; Rainey, 2014; for a similar argument, see Fredriksson & Pallas, 2016 and Grøn & Salomonsen, 2018). According to the dimensional approach, what constitutes the distinctiveness of public sector organizations, and hence what determines their status as public, is a matter of degree and, more importantly, is reflected in a number of aspects or dimensions that relate not only to ownership but also and equally to public organizations’ environment, their formal and informal organization, their political management, and their leadership, as well as to factors such as the motivation profile of public employees (Rainey, 2014; Tummers & Knies, 2016). Although the otherwise rather diverse contributions within this section on public sector ­communication and practices do not explicitly adhere to a dimensional approach, this is in fact this section’s key common denominator. Again, context matters, and this is so regardless of whether communication practices are performed during crises, as part of the repertoire of steering instruments available to public organizations, during consideration of how the communication and information performed and transmitted is received and perceived by actors in their environments, and so on.

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

182

Heidi Houlberg Salomonsen

Departing from the point of view that context matters may, according to Pollitt, be reflected in research on public organizations in at least two contexts, namely a conceptual one and a factual one (Pollitt, 2013b). Whereas the former relates to “the means or tools” applied to obtain knowledge—in this case, that centered on public sector communication—the latter refers to “entities or dimensions of social reality” (Pollitt, 2013b, p. 9). In this sense, the conceptual context is reflected and materializes in the frameworks, concepts, and methods that scholars apply when studying public organizations’ communication, whereas the factual context is “the context of public administration, public administration as part of social reality” (Pollitt, 2013b, p. 9). It follows from this that the proposition that “context matters” may on the one hand mean that when researchers study public sector communication practices, the knowledge produced is contextualized within the established discipline of public administration and management, with its particular “paradigmatic views” and “taken‐for‐granted understanding of the research object, the things being researched, partly shared by the scholars” (Pollitt, 2013b, p. 10). On the other hand, it may mean that, regardless of the disciplinary point of departure taken by the research performed, the subject matter is perceived as a “particular” place requiring generation or application of particular rather than universal theories, or as a further development and translation of otherwise generic theories. The contributions in this section argue for and demonstrate the importance of both conceptual and factual contexts. In addition, some of the chapters are attempts at theorizing that in certain respects tries to bridge the two contexts via the production of new middle‐range theories in which factual aspects of the public sector context contribute to novel formulations and conceptualizations of theory that are of relevance for this part of social reality (Pierre, 2013; Pollitt, 2013b, see also Merton, 1949). Regarding the matter of factual context, this section’s contributions indicate that various aspects of public sector organizations seem to be of particular relevance to public sector communication. The factors mentioned throughout the contributions reveal the relevance of considering these context types as factors that are particular to both the environment and the organizational levels of public organizations, including the values of transparency, openness, accountability, complex, and multiple stakeholders, and the political nature of the principal, to name but a few. As I have already noted, the contributions in this section are quite diverse, and this is evident in the types of practices discussed in the chapters and from the authors’ disciplinary backgrounds, which include communication and media studies as well as public administration. This variety of backgrounds particularly allows the chapters to offer novel insights into the importance of the factual contextuality of public sector organizations, as it and the more generic communication theories applied (including, e.g., theories on crisis communication, strategic communication, media studies, change communication, and communication campaigns) mean that the section is not “blindfolded” by the taken‐for‐granted assumptions of particular aspects of the public sector’s social reality. The types of practices discussed in this section, meanwhile, combine with the contributions’ explicit communicative perspective on the behaviors deployed within and by public sector organizations to create an opportunity for public administration scholars to leave their “comfort zone” and look for new theories that are not yet part of public administration as a discipline’s scholarly habitat (e.g., psychology), or even to develop new theories (e.g., ones related to political crisis management or bureaucratic reputation). In his contribution on public sector communication and performance management (Chapter 12), Asmus Leth Olsen begins by observing a research void in relation to the communicative and managerial challenges associated with the increasing production of performance‐ related information that characterizes most public sector organizations today. Olsen not only demonstrates the relevance of considering the production and dissemination of such information from a broader communication perspective but also points to the specific communicative and managerial challenges for public organizations that arise from citizens’ reception and

Introduction to Public Sector Communication and Practices

183

­ erception of it. This exemplifies public administration research, which has moved beyond its p conceptual contextual habitat, when applying psychological theory, among others, to account for how citizens make sense of performance information. In their contribution on change management and communication in public sector organizations (Chapter 13), Helle Kryger Aggerholm and Christa Thomsen also depart from an observation: They note that there has been limited case research on public sector change processes in general and on the communication performed in relation to such changes in particular. From there, the authors introduce generic approaches to change management and communication and indicate a number of contextual facts that are relevant to public sector change communication, including the complexity of public organization, the need for accountability and legitimacy, and the importance of external stakeholders. In particular, the authors pay attention to the potential dilemmas and challenges involved when public managers, in their pursuit of demonstrating accountability and generating effective change processes, turn to increased ­ transparency. In Chapter 14, which focuses on public sector organizations and reputation, Jan Boon and Heidi Houlberg Salomonsen argue that existing research on public sector organizations’ reputation has defined and theorized reputation from organizational, corporate communication, and political science approaches, while this research demonstrates contextualizations of a conceptual and a factual nature. The political science approach, for example, offers new theorizing on the factual contextual condition of political leadership. The relative importance of the political principal compared to the administrative principal often leads public administration scholars to explicitly or implicitly depart from a principal‐agency‐based form of logical reasoning. However, this reasoning is somewhat challenged by the bureaucratic‐reputation theoretical framework, as the authority of the political principal is rather perceived as a negotiated political authority. In such negotiations, the reputation of public organizations serves as a resource to be employed by public managers when they seek agreement on formal and de facto autonomy and managerial discretion. This makes the purpose of public sector communication in terms of cultivating the organizational reputation if not exclusive then distinct for public organizations if a comparison is made with the situation faced by their private sector counterparts. Finn Frandsen and Winni Johansen’s chapter on risk and crisis communication in the public sector (Chapter 15) begins by arguing that the area of public sector risk and crisis communication can be approached from three different perspectives: an informational one, a political one, and an institutional one. While the theories that fall within the informational and institutional perspectives primarily allow for a sensitivity to the factual context of public sector organization (e.g., theories originating from economics, crisis communication, and [neo]institutional theory), the theories situated within the political perspective differ in this respect. Although some of the latter are inherently cross‐disciplinary—for example, the politics of crisis management is inspired by political science, generic organization, and crisis communication, and hence it represents a conceptual contextualizing approach—others are primarily generic. Rhetorical arena theory, for instance, represents a contextual approach to crisis and risk communication in the public sector that is more factual than it is conceptual. Departing from a perspective that holds that it is essential for public sector communication to be properly managed as strategic communication, Kelly Page Werder in her contribution (Chapter 16) on public sector communication campaigns argues that the management of such communication is fundamental to public sector communication, including when public campaigns are implemented. The chapter demonstrates a movement from such campaigns being confined to dissemination of information to their becoming a means and “a fundamental process by which public sector actors influence public opinion.” In addition, the chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the theoretical perspectives informing research on strategic communication campaigns within the public sector. This research reflects the fact that this type of communication may fruitfully be conceptually contextualized in more generic theories focused on

184

Heidi Houlberg Salomonsen

how and when campaigns may have a persuasive effect that ultimately generates a behavioral change. Tine Ustad Figenschou’s contribution on public sector communication and NGOs (Chapter 17) presents research from political science and media and communication studies that focuses on the practice of NGOs’ communication vis‐à‐vis public organizations and political actors. In particular, the chapter demonstrates how changes in the media landscape have provided a new social reality and contextual conditions that have altered established communication behaviors and interaction and integration patterns between public organizations and NGOs. In so doing, the chapter illustrates how changes in the media and NGOs, both of which are central stakeholders for most public organizations, challenge established understandings of these actors as part of the social reality of the public sector’s factual environments, which subsequently provides new communication challenges for public organizations. Whether each contribution in this section represents a conceptual or a factual approach, collectively they provide convincing arguments for the importance of context when describing, understanding, and explaining diverse forms of public sector communication practices.

References Bozeman, B. (1987). All organizations are public: Bridging public and private organization theory. San Francisco, CA: Josey‐Bass. Bozeman, B. (2013). What organization theorists and public policy researchers can learn from one another: Publicness theory as a case‐in‐point. Organization Studies, 34(2), 169–188. Bozeman, B., & Bretschneider, S. (1994). The ‘publicness puzzle’ in organization theory: A test of alternative explanations of differences between public and private organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 4(2), 197–223. Fredriksson, M., & Pallas, J. (2016). Characteristics of public sectors and their consequences for strategic communication. International Journals of Strategic Communication, 10(3), 149–152. Grøn, C. H., & Salomonsen, H. H. (2018). Political instability and the ability of local government to respond to reputational threats in unison. International Review of Administrative Science. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0020852317714533 Merton, R. K. (1949). Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: The Free Press. Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public‐private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 13(2), 182–201. Pierre, J. (2013). Context, theory and rationality: an uneasy relationship? In C. Pollitt (Ed.), Context in public policy and management. The missing link? (pp. 124–130). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Pollitt, C. (2003). The essential public manager. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Pollitt, C. (Ed.) (2013a). Context in public policy and management. The missing link? (pp. 124–130). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar. Pollitt, C. (2013b). First link. In C. Pollitt (Ed.), Context in public policy and management. The missing link? (pp. 88–97). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Rainey, H. G. (2014). Understanding and managing public organizations (5th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Wiley, Jossey‐Bass. Tummers, L., & Knies, E. (2016). Measuring public leadership: Developing scales for four key public leadership roles. Public Administration, 94(2), 433–451.

12

Public Sector Communication and Performance Management: Drawing Inferences from Public Performance Numbers Asmus Leth Olsen

Introduction In the late 1930s, a young Herbert Simon was fundamentally curious about how the ­measurement of the performance of public organizations could be useful to managers and ­citizens. In an almost forgotten piece from 1939, The Administrator in Search of Statistics, he asks a set of simple questions about the role of performance information in the public sector: “What are statistics, and how can they help solve administrative problems? What is the proper use of statistics, and what pitfalls are to be avoided?” (Simon, 1939, p. 21). While Simon moved on to other topics and was later awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics, his early endeavors focused on the effects of performance information have been revitalized in recent decades by the performance management doctrine (Pollitt, 2006). Moynihan (2008, p. 5) defines performance management as “a system that generates performance information through strategic planning and performance measurement routines and that connects this information to decision venues, where, ideally, the information influences a range of possible decisions.” In performance management, performance information is intended to play a role in multiple areas—for example, evaluating actions, allocating resources, learning, and improving decision‐ making and accountability (Askim, 2007; Holzer & Yang, 2004). To date, meta‐analytical efforts have yielded very little evidence of the impact of these endeavors on actual performance (Gerrish, 2016; Hood & Dixon, 2015). However, from a public sector communication perspective, the most important aspect is the external role of performance information—that is, how information about performance affects citizens’ perception, attitudes, and behavior in relation to public services. As Osborne and Plastrik (2000, p. 247) put it, performance information should ideally help “citizens and customers judge the value that government creates for them.” However, as the literature currently stands, we are in many ways still occupied with the very basic question: What inferences do citizens draw from performance information? Any attempt to constructively communicate performance to the wider public must rely on certain assumptions or actual evidence that help to answer this question.

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

186

Asmus Leth Olsen

This chapter focuses on the state of the art of research that aims to understand the external role of performance information. This research emphasizes the need for rigorous studies of how the public sector communicates performance to citizens and how this communication can enhance citizens’ understanding of public services. In many ways, the aim is to replace assumptions about performance information effects with actual experimental and observational e­ vidence of how citizens rely on performance data when evaluating performance. In fact, at the turn of the twentieth century, Herman C. Beyle called in a similar manner for a communication‐­oriented study of how citizens perceive government performance (Beyle, 1928, 1936). However, only recently has there been an emergence of a collective effort to understand the “recipient” of ­performance information. In recent years, performance information research has been marked by a common methodological and theoretical focus. Theoretically, this research draws on insights from psychology and the behavioral sciences (Andersen & Hjortskov, 2016; James & Olsen, 2017; Moynihan, 2016; Olsen, 2015c) and therefore responds to Herbert Simon’s early calls for a closer collaboration between psychology and public administration (Olsen, 2015a; Simon, 1955). It exemplifies the recent turn to behavioral public administration, which is defined by “the micro‐level perspective of individual behavior and attitudes by drawing on recent advances in our understanding of the underlying psychology and behavior of individuals and groups” (Grimmelikhuijsen, Jilke, Olsen, & Tummers, 2017, p. 46; Tummers, Olsen, Jilke, & Grimmelikhuijsen, 2016). This was not always the case, as James and John (2007, p. 568) were among the first to note: “The connection between public management and political behavior has been largely neglected because the literatures have mostly been developed as separate areas of endeavor.” In terms of methods, this literature has become predominately experimental and has thus been one of the leading topics behind the spread of experimental methods in public administration (Blom‐Hansen, Morton, & Serritzlew, 2015; Margetts, 2011). Performance measurement research is thus moving closer to the theoretical and methodological tradition in political communication, which has been closely integrated with political psychology. Also, with the rise of “big data” and its increased importance for government affairs, all possible questions about communicating public performance are becoming increasingly pressing (Lavertu, 2016; Mergel, Rethemeyer, & Isett, 2016). This rise of “big data” calls for a view of the external role of performance information as an interdisciplinary study of communication with citizens that will help foster further theoretical and methodological integration. After defining the concept of performance information, this chapter outlines the state of the art of the current research and some of its major themes. Finally, a future agenda for communication research and performance management is discussed with an emphasis on the limits and future potential of this research—in particular, the need for theoretical integration and connecting evidence from microlevel to macrolevel studies (and back).

The Study of Performance Information as a Study of Numbers Conceptually, performance information, performance indicator, and performance measurement have been used interchangeably in the field, and this will also be the case in this chapter (Olsen, 2015c). According to Pollitt (2006, p. 39), performance information is defined as “systematic information describing the outputs and outcomes of public programs and organizations— whether intended or otherwise—generated by systems and processes intended to produce such information.” Van Dooren, Bouckaert, and Halligan (2010, p. 6) offer a simple definition that states that “measuring performance means systematically collecting data.” Along the same lines, Martin and Kettner (1997, p. 18) define performance measurement as “the regular collection and reporting of information on the efficiency, quality, and effectiveness of government programs.”

Public Sector Communication and Performance Management

187

Many stress that performance information should be a repeated and regular exercise. Hatry (1999, p. 6) takes the view that “regular tracking is a key characteristic of performance measurement.” Thomas (2006, p. 1) defines performance measurement as “the regular generation, ­collection, analysis, reporting, and utilization of a range of data related to the operation of public organizations and public programs, including data on inputs, outputs, and outcomes.” James (2011a, p. 400) also includes a broader range of public sector information, as he defines performance information as “the inputs, processes, outputs, and outcomes of public services and organizations providing them and their value for money, efficiency, and effectiveness.” A unifying feature of these definitions and many more is the view of performance information as fundamentally numerical data (Davies, 1999, Hood, 2007; Moynihan, 2008; Perrin, 1998; Van Dooren et al., 2010; Olsen, 2015c). As Radin (2006, p. 27) notes, “There is perhaps no element within the performance measurement process that is more important than the reliance on numbers and quantitative presentation of accomplishments.” This feature allows us to connect performance measures with the broader debate on quantification in politics (Espeland & Sauder, 2007; Herbst, 1993; Stone, 1997). It has also allowed research to draw on existing studies in other fields that study how humans draw inferences from quantitative data about the social world (Olsen, 2017a). This interdisciplinary turn can be seen in the recent experimental and behavioral performance measurement research.

State of the Art: Behavioral and Experimental Research A natural point of departure is to consider how citizens respond to “hard” statistical performance data compared to other ways obtaining information about performance (Olsen, 2017a). In their everyday lives, citizens have numerous casual encounters with public services. They interact with public employees and are exposed to local news on services. Such exposure is often high on vividness and can be emotionally engaging. Hard performance data, on the other hand, is often pallid packages of thematic information and dry statistics—that is, low‐vividness input that has been found to be less emotionally engaging in other setting (Gross, 2008; Slovic, 2007). This effect has also been noted by communication scholars (Zillman, 2006). Similarly, exposure to simple descriptions of individual experiences with public services elicits a stronger emotional response and shifts evaluations of public service more than numerical performance information describing the very same performance level does (Olsen, 2017a). These findings actually tally with some of the first‐ever evidence of what citizens learn from government performance information. In the early 1940s, a graduate student named Miriam Roher ran a number of surveys to understand how citizens are affected by being exposed to performance information via government reports and local news media (Lee, 2006). She fielded a number of surveys asking citizens of Palo Alto, California, about their knowledge of government services and performance (Roher, 1941a, 1941b). One of these was fielded prior to the circulation of a multipage government report that was being distributed to all households. Another survey was fielded just after the report was distributed. By comparing responses across the two samples, she was able to estimate how the dissemination of statistical performance data affected citizens’ knowledge of the subject. Much to her surprise, the reports did not have any detectable effect on citizens’ knowledge. Later, she fielded a third wave of the same survey. It followed a period of 8 weeks in which the local newspaper had run a weekly advertisement on page one that highlighted city performance data. The data in the newspaper was often depicted with a drawing or cartoon. In the subsequent survey, Roher detected improvements in citizens’ knowledge of a number of performance dimensions. One possible interpretation of the finding is that performance information must be made more vivid and easily digestible for it to have an impact on citizens. Unfortunately, at the time her findings were largely ignored and governments continued to rely on dry government reports to communicate about performance with the public (Lee, 2006).

188

Asmus Leth Olsen

In summary, from the outset, those communicating performance information to the wider public have a very difficult task at hand: The very characteristics (i.e., factual and numerical) of the information disseminated are not psychologically well suited to the recipient. This naturally raises the question of how citizens then interpret performance numbers when they actually engage with them. I will highlight three research themes that tackle this question.

The Dominance of Negative Performance Information The first dimension is the valence of the information. In psychology, there has been extensive research on the asymmetrical effect of negative and positive information. This is captured by the concept of negativity bias, which denotes an asymmetrical response to positive and negative information, the effect of which is that “negative events are more salient, potent, dominant in combinations, and generally efficacious than positive events” (Rozin & Royzman, 2001, p. 297). This insight has provided important criticism for some of the key assumptions underlying performance management. Here the implicit assumption has been that positive and negative information carry equal weight in citizens’ eyes. Ideally, then, the proportional relationship between good organizational performance and praise from citizens is equivalent to that between bad organizational performance and blame from citizens. Prewitt (1987) captures the ideal: “When economic and social indicators are moving in politically popular directions, political credit is claimed; when they are moving in unpopular directions, political blame is assigned. Here, then, is a contribution of public statistics to the workings of democracy.” At the same time, negativity bias underpins the theory of blame avoidance, which has often been linked to managerial responses to poor performance (Weaver, 1986, p. 373). If citizens give greater weight to negative performance than they do to positive information, it becomes a lot more important for policy makers and managers to avoid blame than it is for them to win praise (George, Desmidt, Nielsen, & Bækgaard, 2017; Hood, 2007, 2010; James, Jilke, Petersen, & Van de Walle, 2016; Marvel, 2014; Moynihan, 2012; Olsen, 2017c). Negativity bias has therefore become a central object of research on responses to performance information because it both challenges our naive assumptions about the symmetry of information effects and at the same time helps to explain some of the behaviors and responses that can be observed among managers. Drawing on a broader political science literature on voting behavior (Bloom & Price, 1975; Mueller, 1973), a number of studies have looked at how incumbent politicians are punished for bad public service performance but are not rewarded for good performance (Boyne, James, John, & Petrovsky, 2009; James & John, 2007). These studies provide a clear skewness toward negative performance information in citizens’ responses. To get a closer look at the mechanism, studies have tried to disentangle the negativity bias from potential confounding effects. For instance, it may not be possible to observe negative and positive information of the same magnitude in the real world. It may be the case that negative information is more extreme and observed less frequently because public service is often moderately good or about average (Stipak, 1979). If that is the case, then voters are responding not just to negative information but to a range of other relevant aspects of the information. One solution to this has been to rely on equivalence framing, where “two logically equivalent (but not transparently equivalent) statements of a problem [that] lead decision makers to choose different options” (Rabin, 1998, p. 36) are presented to citizens in an experiment. For instance, one might expose one group to the performance data showing that “10% of kids at a school fail their exam,” while others are told that “90% of kids at a school pass their exam.” The two pieces of performance information are obviously logically equivalent: they refer to the same underlying level of performance. However, the former stresses negative aspects (“fail rate”) while the other one highlights positive aspects of performance (“pass rate”). One thus makes sure that positive and negative information are not different in terms of extremity or some other aspect; the only

Public Sector Communication and Performance Management

189

difference is the valence of the label. At a theoretical level, the valence shift in labels changes the recipient’s encoding of the information. A negative label leads to a negative encoding, which increases the probability that negative associations are produced. For instance, if citizens are exposed to a certain “fail rate” at a school, it becomes more likely that other negative aspects about school performance become salient. The opposite happens when they are exposed to a positive frame. For instance, Olsen (2015a) exposed citizens to a patient satisfaction measure as well as a patient dissatisfaction one. They were then asked to rate a hospital’s performance based on the information. Their evaluation of a hospital with a 90% satisfaction rate was one standard deviation better than if they were told the hospital had a 10% dissatisfaction rate. This difference was comparable to very large changes in the actual performance of the hospital. Specifically, changing the valence of the labels was equivalent to changing the satisfaction rate by 22% (see also Olsen, 2015d). By adding a neutral treatment that combines both negative and positive information, one can more carefully estimate the asymmetry between negative and positive performance information. Using these methods confirms a strong negativity bias in citizens’ perception of public organizations based on performance data (Olsen, 2015b). Citizens rate organizations at about the same level if exposed to neutral or positive performance information, and only negative information drags down their ratings. In sum, communication of performance to citizens will be largely contingent on the valence of the information. Negative information will have a larger impact, and just changing the label while holding constant the level of performance will change perceptions of an organization dramatically. More generally, evaluations are highly asymmetrical in the sense that negative information leads to negative evaluations while neutral and positive information produce very similar responses. Overall, this indicates that performance management will be affected by strong incentives to avoid blame, while less attention will be directed at winning praise (Nielsen & Moynihan, 2017).

The Role of Performance Comparisons and Reference Points Performance information provides great detail and often carries implicit cues of precision and objectivity. Stone (2012, pp. 191–196) notes that “numbers, by seeming to be so precise, help bolster authority of those who count. . . . Numbers impart an aura of expertise and authority to the people who produce and use them.” At first glance, performance information swipes away ambiguity and provides a sense of reliable information about an important topic: the performance of public organizations. However, a closer look reveals that even the most seemingly unambiguous and simple numerical performance information requires interpretation from the recipient. The previous section highlighted how the valence of the label attached to performance numbers can be a powerful cue when citizens interpret performance. I will now turn to the issue of how the communication of performance numbers is interpreted—that is, how do citizens approach the task of making sense of performance numbers? Psychology points to how individuals tend to focus on round numbers or certain focal or symbolic values. For instance, powers and multipliers of 10 are found most frequently in written material across time and cultures (Dehaene & Mehler, 1992; Dorogovtsev, Mendes, & Oliveira, 2006). These round numbers serve as “cognitive reference points” (Rosch, 1975). Studies also suggest that humans can be motivated to achieve results that satisfy symbolic values (Pope & Simonsohn, 2011). This indicates that individuals are likely to simplify numerical information whenever they rely on it for judgment and decision‐making. One way of approaching numbers is to rely on the leftmost digit—that is, the first digit in the performance number. Studies of communication of prices show that consumers rely on a leftmost‐digit bias, implying that consumers neglect or give less weight to digits that follow the leftmost one (Thomas & Morwitz, 2005). With regard to performance information, a similar effect has been identified in the case

190

Asmus Leth Olsen

of school performance data. If citizens are offered simple two‐digit grade averages, they will almost completely ignore the second digit and solely base their evaluation of a school on the first digit (Olsen, 2013a, 2013b). A similar finding has been found in relation to citizens’ attitudes about budgetary decision‐making based on numerical information about budget proposals (Malhotra & Margalit, 2010). Often citizens are offered more than a single value of performance information that they will need to consider. Benchmarking and the use of comparative data have been a key issue since the early works of Herbert Simon, who stressed that comparisons were needed for both citizens and managers to make valid inferences about data. Comparisons have the upside of reshaping a question about absolute value (e.g., is level of performance X high or low?) into a relative question (e.g., is level of performance X better or worse than level of performance Y?). In short, comparisons allow citizens to replace a difficult question with a far easier one. For Simon (1939, p. 106), there were two main ways of doing performance comparisons: “The only sound basis for decisions about numbers is numerical factual information about past experiences or the experiences of others—nothing more nor less than comparative statistics.” This way of comparing matches later psychological research on how individuals can rely on either historical comparisons in time or social comparisons with others (Albert, 1977; Festinger, 1954). Social comparisons are comparisons to other similar units (e.g., comparisons with other municipalities, organizations, or countries), while historical comparisons are comparisons over time for the same unit (e.g., comparisons with last year, previous quarters, or past decades). In public management, research has focused on how citizens respond to relative performance comparisons versus absolute ones and what type of comparison has the most impact on impressions of a service (Hansen, Olsen, & Bech, 2015; James, 2011a; James & Moseley, 2014). Using actual performance reports, James (2011b) shows that comparisons of performance across units raise citizens’ perceived performance and satisfaction with the services. If compared directly, studies find that both absolute and relative performance measures affect citizens’ perceptions (James & Moseley, 2014). However, relative performance comparisons allow citizens to make more certain judgments without spending more time on the process (Olsen, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c; Mussweiler, 2003). Also, when directly compared, social comparisons have a larger effect on service perceptions than historical comparisons do (Charbonneau & Van Ryzin, 2015; Olsen, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c).

Motivated Reasoning and Performance Information The final set of studies turns our attention to something other than performance information itself. It focuses instead on the interaction between recipients’ dispositions and beliefs and on how these dispositions and beliefs correspond to beliefs about the organization being evaluated (Kahan et  al., 2013; Leeper & Slothuus, 2014; Petersen, Skov, Serritzlew, & Ramsøy, 2012; Taber & Lodge, 2006). Even in the early studies of performance information, we encounter the notion that citizens differ in terms of their knowledge, interest, and abilities in relation to comprehending and relying on numerical data (Beyle, 1928; Roher, 1941a, 1941b). However, theoretical work on motivated reasoning introduced the idea that prior attitudes and predispositions can be a primary source of differences in information processing among citizens. The concept of motivated reasoning highlights that citizens’ motivations, when confronted with performance data, can take many forms. Specifically, they can take the form of accuracy goals or directional goals (Kunda, 1990). Up until this point, the assumption had been that citizens care about accuracy: they aim to arrive at a conclusion about the data that reflects the true state of performance. That is, the focus had been on how various biases systematically skew these accuracy goals. However, motivated reasoning allows for the alternative hypothesis that citizens are motivated to protect their prior beliefs, something I refer to here as directional goals. That is, citizens are motivated to interpret data in a way that is consistent with the direction of their prior beliefs.

Public Sector Communication and Performance Management

191

Interest in such questions has only been strengthened by the fact that politicians have been found to strongly rely on prior attitudes when evaluating performance data, as well as by the fact that the effect of this attitude is amplified even more when more data is provided (Bækgaard, Christensen, Dahlmann, Mathiasen, & Petersen, 2017). The most straightforward example is citizens’ ideological beliefs about how private or public provision affect performance. Citizens’ views on this topic have been found to vary widely and across many different performance dimensions (Hvidman & Andersen, 2016). The issue then becomes how these predispositions filter the impression or performance evaluation derived from performance data that either go against or support prior beliefs about public or private provision. Bækgaard and Serritzlew (2016) randomly assigned to citizens performance information showing that a public hospital was performing better than a private one or vice versa in terms of avoiding instances of complications in operations. The performance data was communicated as frequencies and required the recipient to calculate complication rates in order to answer the question of whether the private or the public hospital was performing best (see also Kahan, Peters, Dawson, & Slovic, 2017). Interestingly, in a placebo condition the very same data was presented without any indication of whether the hospitals were private or public. The results show that citizens’ prior beliefs about public and private provision affect their calculation of complication rates. However, the effect of prior beliefs vanishes when the data no longer indicates if the hospital is public or private. Following a similar line of argument, James and Van Ryzin (2016) look at how providing citizens with a cue to encourage party political thinking affects interpretations of data relative to a prime about their needs as service users. Using the case of “Obamacare” in the United States, they show that under the political prime, Democrats rated evidence favorable to the health‐care program’s performance more strongly than did Republicans. If Democrats were given a choice of various forms of performance information to inform their assessment of the program’s performance, they tended to choose indicators that reported more positive performance in comparison to those chosen by Republicans. On a more general level, studies have highlighted that research needs to take citizens’ general beliefs about public services into account when understanding how they process new information. For instance, using the psychological implicit association test, Marvel (2015) has found that US citizens rely on unconscious and often negative attitudes toward public services. James and Van Ryzin (2015), find that citizens who were exposed to information about good performance that was based on a measure of customers’ satisfaction with the US veterans’ affairs and citizenship and immigration departments evaluated the information as more credible when it was provided by the independent American Customer Satisfaction Index than they did when it came from the government agencies themselves. This clearly highlights the importance of understanding interactions between citizens’ prior beliefs and how they are supported or rejected by the content of the communicated performance data and the source of the data.

Conclusion and Future Research Performance management highlights the importance of communicating performance information to citizens. It therefore also highlights the need for performance management to engage in very direct dialogue with communication science. In recent years, this interchange has unfolded with behavioral and experimental research on how performance information affects citizens’ perception of public organizations and their attitudes toward different services. These studies help disentangle the different psychological cues that citizens take when confronted with performance data. However, behavioral and experimental research not only provides a more complete view of how citizens actually make sense of performance data; it also helps our understanding of how

192

Asmus Leth Olsen

managers and politicians respond to performance measures. Examples include how negativity bias in citizens’ response to performance information increases the incentives of managers to use blame‐avoiding strategies. The ideal approach here would be a research program in which microlevel studies of citizens are mirrored in mesolevel studies of managers and organizations, with these, in turn, reflecting macrostudies on how performance information regimes change over time and vary between countries. Importantly, with a common psychological foundation for the study of citizens, we can arrive at a unified global research agenda that draws on human cognition and emotions to understand the effects of performance data. As we then move on to the mesolevel and macrolevel, we can increasingly emphasize local context and variations. This being said, modern experimental and behavioral research on performance information also has a number of blind spots and leaves certain questions unanswered. First, these studies provide a clear microlevel perspective by studying the cognitive processes that shape how citizens make sense of performance data. This view has the advantage of providing clear information about the implications for how certain ways of communicating performance will affect citizens’ perceptions. It therefore provides correspondence between information content and effects among recipients. However, the question is how to integrate these insights with macrolevel studies of performance management. Much of the existing research stresses differences in performance management and measurement practices between countries and sectors. The experimental and behavioral approach to performance information stresses similarities across contexts stemming from the fundamental cognitive processes that are studied. The key question moving forward should therefore be: How can microlevel and macrolevel studies of performance measurement be integrated? Second, the behavioral and experimental agenda in performance information research is to date a collection of loosely coupled facts about how citizens make sense of performance information. These facts are all very appealing individually as they provide clear predictions and guidance to practitioners who want to understand how performance information works. However, apart from a common grounding in social and cognitive psychology, the different core findings do not refer to a unified or coherent theoretical model. This raises some questions about how these various biases fit together and how they might boost or cancel out each other. Model building aimed at integrating these different insights should therefore have a high priority. The neighboring fields of communication studies and political psychology can be useful here, as they have both aimed to build more elaborate models of human information processing that combine insights from a diverse set of theories. The motivating question moving forward should therefore be: How can findings from behavioral performance information studies be refined in a comprehensive theoretical model? Third, a potential way forward for both theoretical and methodological integration is to view the reception of performance information as an interdisciplinary study to which scholars outside of public management have a relevant contribution to make. Today, performance information is mainly studied by scholars with a background in public administration and political science. However, in other disciplines, we find highly relevant studies that clearly speak to the topic of public sector communication of performance. Examples include studies of hospital performance data in medicine (Hibbard, Stockard, & Tusler, 2003, 2005), studies of campaigns and media in political communication and political psychology (Gross, 2008), and the study of economic voting or performance voting in political behavior (Lau, 1982, 1985). The task at hand for future research is to cut across disciplinary boundaries and embrace outside insights. There is potential for “piggybacking” that would allow scholars in public administration to benefit from strong evidence adduced in other fields. The motivating question moving forward should therefore be: What existing evidence do other fields already possess that is not currently recognized as a potential contribution to the study of performance information? Fourth, most of the studies reviewed here rely on survey or lab experiments in which respondents are exposed to real performance data or hypothetical vignettes. These methods impose

Public Sector Communication and Performance Management

193

restrictions on the external and ecological validity of our knowledge of performance information. For instance, how do the different effects play out in settings where citizens are exposed to multiple and potentially ambiguous sources of information about government performance? The natural response is to conduct more field experiments in which citizens are exposed to government performance information in their natural environment. The motivating question moving forward should therefore be: What is the external and ecological validity of the recent behavioral and experimental research on citizens’ inferences from performance data? Fifth, the final unanswered question relates to the ethics of studying the communication of performance information to citizens. A methodological move to field experiments also increases the importance of clear ethical guidance. Many of the insights obtained from these studies can potentially be used to manipulate and skew the presentation of performance data in order to highlight certain aspects of performance. For instance, managers can choose to present performance with comparative benchmarks that make their own performance look more favorable, or they might rely on insights from equivalence framing and use labels that depict their organization in a positive light. This raises a question about the ethics and misuse of experimental and behavioral research on communication performance information. Many ways of presenting performance information can seem very subtle and will often pass as technical details, but they can indeed have a powerful impact. This calls for more observation studies into manipulation and gaming of performance data. It also highlights a need to update bureaucratic values and norms to take into account the fact that a lot of communication with citizens today takes the form of numerical performance data. The motivating question moving forward should therefore be: What are the ethical concerns of studying the details of how performance information affects citizens, and how can professional norms be developed for the communication of performance data?

References Albert, S. (1977). Temporal comparison theory. Psychological Review, 84(6), 485–503. Andersen, S. C., & Hjortskov, M. (2016). Cognitive biases in performance evaluations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(4), 647–662. Askim, J. (2007). How do politicians use performance information? An analysis of the Norwegian local government experience. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(3), 453–472. Bækgaard, M., Christensen, J., Dahlmann, C. M., Mathiasen, A., & Petersen, N. B. G. (2017). The role of evidence in politics: Motivated reasoning and persuasion among politicians. British Journal of Political Science, 1–24. Bækgaard, M., & Serritzlew, S. (2016). Interpreting performance information: Motivated reasoning or unbiased comprehension. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 73–82. Beyle, H. C. (1928). Objective studies as a basis for functionalized governmental reporting. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Governmental Research Association. New York: Governmental Research Association. Beyle, H. C. (1936). Checking response to municipal publicity. Public Management, 18(6), 163–166. Blom‐Hansen, J., Morton, R., & Serritzlew, S. (2015). Experiments in public management research. International Public Management Journal, 18(2), 151–170. Bloom, Howard S., and H. Douglas Price. “Voter response to short-run economic conditions: The asymmetric effect of prosperity and recession.” American Political Science Review 69.4 (1975): 1240–1254. Boyne, G. A., James, O., John, P., & Petrovsky, N. (2009). Democracy and government performance: Holding incumbents accountable in English local governments. Journal of Politics, 71(4), 1273–1284. Charbonneau, É., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2015). Benchmarks and citizen judgments of local government performance: Findings from a survey experiment. Public Management Review, 17(2), 288–304. Davies, I. C. (1999). Evaluation and performance management in government. Evaluation, 5(2), 150–159.

194

Asmus Leth Olsen

Dehaene, S., & Mehler, J. (1992). Cross‐linguistic regularities in the frequency of number words. Cognition, 43, 1–29. Dorogovtsev, S. N., Mendes, J. F. F., & Oliveira, J. G. (2006). Frequency of occurrence of numbers in the world wide web. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 360(2), 548–556. Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds. American Journal of Sociology, 133(1), 1–40. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117–140. George, B., Desmidt, S., Nielsen, P. A., & Bækgaard, M. (2017). Rational planning and politicians’ preferences for spending and reform: Replication and extension of a survey experiment. Public Management Review, 19(9), 1251–1271. Gerrish, E. (2016). The impact of performance management on performance in public organizations: A meta‐analysis. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 48–66. Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Jilke, S., Olsen, A. L., & Tummers, L. (2017). Behavioral public administration: Combining insights from public administration and psychology. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 45–56. Gross, K. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29, 169–192. Hansen, K. M., Olsen, A. L., & Bech, M. (2015). Cross‐national yardstick comparisons: A choice e­ xperiment on a forgotten voter heuristic. Political Behavior, 37(4), 767–789. Hatry, H. P. (1999). Performance measurement: Getting results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Herbst, S. (1993). Numbered voices: How opinion polling has shaped American politics. University of Chicago Press. Hibbard, J. H., Stockard, J., & Tusler, M. (2003). Does publicizing hospital performance stimulate quality improvement efforts? Health Affairs, 22(2), 84–94. Hibbard, J. H., Stockard, J., & Tusler, M. (2005). Hospital performance reports: Impact on quality, market share, and reputation. Health Affairs, 24(4), 1150–1160. Holzer, M., & Yang, K. (2004). Performance measurement and improvement: An assessment of the state of the art. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70(1), 15–31. Hood, C. (2007). What happens when transparency meets blame‐avoidance? Public Management Review, 9(2), 191–210. Hood, C. (2010). The blame game: Spin, bureaucracy and self‐preservation in government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hood, C., & Dixon, R. (2015). A government that worked better and cost less? Evaluating three decades of reform and change in UK central government. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hvidman, U., & Andersen, S. C. (2016). Perceptions of public and private performance: Evidence from a survey experiment. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 111–120. James, O. (2011a). Performance measures and democracy: Information effects on citizens in field and ­laboratory experiments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 399–418. James, O. (2011b). Managing citizens’ expectations of public service performance: Evidence from observation and experimentation in local government. Public Administration, 89(4), 1419–1435. James, O., Jilke, S., Petersen, C., & Van de Walle, S. (2016). Citizens’ blame of politicians for public service failure: Experimental evidence about blame reduction through delegation and contracting. Public Administration Review, 76(1), 83–93. James, O., & John, P. (2007). Public management at the ballot box: Performance information and electoral support for incumbent english local governments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(4), 567–580. James, O., & Moseley, A. (2014). Does performance information about public services affect citizens’ ­perceptions, satisfaction, and voice behaviour? Field experiments with absolute and relative performance information. Public Administration, 92(2), 493–511. James, O., & Olsen, A. L. (2017). Citizens and performance measures: Making sense of performance information. In O. James, S. Jilke, & G. G. Van Ryzin (Eds.), Experiments in public management research: Challenges and contributions (pp. 270–290). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. James, O., & Van Ryzin, G. (2016). Motivated reasoning about public performance: An experimental study of how citizens judge Obamacare. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(1), 197–209.

Public Sector Communication and Performance Management

195

James, O., & Van Ryzin, G. G. (2015). Incredibly good performance: An experimental study of source and level effects on the credibility of government. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(1), 23–35. Kahan, D. M., Dawson, E. C., Peters, E., & Slovic, P. (2013). Motivated numeracy and enlightened selfgovernment. The Cultural Cognition Project. In Working Paper No. 116. Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Dawson, E. C., & Slovic, P. (2017). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self‐ government. Behavioural Public Policy, 1, 54–86. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivating reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. Lau, R. R. (1982). Negativity in political perception. Political Behavior, 4(4), 353–377. Lau, R. R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 29(1), 119–138. Lavertu, S. (2016). We all need help: “big data” and the mismeasure of public administration. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 864–872. Lee, M. (2006). Empirical experiments in public reporting: Reconstructing the results of survey research, 1941–42. Public Administration Review, 66(2), 252–262. Leeper, T. J., & Slothuus, R. (2014). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Political Psychology, 35(S1), 129–156. Malhotra, N., & Margalit, Y. (2010). Short‐term communication effects or longstanding dispositions? The public’s response to the financial crisis of 2008. Journal of Politics, 72(3), 852–867. Margetts, H. Z. (2011). Experiments for public management research. Public Management Review, 13(2), 189–208. Martin, L. L., & Kettner, P. M. (1997). Performance measurement: The new accountability. Administration in Social Work, 21(1), 17–29. Marvel, J. D. (2014). The Boston marathon bombings: Who’s to blame and why it matters for public administration. Public Administration Review, 74(6), 713–725. Marvel, J. D. (2015). Unconscious bias in citizens’ evaluations of public sector performance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(1), 143–158. Mergel, I., Rethemeyer, R. K., & Isett, K. (2016). Big data in public affairs. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 928–937. Moynihan, D. P. (2008). The dynamics of performance management: Constructing information and reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Moynihan, D. P. (2012). Extra‐network organizational reputation and blame avoidance in networks: The Hurricane Katrina example. Governance, 25(4), 567–588. Moynihan, D. P. (2016). Political use of performance data. Public Money & Management, 36(7), 479–481. Mueller, J. E. (1973). War, presidents, and public opinion. New York: Wiley. Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: mechanisms and consequences. Psychological review, 110(3), 472. Nielsen, P. A., & Moynihan, D. P. (2017). How do politicians attribute bureaucratic responsibility for ­performance? Negativity bias and interest group advocacy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(2), 269–283. Olsen, A. L. (2013a). Leftmost‐digit‐bias in an enumerated public sector? An experiment on citizens’ judgment of performance information. Judgment and Decision making, 8(3), 365–371. Olsen, A. L. (2013b). The politics of digits: Evidence of odd taxation. Public Choice, 154(1‐2), 59–73. Olsen, A. L. (2015a). Citizen (dis)satisfaction: An equivalence framing study. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 469–478. Olsen, A. L. (2015b). Simon said, we didn’t jump. Public Administration Review, 75(2), 469–478. Olsen, A. L. (2015c). The numerical psychology of performance information – implications for citizens, managers, and policy makers. Public Performance & Management Review, 39(1), 100–115. Olsen, A. L. (2015d). Negative Performance Information Causes Asymmetrical Evaluations and Elicits Strong Responsibility Attributions. 111th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association San Francisco, September 2015. Olsen, A. L. (2017a). Human interest or hard numbers? Experiments on citizens’ selection, exposure, and recall of performance information. Public Administration Review, 77(3), 408–420. Olsen, A. L. (2017b). Compared to what? Experimental evidence on social and historical reference points in performance evaluation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(4), 562–580.

196

Asmus Leth Olsen

Olsen, A. L. (2017c). Responding to problems: Actions are rewarded independent of the outcome. Public Management Review, 19(9), 1352–1364. Osborne, D. E., & Plastrik, P. (2000). The reinventor’s fieldbook: Tools for transforming your government. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. Perrin, B. (1998). Effective use and misuse of performance measurement. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(3), 367–379. Petersen, M. B., Skov, M., Serritzlew, S., & Ramsøy, T. (2012). Motivated reasoning and political parties: Evidence for increased processing in the face of party cues. Political Behavior, 35(4), 831–854. Pollitt, C. (2006). Performance information for democracy: the missing link? Evaluation, 12(1), 38–55. Pope, D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). Round numbers as goals evidence from baseball, SAT takers, and the lab. Psychological Science, 22(1), 71–79. Prewitt, K. (1987). Public statistics and democratic politics. In W. Alonso & P. Starr (Eds.), The politics of numbers (pp. 261–274). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation Publications. Rabin, M. (1998). Psychology and economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(1), 11–46. Radin, B. (2006). Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity, and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Roher, M. (1941a). Education of a citizen. National Municipal Review, 30(4), 192–198. Roher, M. (1941b). How good are reports to citizens. Western City, 17(8), 17–19. Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 532–547. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320. Simon, H. A. (1939). The administrator in search of statistics. Public Management, 21, 106–109. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. Slovic, P. (2007). If I look at the mass I will never act: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision making, 2(2), 79–95. Stipak, B. (1979). Citizen satisfaction with urban services: Potential misuse as a performance indicator. Public Administration Review, 39(1), 46–52. Stone, D. A. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York, NY: WW Norton. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. Thomas, M., & Morwitz, V. (2005). Penny wise and pound foolish: The left‐digit effect in price cognition. Journal of Consumer Research: An Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 32(1), 54–64. Thomas, P. (2006). Performance measurement, reporting, obstacles and accountability: Recent trends and future directions, Australia and New Zealand school of government monograph. Canberra, AU: ANU E‐Press. Tummers, L., Olsen, A. L., Jilke, S., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2016). Introduction to the virtual issue on behavioral public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, (3), 1–3. https://academic.oup.com/DocumentLibrary/jpart/vi_behavioralpublicadministration.pdf Van Dooren, W., Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2010). Performance management in the public sector. New York, NY/London, UK: Routledge. Weaver, R. K. (1986). The politics of blame avoidance. Journal of Public Policy, 6(4), 371–398. Zillmann, D. (2006). Exemplification effects in the promotion of safety and health. Journal of Communication, 56(1), 221–237.

13

Change Management and Communication in Public Sector Organizations: The Gordian Knot of Complexity, Accountability, and Legitimacy Helle Kryger Aggerholm and Christa Thomsen

Introduction The relationship between communication, management, and organizational change has attracted increasing attention from practitioners and scholars ever since the mid‐1990s, when Larkin and Larkin (1994) published their book on communicating change (see also Richardson & Denton, 1996) and Lewis and Seibold (1998) reviewed the literature within the field of organizational change and proposed to reconceptualize the implementation of organizational change as a communication problem. Basically, organizational changes entail a movement from the known to the unknown, and from the safe to the uncertain. Thus, it becomes crucial for managers to be capable of handling the uncertainty, risks, and ambiguity arising in the wake of a change initiative (Weick, 2000). In this process, the communication undertaken by management plays a pivotal role in the success of the change initiative, since open and active communication between the different internal and external members of the organization is key in the handling of the uncertainty (Isabella, 1990; Jablin & Kramer, 1998). As a result, communication between the organization and its stakeholders is the be‐all and end‐all in change management, as it constitutes the basis for the sustained change process. Communication becomes one of the most important tools at management’s disposal when management is assisting the individual stakeholder in understanding the meaning of the change strategy (Aggerholm, Asmuß, & Thomsen, 2011). Change communication “examines how organizational change is accomplished or not accomplished through implementers’ interactions with stakeholders, and stakeholders’ interactions with each other” (Lewis, 2011, p. 12). This definition emphasizes that change communication inherently and by default is strategic and that it is carried out in order to facilitate management‐­initiated changes with the aim of institutionalizing these within the organization in order to contribute to stakeholders’ sense‐making in relation to their work life, tasks, professional identity, and so forth.

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

198

Helle Kryger Aggerholm and Christa Thomsen

Among scholars and practitioners, change communication is increasingly seen as a change management method in its own right—one that tackles change on a large scale and includes a range of communicative strategies and practices (Lewis, 2011). In this perspective, change communication helps management align the change initiative with the overall mission and the organizational strategy through the proper planning of communication activities and practices and through the communication of a vision that involves people during change. Hence, communication helps to facilitate transparency and understanding and to create sense in what might appear to be a world of uncertainty and confusion. However, as will be discussed later in the chapter, managers in charge of complex change processes struggle with striking the right communicative balance between accountability, transparency, and legitimacy, and often it appears to be a seemingly unsolvable Gordian knot. In democratic societies, there is a clear expectation of openness and transparency in the administration of public sector organizations, which create both managerial legitimacy and stakeholder involvement in relation to—and possibly also acceptance of—any initiated change process. However, if change processes in public sector organizations are completely open and transparent to the public, the public might become disenchanted with regard to what they see, which could eventually lead to stakeholder distrust and cynicism. So, where is the limit? A rule of thumb: change management and communication are challenging and difficult to handle, regardless of the organizational context, the circumstances, and the stakeholders involved. Private organizations have struggled with the discipline for decades, and a wide range of research has consecutively shown the high failure rate of change processes (e.g., Balogun & Hope Hailey, 2004). However, in contrast to public sector organizations, the “line of c­ ommand” in privately owned organizations is usually clear cut, organizational goals are unequivocal, and management is first and foremost accountable to the shareholders. These characteristics make change processes in the private sector relatively more manageable. In public sector organizations, the context is very often more complex, and the space for maneuvering is more limited. Factors such as the system of government add further complexity to the discipline, since ­totalitarian governmental systems, for obvious reasons, approach changes in the public sector in a very different fashion to nontotalitarian, democratic forms of government. However, in this chapter, we apply a generic understanding of public sector organizations, and hence we will not relate the change management and communication discussions to specific systems of government, to nationality, or to cultural issues.

Context of Public Sector Organizations: Rethinking Services and Structures Due to the markedly different demographic and economic conditions that have emerged in recent decades, municipalities and other parts of the public sector have been forced to rethink their services and working methods while concurrently keeping a close eye on resources (Majgaard, 2010/2011). Such a rethinking of services, resources, and procedures clearly calls for changes at all levels throughout the organizations, and hence the changes implemented in the public sector range from both large, radical restructurings to minor adjustments in the daily working procedures of individual employees. Therefore, public sector organizations have undergone major changes and restructurings due to large numbers of political reforms (e.g., Waterhouse & Lewis, 2004) focused on savings and efficiency (Kuipers et al., 2014), and subsequent changes in organizational structures and services to citizens have become the new normal for public sector organizations (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011). In addition, the structures of public sector organizations are relatively complex and diverse, and this often makes change objectives and strategies blurred and difficult for lower‐level

Change Management and Communication in Public Sector Organizations

199

employees or citizens to comprehend, let alone to implement or adhere to in practice (Bjørnholt & Salomonsen, 2015; Canel & Sanders, 2012). The legal constraints and regulatory frameworks that public sector organizations (as opposed to private corporations) are governed by may limit, for instance, the pace and creativity of change management. As such, due to public procedures and bureaucracy, the speed of change decision‐making is slower than it is for businesses, and the limited budgets influenced by multiple stakeholders reduce the number of change options. Nonetheless, no matter where the change decisions are made, and no matter how conflicting they may seem to be, it is the task of the public manager to communicate these changes in such a way that all organizational members perceive the changes as both necessary and meaningful. Otherwise, it becomes extremely difficult to generate real change. As a result, suitable management of communication processes lays the foundation for the success of organizational changes. Hence, change management and communication in public sector organizations are in general associated with a very high degree of complexity, and thus it is worth paying attention to this field in order to understand the many everyday challenges facing public sector managers working with change processes. In short, knowledge relating to change management and change communication in a public sector organizational setting has never been more pertinent than it is today. The purpose of this chapter is to outline and discuss the pivotal role of management and communication in the success of change processes. We focus in particular on the managerial challenges inherent in the public sector organizational context when management communicates about such changes. The chapter starts out by defining what the field of change management and communication encompasses, and it introduces central understandings and approaches to change management and change communication in general. In addition, it describes and discusses the issues of change management and communication in the public sector context and then reflects on the challenges facing the field of change as well as on suggestions for future research.

Idiosyncratic Characteristics of Change Management in Public Sector Organizations Over the years, public administration literature has argued that the specific characteristics of the public sector make the implementation of changes in public sector organizations distinct from or even more difficult to handle than change implementation in private sector corporations. Public sector organizations typically operate in an environment characterized by checks and ­balances, shared power, divergent interests, and political oversight. These organizations’ specificities make transparency and accountability key ingredients in the process of change, and as a result transformational changes can be difficult to implement than more incremental adjustments since the change decisions need to pass through many organizational members and actors (van der Voet, Kuipers, & Groeneveld, 2015). Back in 2001, Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron suggested that researchers should examine context, content, process, and outcomes when studying change. Regarding the context, the fundamental difference between private and public organizations highlighted in the literature is the political context of democracy (parliaments, politics, and politicians) as well as the legal context (legislation, rules, and bureaucracy). Five broad forces affecting change in public organizations have been defined: (a) socioeconomic forces; (b) the characteristics of the political system; (c) elite decision‐making regarding the desirability and feasibility of change; (d) the occurrence of change events such as scandals; and (e) the characteristics of the administrative system (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004). Thus, studying and understanding change management in the context of public sector organizations implies studying forces and a context in which the “line of command” is far from clear cut, the goal is often complex and ambiguous, and management is first and foremost accountable to public representatives for realizing goals, using resources responsibly, and

200

Helle Kryger Aggerholm and Christa Thomsen

ensuring honesty, integrity, and equality (Pollitt, 2003). In this regard, it is intriguing that recommendations from the literature are generally scarce when it comes to studying how these five contextual forces affect change management and communication in public organizations. Generally, there seems to be common agreement that public sector organizations and services should be “more responsive to society’s needs and demands” (Thijs & Staes, 2008, p. 8). Behind this demand for public sector organizations that serve the population better is the ontological shift from “citizens” to “customers” and “stakeholders” who expect to be involved and engaged and get value for their money (e.g., Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011), which has made the concept of “citizens” more complex than ever (Thomas, 2013). The “customer” line of thinking stems from the fact that citizens are also taxpayers and voters, which means that they pay for the services and ultimately through their democratic vote can influence the directions of change and the pace of reform within the municipality, region, or country. Since the legitimacy of public sector organizations is dependent on citizen approval, the change managers in a public organizational setting not only have to consider the limitations of laws and regulations but also need to keep their fingers on the pulse in terms of the formation of public opinion and citizen voices and demands (Macnamara, 2016). In their review article from 2014, Kuipers et al. focus on values—for example, increased efficiency, transparency, or equity—as possible criteria for outcomes. In keeping with other researchers within the field of change management in public sector organizations, they find that the debate on values is becoming increasingly important in the public sector. They link this trend to the introduction of new public management (NPM), which is defined as “a broad set of management approaches and techniques that are borrowed from the private sector and applied in the public sector” (p. 13; quoting Hood, 1991). Based on this, the authors argue that, as a result of NPM, business values—for instance, efficiency, transparency, and client choice—might take precedence over more traditional public values such as equity and security (p. 13). Their review of the literature shows that many of the drivers of change in the public sector fit into the NPM tendency to create more effective public organizations. There is, for example, more interest in the question of whether a policy in itself is effective than there is in the question of how changes are implemented in order to become effective. As Dahlberg and Holmberg (2014) have shown in their research, what matters most to citizens is the way in which government and public sector services are functioning in practice. Hence, a change in the level of service and an alteration in the functioning of public organizations naturally affect perceptions and experiences among citizens. Despite the fact that such changes in perceptions and experiences are of course shaped and influenced by a wide range of different factors (Thijs & Staes, 2008), the importance of public sector organizations’ management of such changes should not be underestimated. Hence, change management continues to be of great interest to public sector development, with the focus overwhelmingly falling on change outcomes and processes (Kuipers et al., 2014). The importance of individuals and the process dimension of change have recently gained increased attention, the argument being that these microlevel aspects have a potential influence on, for example, citizens’ trust in government (Mäntysalo, 2015) as well as on employees’ capacity, participation, job satisfaction, and so forth (van der Voet, 2016). Moreover, in light of the public’s ever‐changing voting choices, the stakeholders at the political level, who are responsible for any changes and alterations made in the public sector, and who ultimately will be held accountable by the electorate, are key stakeholders for public sector organizations when it comes to ensuring that the change processes and decisions stand out as transparent, logical, and efficient. As a result, one major challenge related to change management for public sector organizations is to ensure consistent communication with a very diverse group of stakeholders—for example, citizen stakeholders, “customer” stakeholders, and political stakeholders. According to a study conducted by van der Voet et al. (2015) and in line with the findings of Haveri (2006) and Karp and Helgø (2008), a high degree of environmental

Change Management and Communication in Public Sector Organizations

201

c­omplexity makes the feasibility of a planned approach to organizational change difficult, as dependencies and differing stakeholder interests make it challenging to formulate univocal operational goals, which are pivotal in the prescriptive approach to change. Van der Voet et al. (2015) show how complexities in the environment result in a lengthy and unstructured process that entails regular changes in direction due to stakeholder compromises. In addition, such conflicting or vague objectives make it difficult to manage the change process or to determine when the implementation of the change has been a success.

Change Management and Communication: Basic Understandings and Approaches According to Zorn et al., the term change refers to “any alteration or modification of organizational structures or processes” (Zorn, Christensen, & Cheney, 1999, p. 10). Although there is a common understanding in the literature that organizational activity is made up of constant alterations and small revision processes and as such is always in motion and changing, there are also periods in the life of organizations when purposeful introductions of change are required (Lewis, 2011, p. 26). Thus, change management is about both managing minor emergent alterations or modifications and introducing and implementing substantial and complex strategic change decisions, which are meticulously planned. Until now, research on the topic of change management has mainly focused on the wider impacts of change, and particularly on people and how the latter, as individuals and teams, move from the current state to the future desired state (Kuipers et  al., 2014; Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas, & Ven, 2013). Research has also focused on the various types of organizational change, insofar as change can range from simple changes in routine operations to major strategically motivated changes in organization‐wide systems and structures with the aim of reaching the highest potential of the corporation. As a result, the literature distinguishes between top‐down, management‐controlled changes, which spread down through the hierarchy, and more emergent, employee‐driven changes, the implementation of which does not take as its point of departure the organizational hierarchy but emanates from each individual member. Some changes are pervasive and radical, whereas others are more incremental and progress slowly. Finally, some change processes are prompted by a proactive approach to, for instance, the outside world in order to be at the cutting edge of new demands from various stakeholders. Other change processes can be seen as more reactive and shortsighted, occurring out of sheer necessity in relation to, for example, the implementation of new legislation.

Orders of Change The dichotomy between incremental and radical change has been criticized (among others by Higgs & Rowland, 2005) as overly simplistic, and as such it has been supplemented by research on different “orders” of change (Bartunek & Moch, 1994; Kuipers et al., 2014). This line of thinking distinguishes between first‐order change, second‐order change, and third‐order change, respectively (Table 13.1). Therefore, the field of change management is very complex and wide ranging. However, two approaches have over the years dominated the organization and management literature, namely the prescriptive approach and the emergent approach to change (Hayes, 2002, 2014).

The Prescriptive Approach to Change Management and Communication The process of how organizations change draws on many disciplines (e.g., psychology and behavioral science), theories, and models. In Lewin, 1947, Kurt Lewin developed one of the cornerstone

202

Helle Kryger Aggerholm and Christa Thomsen

Table 13.1  Orders of change. Order First‐order change Burnes (2004a), Carnall (2007), Watzlawick, Weakland, and Fisch (1974).

Purpose

Characteristics

Example

Incremental change, which Changes in school and Fine tuning or administrative structures, adapting systems occurs in a subsystem. Can be both proactive schedules, and class sizes. or structures to and reactive. Training of teachers in specific other needs, instructional strategies such as circumstances, writing objectives on the board, or requirements. managing cooperative learning groups, and asking higher‐order thinking questions.

Second‐order change Burnes (2004a), Reorientation of Carnall (2007), the whole Watzlawick et al. organizational (1974), Van de Ven system. and Poole (1995)

A more transformational, organization‐wide change that moves the core paradigms of the organization.

A fundamental change in ideas about and actions toward student achievement—e.g., replacement of a culture of isolation with one of extensive collaboration.

Third‐order change Challenging the notion that Tsoukas and Reorientation of A cross‐organizational students need books and should Papoulias (2005), the whole sector. sectorial change that be physically present at lectures Gratton (2005) spans specific and deciding to instead use organizational boundaries iPads and stream lectures. and affects a wide range of organizations within the same sector. These changes are very radical.

models for understanding organizational change within the prescriptive or planned change tradition. His model is known as “the ice cube model” or the “unfreeze‐change‐refreeze” model, which refers to the three‐stage process of change. Building on Lewin’s line of thinking, John Kotter introduced another cornerstone model in his Kotter, 1996 book Leading Change, in which he suggests that for change to be successful, a company’s management and employees need to buy into the change. He introduces a pragmatic eight‐step change process model for implementing successful transformations based on the assumption that every social system consists of structures, systems, and norms that create inertia and barriers and counteract change. In addition, the process model assumes that all systems strive toward stability and order and that changes are seen as disturbances and threats toward such order and established habits. The eight practical steps are as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Create a sensation of a need for change (a “burning platform”). Establish a strong coalition. Develop a vision and strategy for the change. Communicate clearly and disseminating the vision for change. Develop organizational competences. Create and realize short‐term successes. Consolidate the results and formulate new change initiatives. Embed the new methods of working in the organizational culture.

According to Kotter, each of these steps represents an essential part of the implementation and maintenance of sustained change.

Change Management and Communication in Public Sector Organizations

203

According to Lewis, the process of implementing change in organizations sometimes begins with processes of innovation and diffusion, and it nearly always involves a formal adoption and implementation process (2011, p. 26). Innovation is a creative process of generating ideas for practice, whereas diffusion is the process of sharing new ideas with others in order to bring them on board. Adoption is the formal selection of the idea to be incorporated into the organization. Communication plays a central role in all these processes. Once an idea has been adopted, the task of organizational leaders is to implement it. During the implementation process, implementers will need to convince stakeholders to alter practices, processes, procedures, work arrangements, and often beliefs and values as well.

Implementation Based on Management Rationality and One‐Way Communication The logical result of a planned approach to change is an accentuation of employee subordination to management desires, in which the communicative focus is first and foremost on management’s ability to convince and coax the organization to accept and share its strategic goals and visions (Wilson, 1992). Hence, the prescriptive approach is based on the assumption that it is possible to reach a consensual agreement and that the involved parties have the will and interest to reach such consensus based on one‐way communication centered around management rationality (Pfeffer, 1994). As a consequence, organizational conflicts, power, and political interests seem to be underestimated or ignored, despite the fact that the purpose and results of the change program most likely are determined through dialogue, interaction, and stakeholder power struggles. Hence, the prescriptive approach to change, predominantly represented by Lewin and Kotter, has often been criticized for portraying organizational change as a controlled process. According to critics (Burnes, 2004a), the idea that an organizational change is a rational, controllable, and methodical process is rather misleading, since a planned change also encompasses elements of chaos, which often manifest themselves as changed objectives, disrupted activities, unforeseen events, and unexpected change combinations. Moreover, in a public organization context, the prescriptive approach disregards the complexity generated when public sector managers need to implement several change initiatives simultaneously or when political decisions such as radical budget cuts suddenly interfere in an otherwise well‐planned process. In addition, since the prescriptive approach is based on an underlying assumption that the manager is capable of exclusively influencing whether the change process will succeed or fail, the political, financial, and intraorganizational process contexts appear to be disregarded. Consequently, it seems difficult to make a list of universal rules with regard to change management (Pettigrew & Whipp, 1993; Wilson, 1992).

Change Communication as a Tool Within the prescriptive change perspective, change communication is generally seen as a tool, and the stream of research within this perspective focuses on uncovering effective ways of communicating, which it does by, for example, concentrating on management’s communication with employees, citizens, and other stakeholders during organizational change in order to show the cause–effect relationship between the different steps of the change process. Understanding communication as a tool is characteristic of the prototypical approach to planned change, in which the change communication is defined by the information that is being pushed from the manager down to the employee. Within this tradition, research has shown the importance of communicating a clear change message with accompanying supporting material—for example, a new strategy plan (Christensen, 2014)—and consequently, the process should start at the top of the organization and be closely monitored at each level. As a result,

204

Helle Kryger Aggerholm and Christa Thomsen

most line managers will first hear about the change message from their supervisor, whom they can ask questions in order to understand the message well enough to communicate it to their team members and, in turn, answer their questions. This ensures that a single message is communicated across the organization (Tanner & Otto, 2016). This communication strategy originates from the traditional Shannon‐Weaver‐inspired transmission paradigm with its main focus on the distribution of information (e.g., Larkin & Larkin, 1994). The central goal is to inform the employees of what is expected of them in relation to the change process as well as to answer the many questions of why, what, who, how, and when arising in the wake of the changes (Palmer, Dunford, & Akin, 2009). The challenge is to avoid a sensation of information overload, but at the same time to ensure that every employee receives the necessary information. As a result, the communication tool approach stresses the importance of communicating the purpose of the change and of continuous information during the whole process. The basic philosophy is that implementation problems will disappear if organizational members get continuous information, in particular information that will help them to understand their role in the whole process. As a result of this assumption, pertinent issues such as change resistance, uncertainty, trust, commitment, and involvement have received particular attention within this approach. However, the critics of the transmission paradigm question whether a communication strategy solely based on information is able to generate true organizational change. They claim that such one‐way dissemination of information would need to be supplemented with other communication strategies that are adapted to the different phases of the change process. For instance, Johansson and Heide (2008) find that normative suggestions to practitioners are limited to the importance of timing change messages, matching communication strategies to the employee profile, using appropriate media, being flexible, and minimizing uncertainty.

The Emergent Approach to Change Management and Communication As mentioned above, through the years the prescriptive approach has attracted major criticism, and during the 1980s the emergent approach to change saw the light of day (Burnes, 2004c). The new change perspective was termed both continual improvement and organizational learning, but it is most commonly referred to as emergent change (Dawson, 2003; Mabey & Mayon‐ White, 1993; Wilson, 1992). It was developed as a reaction and antidote to the prescriptive understanding of change, and hence it defines change as an ongoing, continuous, dynamic, and contentious process that occurs in unpredictable and unplanned ways (Burnes, 2004b; Weick, 2000). As a result, the emergent change approach is based on the understanding that change processes do not have an exact beginning and ending, which is in stark contrast to the planned change approach, in which change is something that ends at one point, namely when the organization has to refreeze its new and changed reality (Weick & Quinn, 1999).

Implementation Based on Participation and Interaction Opposed to previous structural definitions of organizations that are described in terms of departments, hierarchical levels, and designations of occupation, the emergent change approach recognizes that organizations are constituted by a wide range of cooperative learning processes. An organization is seen as a social system characterized by conflicts, contradictions, and tensions, and these accelerate change with the ultimate goal of creating a new balance between the conflictual elements (Wilson, 1992). Hence, the emergent approach is based on the assumption that when adjustments and attempts are repeated, shared, supported, and disseminated, they can, over time, create noticeable changes in the organization (Weick, 2000). When employees during their daily work handle contingencies, breakdowns, exceptions, possibilities, and unintended results, they improvise and

Change Management and Communication in Public Sector Organizations

205

make (perhaps unconsciously) continuous minor adjustments, which at first are not necessarily noticed but which over time cumulatively result in major changes. From this perspective, it is important to pay attention to the change context, since change occurs across functions and hierarchical divisions, and consequently it needs to be seen as a complex, analytical, political, and cultural process in which organizational approaches, structures, and strategies are challenged and changed (Pettigrew, 2000). Consequently, the emergent approach focuses on the dependent interrelationship between temporal aspects, the behavioral creation of the change context, and the multicausal, nonlinear disposition of the change. Change processes occur in a complex interrelated area of tension between individuals, groups, organizations, and society (Dawson, 2003), in which the change process is a mix of rational and/or political decisions, individual interpretations and perceptions, political battles, and the creation of coalitions (Huczynski & Buchanan, 2007). Thus, emergent changes are not only initiated by the top management but also by employees themselves as well as the surrounding community. Examples of this could be nurses’ implementation of new technologies and practices in health care; the communication consultant who has attended a “best practice” seminar at her country’s national association for municipalities and returns to her office full of inspiration; or the kindergarten teacher who gradually changes the pedagogical practices at the kindergarten in order to adapt the services to new groups of citizens who attend it (Aggerholm & Salomonsen, 2013). The focus on the active participation of the employees in the change process is exactly one of the hallmarks of the emergent approach; the approach recognizes the external context’s decisive influence on stimulating change. However, the responsibility for achieving a true change lies with employees.

Change Communication as a Process Contrary to the instrumental, output‐oriented communication tool perspective, which is characteristic within the prescriptive approach to change management, the interpretive perspective views change communication as a process in which the research aim is to seek understanding by, for example, investigating management’s communication with employees, citizens, and other stakeholders during organizational change. Hence, the aim is to understand how change communication processes shape inter‐ and intraorganizational relationships and ultimately organizations themselves. The communication as process perspective is founded on a constitutionalist communication paradigm that conceptualizes change as a phenomenon that is constituted by all communication activities and interactions among the various organizational stakeholders. Hence, change takes place in the context of all human interactions and communication (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Performative speech acts such as ordering, promising, greeting, warning, inviting, and congratulating alter the social reality, and such a paradigmatic understanding stands in opposition to the transactional notion that communication only reports or represents something that already exists (Austin, 1962). The role of situational factors has received particular attention within this perspective in the respect that there is a general consensus that organizational change processes are dependent on the context (Balogun & Johnson, 2005). In addition, sense‐making theory runs clearly through the literature. When an organizational change initiative is presented to employees, they immediately try to make sense of it and understand its potential effects on themselves and the organization (Johansson & Heide, 2008). Hence, sense‐making processes potentially help to resolve uncertainties and ambiguities during organizational change (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). Therefore, managers need to pay attention to how individual members of the organization make sense of change initiatives given that their perceptions and understandings will affect the final result. Through dialogue, conversations, narratives, and storytelling, managers can, for example, examine employees’ underlying assumptions and expectations. Instead of regarding

206

Helle Kryger Aggerholm and Christa Thomsen

resistance as something that must be overcome—this is the interpretation often given to it within the prescriptive and functionalistic approach to change. It can be considered as a “conversation” that can be altered by means of dialogue and communication (Johansson & Heide, 2008 referring to Ford, Ford, & McNamara, 2002). Hence, over the years, questions of which specific dialogical, conversational, or communicative practices organizations rely on in general to alter change perceptions have attracted increased attention within the change literature. The concept of sense giving plays an important role in this regard. The term refers to agents’ intentional attempts to change how other people think—with no assurance that the intended meaning will be adopted. Weick et  al. (2005) define sense giving as “a sense‐making variant undertaken to create meanings for a target audience.” Sense‐giving was originally conceptualized by Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) as a notion that is basically about framing, persuasion, influence, and action (see also Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). Thus, the intent of sense‐giving is seen to be the provision of a viable interpretation of a new reality, the aim being to make the target group adopt it as their own (Aggerholm et al., 2011). In sum, communication is used to construct a mutually agreed upon meaning of this knowledge (Taylor & van Every, 2000). Heath and Bryant (1992) argue that communication should be seen not only as a means for transferring ideas but also as a tool for interaction. Accordingly, communication becomes a process in which the actors create meaning through this interaction, and consequently the emergent, interaction‐based, “bottom‐up” approach to change opens up an alternative understanding of communication in the form of the constitutive communication paradigm, which first and foremost sees the communication process as interpreting and creating meaning from a cocreating perspective that involves the different organizational actors and stakeholders (Botan & Hazleton, 2006; Taylor & Van Every, 2000; Weick, 1995).

Managerial and Communicative Challenges Inherent in Public Sector Change Processes As mentioned previously, the majority of the large‐scale changes in public sector organizations are very often politically initiated due to the simple fact that they are governed at the top level by politicians. The fact that many change decisions are taken at the political level and not by the public manager herself affects the manager’s relation to both internal and external stakeholders. In a dynamic public sector organization, open, dialogical, and symmetrical two‐way communication with employees as well as with citizens (and other stakeholders) is the key to handling uncertainty, since interaction, dialogue, and communication are used by both internal and external stakeholders to create meaning with regard to organizational changes (Isabella, 1990; Jablin & Kramer, 1998). This places high demands on management to ensure the advancement of open communication across the organization and toward different stakeholder groups and individuals, which will be achieved through the use of formal and informal channels (Burnes, 2004b; Kanter, Stein, & Jick, 1992; Senior, 2002). Many years ago, Starbuck and Milliken (1988) observed how the sense‐making process is activated in instances that break with perceptual frameworks, leading to an unexpected or deviating disruption of ongoing cognitive activities. Van der Voet et al. (2015) studied the relationship between direct supervisors’ change leadership and the commitment to change of change recipients, and he examined to what extent this relationship was related to the bureaucratic features that often characterize public sector organizations. The findings indicate that change leadership contributes to change recipients’ commitment to change by providing high‐quality change communication and stimulating employee participation in the implementation of change. However, the findings also indicate that burdensome administrative rules, the

Change Management and Communication in Public Sector Organizations

207

perceptions of change recipients, and a low reliance on a transformational leadership style impede the potential of change leadership to bring about employee participation in the implementation of change (van der Voet et al., 2015, p. 660). Hence, the importance of leadership style is highlighted in the literature, and it is clear that, for example, communication in relation to change processes adopts a role that is different to a simple transfer of knowledge from management to internal and external stakeholders. In relation to the manager’s own organization, all this implies that communicating the necessity to change and in particular formulating the change vision often pose major challenges for the individual manager, since the basis for the change decision does not always appear meaningful from a professional viewpoint but is an indirect consequence of political compromises that have created some rather results for the individual organization (Greve, 2012). Although this characteristic can pose some major communicative challenges for the public manager, the equivocality inherent in most political decisions (Boyne, 2002) can nevertheless also create a potentially positive “room for maneuver” for the public manager, in that her role as sense giver does not have as its starting point a reactive communication strategy in which the manager reacts and explains when employees perceive a given political decision as senseless (Palmer et al., 2009). On the contrary, the role also gives the manager a potential opportunity to proactively influence how a politically decided change is implemented and communicated internally in the organization. As to communication with external stakeholders, public managers are particularly subjected to demands to constantly ensure the change’s legitimacy and continuous political support (Greve, 2012). This claim is among other things caused by the fact that public managers, together with their public organizations as a whole, are subjected to a particular degree of public scrutiny and a pressure for transparency (see Introduction to this handbook; Pollitt, 2003; Rainey, 2009). Organizational change decisions and actions (e.g., the closing of a municipal primary or secondary school) are often combined with negative media coverage and subsequent community protests (Liu, Horsley, & Levenshus, 2010). Subjection to public scrutiny entails a high degree of accountability to constituencies—that is, citizens and users of public services (Luoma‐aho, 2008)—in terms of the change’s rationale, underlying motives, implementation process, and so on. Consequently, public managers need to be especially attentive to external stakeholders when their organization goes through a vulnerable phase such as a change process. In relation to change communication, the previously mentioned shift in the roles and titles of citizens to customers and stakeholders is central, as it has pervasively reshaped communication strategies toward this group. However, despite citizens’ new roles as “customers” and “stakeholders,” many public sector communication plans merely focus on outlets such as press releases and information campaigns, thereby missing out on the potential for reaching citizens as customers and stakeholders (Luoma‐Aho, Tirkkonen, & Vos, 2013). According to Luoma‐Aho et al. (2013), there is an urgent need to shift from a culture of control toward one of citizen‐ centered engagement. As a result, public sector managers cannot simply devote their attention to internal communication on change. They need to concurrently interact with external stakeholders in order to ensure the legitimacy of the changes in the eyes of the surrounding society and consequently to guarantee continuous support for them. If they do not do so, public managers risk ending up in a public “blame game” (Hood, 2011) when changes go wrong or when obstacles or delays to implementation result in a swift projection in the media that the changes are an inappropriate use of taxpayers’ money. In terms of changes initiated and decided upon by public managers themselves, political attention, public interest, and hierarchical organization all mean that ensuring the legitimacy of and support for the change “upward” in the system is of decisive important. Hence, the managerial communication task consists in explaining the necessity and relevance of the change to all levels of the organization, and not just to the closest employees involved (Palmer et al., 2009). This management challenge entails a recognition of the complex plurality of ideas and issues, which are

208

Helle Kryger Aggerholm and Christa Thomsen

constantly being developed and shared in complex systems such as organizations in general and large public sector organizations in particular (Dutton, Ashford, O’Neil, & Lawrence, 2001). Consequently, it is critical not just to communicate the change in a way that presents it correctly and in a way that does not come across as overwhelming but also to ensure that the change is linked to other elements of the organization such as its identity, the change’s significance to central stakeholders, and the financial gains associated with the change (Dutton et al., 2001).

Is Transparency the Solution to the Gordian Change Knot? In Anglo‐Saxon democratic societies, where every decision maker, public servant, and politician is held directly accountable for his or her actions, there is a widely shared consensus that transparency will lead to an openness in public organizations (as well as in private organizations) and that this will ultimately lead to an increase in stakeholder trust in public sector managers and decision makers. Process transparency and stakeholder involvement are often proposed as a panacea for better change management in general and for combating declining trust levels in particular. However, the controversial question has been asked: Is this always the truth? At least in our parts of the world, there is a notion of transparency as a strong democratic value in public organizations. Nonetheless, Bovens (2003) warns about the “dark side of transparency,” in the sense that when citizens and other stakeholders can see everything behind the scenes of management, they may become disenchanted with what they see—for example, management’s imperfect ability to make correct and timely decisions. As a result, transparency could potentially contribute to cynicism over change, leading to a decline in stakeholder trust. Transparency can be defined as the extent to which an organization reveals relevant information about its internal workings, such as decision processes, procedures, functioning, and performance (Curtin & Meijer, 2006; Gerring & Thacker, 2004; Wong & Welch, 2004). Thus, two central components are: (a) the active disclosure of information by an organization; and (b) the allowance of external actors to assess the organization’s internal workings or performance. The question is: Which managerial and communicative practices ensure transparency and thereby create understanding for the change decision? Grimmelikhuijsen (2010, p. 10) defines transparency as “the active disclosure of information by an organization in such a way as to allow the internal workings or performance of that organization to be monitored by external actors.” Translated to a change management process, the notion of transparency could be conceived of as the active disclosure of information by management in such a way as to allow the internal workings or performance of the management group to be monitored by the rest of the organization and the surrounding society. In this regard and as illustrated in Figure 13.1, there are seemingly three steps in the change‐making process that can be subjected to the demands of Improved outcomes • • • • •

CHANGE PROCESS TRANSPARENCY in a democratic societal context

Increased legitimacy Srengthened trustworthiness Enhanced credibility Positive competence perception Honesty

“Harmful” outcomes Change decisionmaking process

Change process initiatives

Change process results

• • • • •

Decreased legitimacy Weakened trustworthiness Diminished credibility Negative competence perception Dishonesty

Figure 13.1  Steps to change transparency and their potential outcomes. Inspired by Grimmelikhuijsen, 2010, p. 11.

Change Management and Communication in Public Sector Organizations

209

transparency. First, the decision‐making process behind change can itself be made transparent. In this regard, the degree of openness about the steps taken to arrive at a change decision and the rationale behind the decision are important. Second, management may disclose information about the change initiatives under development, such as the measures and plans taken to combat a certain problem. Third, the results, actual implications, and harvested benefits of the change should be disclosed. It can be argued that the degree of transparency in the change process has an effect on stakeholders’ perceptions of decision makers’ legitimacy, trustworthiness, and credibility, subsequently affecting the perceived benevolence, competence, and honesty of these decision makers (Grimmelikhuijsen, 2010). The general idea of transparent decision making as a way to increase legitimacy and good governance is intuitively appealing, and it has been discussed in many different contexts, including the change management literature (de Fine Licht, 2011; see also, for example, Hood & Heald, 2006). Grimmelikhuijsen (2010) has studied the consequences of transparency in change processes by looking at whether citizens’ opportunity to take a look behind the scenes of a local government’s decision making on change through online minutes of local councils led to higher levels of trust. The study showed that citizens exposed to more information were significantly more negative regarding the perceived competence of the local government council compared to those who did not access the available information. Additionally, citizens who received only restricted information about the meeting minutes thought the council was less honest compared to those who did not read them. In line with the study by Grimmelikhuijsen (2010), De Fine Licht (2011) has studied whether transparency in health‐care decision‐making may lead to increased perceived legitimacy in terms of acceptance of and trust in decisions. She found that transparent decision‐making procedures tend to weaken rather than strengthen general trust among citizens, and the study suggests that it cannot be assumed that a transparent and objectively legitimate procedure will automatically lead to greater public acceptance and trust. This goes against the assumption in traditional change management research, which favors the general idea of transparent change procedures as a way to increase legitimacy and strengthen general trust. Hence, there is no consensus in the literature about the importance of transparency. On the one hand, it is argued that transparency in the change process facilitates the implementation of decisions. On the other hand, research demonstrates that there are limits to transparency. However, despite these rather discouraging preliminary research results, the question is whether any society, democratic or totalitarian, can in the long run withstand a lack of transparency in public sector organizations in general and in change processes in particular. Instead of dismissing the issue of transparency as an unsolvable Gordian knot, we need to continue our search for the most valid suggestions and legitimate solutions regarding the transparent handling of change initiatives, their implementation, and involvement in them, which should include all organizational stakeholders.

Suggestions for Future Research The study of the complexity of change management and communication in the public sector is still in its infancy. A lot is still to be learned when it comes to understanding and managing change processes within such an extremely complex rhetorical arena as a public sector organization. The outcomes and processes of communication are still not sufficiently and explicitly addressed. Future research into public sector change management should include a number of particular themes and angles across the context, content, process, outcomes, and leadership of subsystem, organizational, and sectorial change, and researchers need to look for opportunities to use the strengths of different theoretical approaches in order to better understand the complex multilayered phenomena of change in the public sector.

210

Helle Kryger Aggerholm and Christa Thomsen

Kuipers et al. (2014) suggest that researchers need to pay more attention to the outcomes and successes of change in public organizations. This will support practitioners in their search for lessons on what makes a change successful. The authors argue that the dominant role of NPM in change initiatives underlines this issue as it emphasizes the importance of a critical evaluation of an overly narrow focus on effectiveness while disregarding the other (traditional) public sector values. One way of further studying the complexity of public sector change processes is to use the strengths of communication theory and in particular the concepts of strategic communication and transparency in order to better understand how public sector organizations communicate change projects to citizens as customers and external stakeholders. This approach is in line with the suggestion made by Johansson and Heide (2008), who stress that it is important to continue studying patterns that link communicative actions to hidden expectations, assumptions, understandings, and values that underlie, guide and legitimate these communicative actions. A focus on communicative actions and hidden expectations in a public sector context will give us more insight into how organizational change is socially shaped. Moreover, change processes are generally studied at the organizational (macro) level. Attention to individual (micro) processes such as communication processes are almost absent in the literature. Overall, relatively few details are provided with regard to change processes and their outcomes. For example, most of the articles in the review by Kuipers et al. (2014) address typical public characteristics and drivers. However, according to Kuipers et al. (2014), most authors have difficulties in specifically demonstrating if and how these factors actually affect the change processes in public sector organizations. Hence, they advocate the importance of studying and understanding the microlevel, and this includes an increased focus on individuals and the process dimension of change, as these aspects have a potential influence on employees’ capacity, participation, job satisfaction, and so forth (van der Voet, 2016). Finally, Johansson and Heide (2008) suggest that researchers need to question and develop concepts often employed in the tool approach—for example, concepts such as “effective change” and “resistance to change”—as well as further develop our understanding of the issues of change process transparency in public sector organizations.

References Aggerholm, H. K., Asmuß, B., & Thomsen, C. (2011). The role of recontextualization in the multivocal, ambiguous process of strategizing. Journal of Management Inquiry, 21(4), 413–428. Aggerholm, H. K., & Salomonsen, H. H. (2013). Forandringskommunikation i en offentlig sektor under konstant forandring. In H. H. Salomonsen (Ed.), Offentlig ledelse og strategisk kommunikation (Chapter 4) (pp. 77–100). Djøf/Jurist‐ og Økonomforbundet. (Studier i offentlig ledelse, styring og forvaltning) Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. London, UK: Oxford University Press. Balogun, J., & Hope Hailey, V. (2004). Exploring strategic change (2nd ed.). London, UK: Prentice Hall. Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26, 1573–1601. Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1994). Third‐order organizational change and the Western mystical tradition. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7(1), 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 09534819410050795 Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Doubleday. Bjørnholt, B., & Salomonsen, H. H. (2015). Contracting and performance in agencies: A question of control, dialogue or autonomy? Public Organization Review, 15(4), 509–530. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11115‐014‐0286‐7 Botan, C. H., & Hazleton, V. (2006). Public relations theory II. New York, NY: Routledge. Bovens, M. A. P. (2003). De Digitale Republiek: Democratie en rechtsstaat in de informatiemaatschappij. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.

Change Management and Communication in Public Sector Organizations

211

Boyne, G. A. (2002). Public and private management: What’s the difference? Journal of Management Studies, 39(1), 97–122. Burnes, B. (2004a). Emergent change and planned change ‐ competitors or allies? The case of XYZ construction. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 24(9), 886–902. Burnes, B. (2004b). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re‐appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 977–1002. Burnes, B. (2004c). Managing change. A strategic approach to organizational dynamics (4th ed.). Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited. Canel, M. J., & Sanders, K. (2012). Government communication: An emerging field in political communication research. In H. Semetko & M. Scammell (Eds.), The sage handbook of political communication (pp. 85–96). London, UK: Sage. Carnall, C. A. (2007). Managing change in organizations (5th ed.). Harlow, UK: FT Pearson Prentice Hall. Christensen, M. (2014). Communication as a strategic tool in change processes. International Journal of Business Communication, 51(4), 359–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525442 Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 181–235. Curtin, D., & Meijer, A. (2006). Does transparency strengthen legitimacy? Information Polity, 11, 109–122. Dahlberg, S., & Holmberg, S. (2014). Democracy and bureaucracy: How their quality matters for popular satisfaction. West European Politics, 37(3), 515–537. Dawson, P. (2003). Reshaping change: A processual perspective. London, UK: Routledge. de Fine Licht, J. (2011). Do we really want to know? The potentially negative effect of transparency in decision making on perceived legitimacy. Scandinavian Political Studies, 34(3), 183–201. Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neil, R. M., & Lawrence, K. M. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue selling and organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 716–736. Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & McNamara, R. T. (2002). Resistance and the background conversations of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15, 105–121. Gerring, J., & Thacker, S. C. (2004). Political institutions and corruption: The role of Unitarism and Parliamentarism. British Journal of Political Science, 34(2), 295–330. Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433–448. Gratton, L. (2005). Managing integration through cooperation. Human Resource Management, 44(2), 151–158. Greve, C. (2012). Reformanalyse. Hvordan den offentlige sector grundlæggende blev forandret i 00’erne. København, Denmark: Jurist‐ og Økonomforbundets Forlag. Grimmelikhuijsen, S. G. (2010). Transparency of public decision‐making: Towards Trust in Local Government? Policy & Internet, 2(1), 5–35. Haveri, A. (2006). Complexity in local government change: Limits to rational reform. Public Management Review, 8(1), 31–46. Hayes, J. (2002). The theory and practice of change management. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. Hayes, J. (2014). The theory and practice of change management. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Heath, R. L., & Bryant, J. (1992). Human communication theory and research: Concepts, contexts, and challenges. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Higgs, M. J., & Rowland, D. (2005). All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change and its leadership. Journal of Change Management, 5, 121–151. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19. Hood, C. (2011). The blame game. Spin, bureaucracy, and self‐preservation in government. Princeton, NJ & Oxford, United Kingdom: Princeton University Press. Hood, C., & Heald, D. (Eds.) (2006). Transparency: The key to better governance? Proceedings of the British academy (135). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Huczynski, A., & Buchanan, D. A. (2007). Organizational behavior. An introductory text (6th ed.). Harlow, United Kingdom: Prentice Hall Financial Times. Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 7–41.

212

Helle Kryger Aggerholm and Christa Thomsen

Jablin, F. M., & Kramer, M. W. (1998). Communication‐related sense‐making and adjustment during job transfers. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 155–182. Johansson, C., & Heide, M. (2008). Speaking of change: Three communication approaches in studies of organizational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 13(3), 288–305. Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The challenge of organizational change. New York, NY: The Free Press. Karp, T., & Helgø, T. I. T. (2008). From change management to change leadership: Embracing chaotic change in public service organizations. Journal of Change Management, 8(1), 85–96. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Kuipers, B. S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J., & Van der Voet, J. (2014). The Management of Change in public organizations: A literature review. Public Administration, 92(1), 1–20. Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., & Ven, V. D. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.4001 Larkin, T. J., & Larkin, S. (1994). Communicating change. How to win employee support for new business directions (pp. 227–239). New York, NY: McGraw‐Hill. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social Equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1, 5–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 001872674700100103 Lewis, L. K. (2011). Organizational change. Creating change through strategic communication. West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley‐Blackwell. Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. (1998). Reconceptualizing organizational change implementation as a communication problem: A review of literature and research agenda. In M. E. Roloff & G. Paulson (Eds.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 21, pp. 93–151). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Liu, B. F., Horsley, J. S., & Levenshus, A. B. (2010). Government and corporate communication practices: Do the differences matter? Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(3), 189–231. Luoma‐aho, V. (2008). Sector reputation and public organizations. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(5), 446–467. Luoma‐Aho, V., Tirkkonen, P., & Vos, M. (2013). Monitoring the issue arenas of the swine‐flu discussion. Journal of Communication Management, 17(3), 239–251. Mabey, C., & Mayon‐White, B. (1993). Managing change (2nd ed.). London, UK: The Open University/ Paul Chapman Publishing. Macnamara, J. R. (2016). Organizational listening: The missing essential in public communication. New York, NY: First, Peter Lang. Majgaard, K. (2010/2011). Jagten på autencitet i offentlig styring, del 1: Dilemmaspillet. Økonomistyring og Informatik, 26(6), 521–555. Mäntysalo, V. (2015). The importance of transparency in ethical governance: Current research and finnish citizens’ perceptions. Administrative Culture, 16(1), 48–67. Palmer, I., Dunford, R., & Akin, G. (2009). Managing organizational change. A multiple perspectives approach (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Mc Graw Hill. Pettigrew, A., & Whipp, R. (1993). Managing change for competitive success. Cambridge, UK: Wiley‐Blackwell. Pettigrew, A. M. (2000). Linking change processes and outcomes: A commentary on Ghosal, Bartlett and Weick. In M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 697–713. Pfeffer, J. (1994). Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the workforce. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Pollitt, C. (2003). The essential public manager. Maidenhead, UK/Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis: New public management, governance, and the neo Weberian state. London, UK: Oxford University Press. Rainey, H. G. (2009). Understanding and managing public organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. Richardson, P., & Denton, D. K. (1996). Communicating change. Human Resource Management, 35(2), 203–215.

Change Management and Communication in Public Sector Organizations

213

Senior, B. (2002). Organisational change (2nd ed.). London, UK: Pitman. Starbuck, W. H., & Milliken, F. J. (1988). Executives’ perceptual filters: What they notice and how they make sense. In D. Hambrick (Ed.), The executive effect: concepts and methods for studying top management (pp. 35–65). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Tanner, G., & Otto, K. (2016). Superior–subordinate communication during organizational change: Under which conditions does high‐quality communication become important? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(19), 2183–2201. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1 090470 Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. New York, NJ: Erlbaum, Mahwah. Thijs, N., & Staes, P. (2008). European primer on customer satisfaction management (primer). Luxembourg: European Institute for Public Administration & European Public Administration Network. Thomas, J. C. (2013). Citizen, customer, partner: Rethinking the place of the public in public management. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 786–796. Tsoukas, H., & Papoulias, D. (2005). Managing third‐order change: The case of the public power corporation (Greece). Long Range Planning, 38(1), 79–95. Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510–540. Van der Voet, J. (2016). Change leadership and public sector organizational change. American Review of Public Administration, 46(6), 660–682. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015574769 Van der Voet, J., Kuipers, B., & Groeneveld, S. (2015). Held back and pushed forward: Leading change in a complex public sector environment. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 290–300. Waterhouse, J., & Lewis, D. (2004). Communicating culture change. Public Management Review, 6(3), 353–376. Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem formation and problem resolution. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Weick, K. E. (2000). Emergent change as a universal in organisations. In M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16, 409–422. Wilson, D. C. (1992). A strategy of change: Concepts and controversies in the management of change. London, UK: Routledge. Wong, W., & Welch, E. (2004). Does e‐government promote accountability? A comparative analysis of website openness and government accountability. Governance, 17(2), 275–297. Zorn, T., Christensen, L. T., & Cheney, G. (1999). Do we really want constant change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett‐Koehler.

Further Reading Aggerholm, H. K., & Thomsen, C. (2016). Legitimation as a particular mode of strategic communication in the public sector. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(3), 195–206. Holtzhausen, D., & Zerfass, A. (Eds.) (2015). The routledge handbook of strategic communication. New York, NY: Routledge. Massey, A., & Johnston, K. (2015). The international handbook of public administration and governance. United Kingdom/USA: Edward Elgar. Osborne, S. P., & Brown, L. (Eds.) (2013). Handbook of innovation in public services. United Kingdom/ USA: Edward Elgar. Putnam, L. L., & Mumby, D. K. (2014). The sage handbook of organizational communication. Advances in theory, research, and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

14

Public Sector Organizations and Reputation Jan Boon and Heidi Houlberg Salomonsen

Introduction That reputation may serve public organizations as an intangible asset has increasingly been recognized in recent years by public managers and academic scholars alike. Contemporary public organizations operate in environments, which for a number of reasons makes reputation relevant. First, public organizations often face environments characterized by the ubiquity of crisis and blame games mediated by traditional news and social media (Boin, ‘t Hart, Stern, & Sundelius, 2017; Hood, 2011; Luoma‐aho, 2007; Chapter 15 in this book). This further generating quests for accountability by the media, politicians, citizens, etc., which further increases public organizations’ concerns with reputational risk. For example, public organizations have been found to be more concerned with avoiding bad publicity (or reputational threats) than with promoting good publicity (Schillemans, 2012). Second, due to the increase in performance management, stakeholders increasingly receive information on the performance of public organizations. Such information enables the assessment of individual public organizations relative to other organizations performing the same task (e.g. producing the same time of service), as well as relative to the past performance of the organization (see  Chapter  12), with potential reputational consequences. Third, central stakeholders of public sector organizations (e.g., professional interest organizations) and NGOs increasingly professionalize their communication (see Chapter 17), which again potentially challenges the reputation of public sector organizations. By means of more professional communication efforts, such organizations are able to challenge the decisions, the performance per se of public organizations, as well as public organizations communication efforts to cultivate their reputation. These developments within the environments of public sector organizations render the organizational reputation of contemporary public organizations potentially more volatile and challenged and therefore increasingly relevant for public organizations in their effort to demonstrate not only legitimacy but also accountability and potentially uniqueness in the eyes of their diverse stakeholders. In the last decades, it has indeed been convincingly demonstrated that public organizations are conscious of the value of a favorable reputation, and that they treat the management of their reputations as a matter of strategic importance (e.g., Carpenter, 2001). The purposes for ­managing the reputation has been suggested to be rather diverse, including recruitment and retainment of good employees, enhancing legitimacy and autonomy, cultivating public support,

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

216

Jan Boon and Heidi Houlberg Salomonsen

and improving the organization’s performance (Carpenter, 2002, p. 491; Carpenter & Krause, 2015; Luoma‐aho, 2007, p. 124). Also, the theoretical points of departure for investigating public sector reputation and the management hereof are diverse. Wæraas and Maor (2015) broadly categorize existing research on reputation within the public sector according to studies departing from an organizational and a political science approach. To this we may add research departing from a corporate communication theoretical approach. The differences and similarities among those three different approaches are discussed in the subsequent sections. The remainder of the chapter is organized as follows. First, we describe how the concept of reputation is defined within the three approaches as well as account for the main theoretical arguments underpinning the empirical findings within each approach. In relation to this, we further discuss into two central aspects for the development of research in public sector organizations. First, we assess the degree to which scholars in the different approaches have come in terms of not only identifying the relevance of reputation for public sector organizations but as importantly in terms of conceptualizing and identifying public sector reputation and reputation‐sensitive behavior performed by these organizations. Second, we assess the degree to which the theories put forward implicitly or explicitly provide for a causal argument reflecting an ambition to move beyond description toward explanation and the empirical identification of causes and effects of public sector organizations’ reputation.

Defining and Theorizing Approaches to Public Sector Organizations’ Reputation The idea of a public sector reputation is reflected in the recently published Sage Encyclopedia for Corporate Reputation (Luoma‐aho & Canel, 2016). This contribution provides a description of the distinct context in which a public organization’s reputation is formed and the conditions under which public managers may pursue cultivating the reputation of their ­organization. Hence, the contribution points to the multiplicity of stakeholders characterizing the environment of public organizations, the multiplicity of goals and legal constraints under which such organizations operate, the importance of the different types of tasks performed by the rather diverse group of organizations we define as public, as well as the distinct role trust plays for the functioning of public sector organizations, at least those operating in a democratic polity (Luoma‐aho & Canel, 2016). However, the contribution does not provide a specific definition of public sector organizations reputation, which, as will become evident in the subsequent presentation of the three approaches, is only performed within the political science approach.

Organizational Approach In the organizational approach, contributions primarily depart from an organizational, or more precise from an organizational–institutional theoretical approach. In line with the normative and cognitive pillar within institutional theories (Scott, 2014) the studies within this approach focus on reputation management as a taken‐for‐granted prescription that to a certain degree downplays the strategic leeway of public organizations in managing their reputation. Further, rather than developing new theories for describing and explaining reputation and its management within a public sector context, these studies explore the heuristic value and external validity of existing more generic reputation and reputation management theories in the context of public sector organizations. Such generic definitions applied include, for example, defining reputation

Public Sector Organizations and Reputation

217

as the degree to which it stands out relative to other organizations within the field it operate (Rindova, Williamson, Petkova, & Sever, 2005, p. 1035) and reputation management as management aiming at differentiating the organization and cultivate distinctiveness (Deephouse & Suchman, 2008, p. 62; Fombrun & van Riel, 2004, p. 133). Hence, contributions within this approach shares an interest in investigating the complexities involved in pursuing reputation management as theorized and sometimes even prescribed within the generic literature on reputation in a public sector context, often basing the studies in a Nordic or Scandinavian empirical context. Two types of contributions characterize this approach. First, a number of scholars apply generic theories on reputation as a point of departure for discussing the distinctiveness of the political management of public organizations, the normative context, and other traits characterizing the public sector (e.g., goal ambiguity) (Byrkjeflot, 2010; Wæraas, 2012; Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012; Wæraas, Byrkjeflot, & Angell, 2011; see also Byrkjeflot, Salomonsen, & Wæraas, 2013; Wæraas & Maor, 2015). That is, different aspects of the public sector context are considered as potential moderators as it were, which may affect the relationship between reputation management and reputation and render the performance of reputation within the public sector more complex compared to the private sector. Some of these theorizing efforts have been subject for empirical investigations. For example, Salomonsen and Nielsen (2015) investigate the politics of reputation management in Danish municipalities. Based on a premise of public sector organizations being politically conscious organizations as well as arenas for political conflict and rivalry between politicians and between the politicians and the administration, however, they demonstrate that, in the municipal context, reputation management involves a low degree of conflict and disagreement between those actors, despite both top civil servants and the mayor being involved in such strategic management. Grøn and Salomonsen have continued this line of research, showing that when local governments are subject to such reputation threats as negative media coverage, the degree of political instability in local government is related to a decreasing ability for political and administrative actors to respond in unison when communicating to the media (2018). Hence, under such conditions, reputation management in the form of communicative responses to negative media coverage “politics” matters more, increasing the potential conflict and disagreement between the political and administrative actors involved in terms of how and whom should respond to the media. Second, a number of scholars have combined generic reputation theory with organizational– institutional theory to empirically investigate, from a more descriptive and explorative ambition, different aspects of reputation and management within different parts of the public sector. Within the health‐care sector, Wæraas and Sataøen identify the trade‐offs that hospitals operating in an institutionalized field comprised by other hospitals face when pursuing similarity with the norms promoted within this field to cultivate legitimacy and pursuing differentiation when cultivating reputation (2013). (For more contributions from this empirical domain, see Blomgren, Hedmo, & Waks, 2015; Byrkjeflot & Angell, 2008; Sataøen, 2011; Solbakk, 2011). In addition, central government organizations (Wæraas, 2013), courts of law (Moldenæs, 2011), and especially local government organizations and municipalities have been subject for empirical investigation. Notable contributions from the study of local governments include the identification a reputation paradox reflected as challenges for Norwegian municipalities when cultivating a unique reputation, thereby differentiating themselves from the organizational field of municipalities (Wæraas & Bjørnå, 2011). Somehow related, Wæraas (2015) identifies the awareness of the existence of a reputation commons in Norwegian municipalities belonging to the same region, and the potential strategic challenges accompanying such commons situations, e.g., choosing a communal strategy versus a strategy of differentiation. By so doing, Wæraas identifies some of the constraints facing public sector organizations, although as demonstrated through the lenses of more generic reputation theory, the reputation commons points to the existence of

218

Jan Boon and Heidi Houlberg Salomonsen

some similarity with respect to constraining factors when performing reputation management in the public and the private sector. Further, contributions have investigated the variety of stakeholders targeted in the reputation strategies of Norwegian municipalities and the multiple goals being pursued (Bjørnå, 2015). Concerning reputation strategies, Wæraas, Bjørnå, and Moldenæs (2014) have identified the types of branding strategies used by Norwegian municipalities, discovering that most of them use an organizational strategy in favor of a place and democracy strategy contributing with the identification of different perceptions of the municipal organizations providing for different types of branding and reputation strategies to be pursued. Finally, Frandsen, Johansen, and Salomonsen demonstrate how reputation strategies are somehow modestly integrated with and therefore are rather decoupled from the performance of crisis strategies, again in the context of municipalities, although within a Danish context, pointing to the relevance of considering reputation management within this context as not merely a strategic endeavor but also as an institutional adaption to prevailing institutionalized ideas within the environments of local government organizations (2016). All these contributions in different ways provides valuable insight.

Corporate Communication Approach From a corporate communication theoretical approach, Luoma‐aho has developed the concept of a neutral public sector reputation (2007). As for scholars in the organizational approach, she departs from an argument that public organizations have a fundamentally different raison d’être than private organizations (Luoma‐aho, 2007, p. 125). Therefore, Luoma‐aho argues that public sector organizations, rather than pursuing a good reputation as prescribed by generic theories on reputation and reputation management, should aim for pursuing a neutral reputation. Reputation is, in this context, defined as perceptions or views of the organizations held by organizational stakeholders (Luoma‐aho, 2007, p. 126). A neutral reputation is conceptualized as different from having a bad or a good reputation – that is, a sort of “middle‐rated” reputation rather than not having a reputation at all but having a unique reputation (Luhoma‐aho, 2007, p. 129). Hence, a neutral reputation reflects a perception in which stakeholders neither strongly agree nor disagree with the public sector organization’s performance or decisions but form a cognitive impression or perception reflecting stakeholders’ consent with the organization (Luoma‐aho, 2007, p. 129). Departing from an observation that good reputations require resources to maintain them, Luoma‐aho suggests that public sector organizations should strive for a neutral reputation. Positioned within a context of budget constraints, such a reputation may prove risky, in times of scare resources why the old saying “…‘noblesse oblige’ also holds true for organizational reputations; good reputations once achieved, allow not resting on one’s laurels without a potential loss of reputation” (Luoma‐aho, 2007, p. 128). A good reputation reflects a promise for future behavior on the part of the organization (Luoma‐aho, 2008, p. 449) and generates high stakeholder expectations. For public organizations, such promise may not be realizable due to the financial constraints as well as potential shifts in the political leader’s preferences. Further, public organizations, it is argued, have a more difficult time proving their “usefulness and positive impact” for the lives of most citizens (Luoma‐aho, 2007, p. 125). Finally, in a more normative vein, Luoma‐aho argues that a neutral reputation allows public organizations to “… better ensure the critical operating distance and impartiality necessary for public sector organizations operating under democratic order” (Luoma‐aho, 2008, p. 449). The empirical research underpinning the idea of a neutral reputation has, as was the case for empirical research within the organizational approach, primarily been descriptive, performed within a Finnish empirical context. Based on a quantitative inquiry into 12 public sector organizations in Finland, Luoma‐aho finds support for the idea that most stakeholders perceptions of the

Public Sector Organizations and Reputation

219

organizations reputation is neutral. This conclusion is based on the fact that most stakeholders rate the organizations on a number of statements tapping into their assessment of the organization on a number of aspects (e.g. its trustworthiness, the leadership performed, etc.) as being somehow in the middle of the constructed Likert‐scale reflecting the possible values to be granted to the organization. Later, on the basis of the same study, Luoma‐aho identifies that albeit primarily representing a neutral assessment of those organizations, some differences in the reputation of the investigated organizations emerges (2008). Hence, whereas the organizations in the sample performing tasks that implied the performance of some sort of authority or legislative function had a reputation as being bureaucratic, organizations performing tasks related to research or of a semi‐commercial nature have a reputation as being flexible (Luoma‐aho, 2008, p. 456).

Political Science Approach Within the political science approach, we find the most comprehensive attempt to develop a distinct theory for not only conceptualizing a public sector organization reputation but also for developing a theory that moves beyond description toward explaining reputation behavior in the public sector and the effects generated by a good reputation, being the bureaucratic reputation theory. The bureaucratic reputation framework was originally coined by Carpenter (2001, 2010) and defines organizational reputation as “a set of symbolic beliefs about the unique or separable capacities, intentions, roles, obligations, history and mission of an organization that are embedded in a network of multiple audiences” (Carpenter, 2010, p. 33). The concept of organizational reputation in bureaucratic reputation theory is further characterized by three core elements, partly aligned with definitions on organizational reputation as defined in corporate communication, but also partly reflecting the distinct theoretical development of organizational reputation in bureaucratic reputation theory. First, reputation uniqueness refers to the capacity of organizations to demonstrate they can provide services found nowhere else in the polity (Carpenter & Krause, 2012). A reputation calls into play a certain organizational trait that differentiates the bureaucratic actor from other actors emphasizing the unique element in organizational reputation, which, as mentioned, resonates with central elements of organizational reputation as defined within corporate communication theory (Foreman, Whetten, & Mackey, 2012, p. 185). Second, organizational reputation management is “audience‐based” as organizations do not strategically promote a unique trait in isolation from its environment, which again is compatible with more generic definitions of organizational reputation within corporate communication theory (Gilad & Yogev, 2012, p. 322). Organizational reputation relies on audiences’ perceptions concerning the effectiveness of actions that distinguish the organization from others in the polity (Maor, 2015). What audiences see is not the reality of the organization but, rather, an uncertain image of the organization’s performance, technical skills, morality, and/or procedural rightness (Carpenter & Krause, 2012), which leaves some leeway for reputation‐conscious organizations to strategically participate in the construction of audiences perception. The multiplicity and diversity of audiences also implies that satisfying one audience can mean perturbing another. Third, and more distinct as part of the theoretical development of bureaucratic reputation theory, is the emphasis on reputational multidimensionality, which refers to the different components of an organizational reputation within the public sector. Reputation is not seen as a broad general impression, but rather as a multifaceted concept. The most cited categorization of the multiple dimensions of a reputation originated in the work by Carpenter (2010), who distinguishes between the performative, technical, moral, and procedural dimension of the public sector organization’s reputation. Performative reputation refers to whether an agency can execute its tasks competently and efficiently. Technical reputation refers to whether an agency has the skill and technical capacity needed to do its job (regardless of its actual performance). Moral

220

Jan Boon and Heidi Houlberg Salomonsen

reputation means that an agency is flexible, compassionate, honest, and protective of the interests of its clients. Procedural reputation relates to an agency following accepted rules and norms. A full optimization of all these dimensions would be infeasible. Bureaucratic actors must choose to which dimension they give priority (Carpenter & Krause, 2012). This strategic choice process is one of the core interests of bureaucratic reputation theory. The core theoretical argument put forward in bureaucratic reputation theory is that public organizations engage in reputation management because, once developed, a favorable reputation serves as a valuable political asset. Reputations are used to generate public support, achieve organizational autonomy, insulate the organization from political interference in day‐to‐day management, and protect the agency from political attack in times of crisis. Organizations can engage in a variety of strategies to establish a favorable reputation. They can demonstrate superior track records by adopting practices from or affiliating with agencies with a strong reputation and by appointing managers who enjoy strong reputations. They can also carefully time decisions, hire reputation management consultants, engage in media training of communication professionals and senior management, and monitor reputation measurement indices (Petkova, 2012; Wæraas & Maor, 2015). Yet the focus of most research in this approach is not so much concerned with how a reputation is established but, rather, on how a reputation is protected once established. The concept of reputational threat is often included in reputation‐based accounts to refer to situations where one or more audiences criticize certain areas of an organization’s functioning. Dependent on the nature of the threat, and dependent on the audience, bureaucratic reputation theory expects public organizations to engage in reputation‐protective behavior. In the words of Carpenter (2010): “The key when trying to account for an organization’s behavior is to look at the audience and to look at the threats” (p. 832). Scholars departing from a bureaucratic reputation theory have, as mentioned, been interested in under which conditions and how reputational considerations affect the behavior of public organizations, reflecting a more explanatory ambition than the previous two approaches. Key assumptions behind reputation‐based accounts are that (a) public organizations are active and strategic players in politics, and that (b) reputation is a crucial motivator to account for their behavior, and according to Carpenter (2004), reputation‐protective considerations is the most powerful dynamic governing organizational behavior. The first assumption is not new in public administration research. The notion of rational and strategic public organizations has been discussed for many decades (Moe, 1995; Simon, 1947; Wilson, 1989), and formed the basis of principal‐agent theorizing, which is interested in the design of control structures to curb opportunistic behavior by public organizations. Principal‐ agent applications see the main source of bureaucratic power in information asymmetries vis‐à‐ vis political principals, and are mostly concerned with questions of how to control public organizations and avoid their strategic behavior (e.g., moral hazard), based on a conceptualization of political authority vested in formal institutional mechanisms (Maor, 2015; Miller, 2005; Moe, 1995). Bureaucratic reputation theorists, in contrast, base bureaucratic power on the unique reputations that public organizations are able to cultivate. Rather than focusing on the analysis of control mechanisms to avoid strategic behavior, these studies seek to understand strategic behavior of public organizations in order to achieve a better understanding of “the black box of executive government” (Maor, 2015, p. 17). Substantial evidence demonstrates that public organizations adapt their behavior in response to reputational threats, often by changing the timing and content of decision‐making. Carpenter (2002) presented evidence that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States adapts its drug approval review time to reputational threats in the form of media coverage and pressure of societal groups representing the drug. In a similar vein, Maor and Sulitzeanu‐Kenan (2013) found that the timing of the FDA’s enforcement decisions is a function of the media coverage on its consumer protection responsibilities. Krause and Corder (2007) demonstrated that agencies less easily succumb to political

Public Sector Organizations and Reputation

221

pressures to produce optimistic economic forecasts when the reputational costs associated with bureaucratic incompetence outweigh the benefits of political responsiveness. Maor (2011) found that the timing of regulatory jurisdiction claims is a strategic choice based on the extent of reputational threats posed by new information or actions by rival regulators. Moffitt (2010) demonstrated that the FDA invites public review and discloses information for policy decisions to expose risks in task implementation and to reapportion responsibility in the event of failure. Lastly, Maor and Sulitzeanu‐Kenan (2015) found that the responsiveness of an Australian service delivery agency is a function of negative media coverage and contingent on its past performance. These studies demonstrate that public organizations are responsive to reputational threats and that they strategically balance their response (reflected in decision‐making behavior and performance) according to the nature of the threat. The overall majority of these studies are large‐scale quantitative studies. Yet studies also show how political actors and citizens are responsive to organizational reputations. Capelos et al. (2015) found that the satisfaction of citizens with different services of a Cypriot water regulator is a function of how they rate the regulator on different reputational dimensions. MacDonald and Franko Jr. (2007) provided evidence that agencies that are seen as poorly performing in the eyes of lawmakers are more likely to lose policy authority. Maor (2007) demonstrated that government ministers prefer to change institutional arrangements with agencies at arm’s‐length by undermining their legal independence rather than to endanger the agencies’ core reputational strength of scientific expertise. Further, several studies have looked at strategic communication as a distinct approach through which public organizations cultivate their reputation when exposed to reputational threats. Arguing that both talk (= a response by the agency to a specific opinion articulated in the media) and silence (= no explicit response) can be seen as strategic responses to reputational threat, Maor, Gilad, and Bloom (2012) have convincingly demonstrated that a regulatory (and hence reputation‐sensitive) agency, such as the Israeli Banking Supervision Department, the task of which is to maintain the financial stability of the banking system, consumer protection, and competition, remains silent when its reputation is exposed to threats within areas where it already enjoys a strong reputation, while it responds to such threats if they are targeted areas in which it enjoys a weaker reputation. Further, Gilad, Maor, and Bloom (2013) have demonstrated that this regulatory agency chooses among different types of communication strategies (ranging from silence to different types of admission of problems, blame, or even shifting blame), depending on whether the organization is confronted with accusations for over‐ or underregulatory behavior. In case of the former, the agency tends to deny problems; in case of the latter, it tends to admit problems and to shift blame. Previous studies have thus demonstrated how the communication strategies applied by agencies may reflect a strategic choice between talk and silence depending on explicit calculations of the severity of the threat relative to the strength of the reputation (Maor, 2015, p. 29) as well as reflect a strategic choice in terms of types of “talk” that is type of response strategies applied. Recently, attempts to bring theories of reputation and accountability together have emerged. In these so far theoretical contributions, accountability is seen as “… an important strategy in the organizational repertoire of reputation management” (Busuioc & Lodge, 2016, p. 253) and may be demonstrated by administrative actors proactively and voluntarily in their attempt to manage their reputation (Schillemans & Busuioc, 2015, pp. 209–210). In addition, it has been suggested that whether accounts are provided is related to calculations of already‐established reputations (Busuioc & Lodge, 2016, p. 253). While this resonates with previous theoretical propositions within the bureaucratic reputation theory, which has proven its empirical validity as previously described, important work, both theoretical and empirical, awaits in bringing the important aspect of communicating for accountability into research on bureaucratic reputation and the management hereof. Common to these contributions is an emphasis on bureaucratic reputation‐protective behavior as being based on explicit calculations. Arguing that both calculations and perceptions are

222

Jan Boon and Heidi Houlberg Salomonsen

part of the endogenous reservoir of public organizations potentially explaining their communication behavior during reputational threats, Salomonsen, Frandsen, and Johansen (2015) demonstrate that public managers’ implicit theories – that is, their assumptions regarding the effects of responding to the media or remaining silent  –  is positive related to such communication behavior. This indicates that such “mental maps” should be investigated further as an explanatory factor for reputation protective behavior in the public sector.

Critique, Challenges, and Future Research A general observation for the field of public sector reputation is the need for simultaneously pursuing the development of a distinct bureaucratic reputation theory as well as the assessment of the external validity of generic theories on reputation for public sector organizations. The three approaches to the study of reputation in the public sector together point to the relevance for both academics and practitioners alike to pursue their interest in reputation and the management hereof; however, the three approaches may be subject for different types of critiques and challenges that provide for different types of avenues for their future development in terms of providing more robust knowledge upon which we can develop the theories further, as well as upon which the practice of reputation management in the public sector can rely. First, for the approach departing from an institutional organizational perspective, the challenges differ with respect to the more theoretical and the empirical contributions. For the former, the obvious challenge is to provide more empirical evidence for the relevance of the identified distinct features of public sector organizations and their context for such organizations reputation. While it makes theoretical sense that many of the previously mentioned distinct characteristics of the public sector (e.g., the political leadership and the multiplicity of goals and stakeholders) provide not exclusive but distinct challenges for public sector managers. When cultivating the reputation of their organizations, we need more systematic research providing empirical evidence of these factors as well as how such aspects affect a public organization’s reputation. This calls for continuing the combination of qualitative and quantitative studies, which already characterizes the empirical studies within this approach. In addition, it would require more comparative‐by‐ design research, including private and public sector organizations, which systematically addresses the alleged differences across the two sectors in their reputation‐cultivating endeavors. This would not only further enable public sector scholars to learn from generic reputation scholars but also, as noted by Grøn and Salomonsen, allow for knowledge generated on the basis of public sector organizations to travel to the “homeland” of more generic reputation theories, often developed and validated in a private sector context (2018). However, while preserving the diversity of methods applied, we need for the empirical contributions within the organizational approach to move beyond description and toward explaining, as mentioned, how and under what conditions the different distinct features matters for public organizations reputation and the management hereof. Second, for the approach departing from a corporate communication theoretical perspective, the idea of a neutral reputation for public sector organizations shares the challenge in terms of moving beyond description to explaining under which conditions and with which effects we identify a neutral reputation. Such knowledge would enable the approach to move from a more normative stance to by means of empirical knowledge enable to identify when a neutral reputation serves public organizations best – in the sense of causing desirable outcomes (e.g., increase performance, trust etc.). For the political science approach, the existing research within bureaucratic reputation theory suffers from some shortcomings related to existing research designs applied and others related to the level of “maturity” of bureaucratic reputation theory. First, studies tend to underappreciate the context in which strategic reputation management occurs. Most studies are quantitative and take into account a large set of outputs or decisions of

Public Sector Organizations and Reputation

223

a single organization, often regulators and in particular of the FDA (Maor, 2015). This poses an external validity issue, as little is known about how national context, culture, political dynamics, and organizational factors such as organizational type, task, or size influence reputation‐protective behavior. The few qualitative studies that have been performed demonstrate that context matters in setting a framework within which reputation‐protective behavior occurs. Moynihan (2012) found that reputation‐driven blame avoidance strategies in networks is conditioned upon the extra‐network reputation of network actors. In a similar vein, Busuioc (2015) draws on comparison between cross‐national cooperation in the case of border management and law enforcement to argue that turf‐protective tendencies driven by local context played a major role in explaining the reputation‐protective behavior of agencies. Second, as a result of existing studies being mainly quantitative, substantial evidence has been produced on the identifying a relationship between reputational threats and organizational behavior, whereas far less is known about the underlying mechanisms that generate this relationship. Commenting on the aspects where reputation theory needs further development, Daniel Carpenter states that reputation scholars may need to include other potential explanations than a bureaucratic theoretical reputational perspective when accounting for their findings in order to address the problem of “observational equivalence” (2015: x). Do agencies want to be visible and recognized for their unique trait? Or do they just want to do well? Is their autonomy the result of their reputation protective behavior, or is it explained by drifting principles (Schillemans & Busuioc, 2015) or even the result of political control and hence in alignment with political preferences? And related, but not touched on by Carpenter, do all agencies care about being recognized? As mentioned, the external validity issue due to the prime focus on quantitative studies of regulatory reputation‐protective behavior prohibits the field from being able to formulate a convincing answer to these questions. Third, common to many studies is the emphasis on communication as a strategic response to reputational threats materializing as negative media coverage. While it can be argued that the media represent an important audience for public organizations as they communicate their own opinions while also serving as an institutional intermediary through which multiple audiences can communicate how they perceive an agency’s reputation (Boin et  al., 2017) and a forum through which public organization can cultivate their reputation and account for their behavior (Jacobs & Schillemans, 2015), it should be recognized that public organizations have other means and channels through which to protect their reputations (i.e., directly targeting agency heads or certain important stakeholders). Fourth, it is striking that bureaucratic reputation theorists extensively rely on negative media coverage to operationalize reputational threats, but that they dedicate so little attention to how news is made and how journalists affect the presentation of organizations in the news. For instance, Maor (2011) discussed his finding that regulators with a reputation for scientific expertise are less likely to appear in the media compared to regulators with a reputation as guarantors of public safety by arguing that the latter cultivate their reputation by seeking more media coverage. While there is merit to this explanation, no attention is given to the role of journalists and the concept of news values as an alternative explanation for why certain topics receive more media attention than others. The relative sense of urgency and drama related to public safety issues vis‐à‐vis the technicality of expertise‐based decisions might automatically lead the former to be more newsworthy, regardless of the strategies performed by organizations to increase their media coverage. In relation to this, it is worth noticing that communication scholars related to the mediatization literature have spent considerable attention in conceptualizing the increased role of the media in society. Mediatization refers to the process where the media have become important institutions in their own right that influence other spheres in society. The increased importance of the media can serve as a wider frame of reference to situate reputation management strategies in attempting to communicate a single and unique trait to different audiences, often through the media.

224

Jan Boon and Heidi Houlberg Salomonsen

Differences in the mediatization of political systems (Mazzoleni & Schulz, 1999) and of bureaucracies (Fredriksson, Schillemans, & Pallas, 2015) in different countries are likely to explain cross‐national variation in reputation‐sensitivity. Hence, the degree to which any agency is mediatized in the sense of being aware of and/or granting awareness to the media, and subsequently altering their day‐to‐day functions accordingly, includes how they respond to the media during reputational threats or in other ways alter their interaction with the media (Schillemans, 2012) in their pursue and protection of an unique and favorable reputation. Further, the analysis of mediatization (ideally) involves a process‐oriented approach to do justice to the dynamic and multifaceted nature of mediatization (Strömbäck, 2008). A mediatization perspective on reputation management invites reputation scholars to take a process‐oriented approach to the study of reputation. In such a perspective, more attention can be spent on how reputation‐protective behavior comes to being and which factors (both endogenous and exogenous) influence whether and how reputational threats are dealt with. Further, such a process orientation invites reputation scholars to pay attention to what happens to their messages (e.g., their responses to reputational threats) when communication to and through the media. This would somehow challenge the relatively simple, linear sender‐and‐receiver perspective on communication so far rather implicit, primarily the quantitative studies departing from a bureaucratic reputation theoretical perspective. Having identified and discussed the three approaches to public sector organization’s reputation, we end the chapter by suggesting ways in which the approaches may enrich each other. First, while the relevance or leadership and employee support for public organizations missions for public managers when pursuing a good reputation (Carpenter & Krause, 2015) the bureaucratic reputation theory still departs from an assumption of public organization as being a unified actor. By taking inspiration from an organizational approach pointing to organizations as both arenas, agents, and actors in their own right (Brunsson & Sahlin‐andersson, 2000), the bureaucratic reputation theory may begin to address some of the endogenous and internal conditions, which provides for more or less reputation management toward the political principal and other important stakeholders in their environment. The approach departing from corporate communication can benefit from insights of bureaucratic reputation theory and studies departing from this approach. This theory and the empirical findings might offer insights into the politics behind how public organizations respond to the media and other actors posing reputational threats providing inspiration to further investigating under which conditions a neutral reputation may be more or less effective for public sector organizations positioned in mediatized and politicized environments. Further, it provides important insights to our understanding of when and to some extent how public organizations engage in strategic communication. Regardless of whether public organizations are perceived as instruments of political principals or organizations in their own right, and albeit to a varying degree, public organizations are deeply contextualized in the polity of modern central, regional, and local governments, and hence if not always active “players,” then always potentially involved in politics “for better and for worse.”

References Bjørnå, H. (2015). Dealing with stakeholders in local government: Three Norwegian cases of municipal reputation management. In A. Wæraas & M. Maor (Eds.), Organizational reputation in the public sector (pp. 185–202). London, UK: Routledge. Blomgren, M., Hedmo, T., & Waks, C. (2015). Struggles behind the scene: Reputation management in Swedish hospitals. In A. Wæraas & M. Maor (Eds.), Organizational reputation in the public sector (pp. 163–184). London, UK: Routledge. Boin, A., ’t Hart, P., Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (2017). The politics of crisis management: Public leadership under pressure (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Public Sector Organizations and Reputation

225

Brunsson, N., & Sahlin‐andersson, K. (2000). Constructing organizations: The example of public sector reform. Organization Studies, 21, 721–746. Busuioc, E. M. (2015). Friend or foe? Inter‐agency cooperation, organizational reputation, and turf. Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12160 Busuioc, E. M., & Lodge, M. (2016). The reputational basis of public accountability. Governance, 29(2), 247–263. Byrkjeflot, H. (2010). Omdømmehåndtering—drivkrefter, kritikk og paradokser. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 14(1–2), 3–24. Byrkjeflot, H., & Angell, S. I. (2008). Forvaltning i foretaksklær. Omdømmehåndtering i norske sykehus etter sykehusreformen. Nordiske Organisasjonsstudier, 3, 71–92. Byrkjeflot, H., Salomonsen, H. H., & Wæraas, A. (2013). Offentlig omdømmeledelse. In H. H. Salomonsen (Ed.), Offentlig ledelse og strategisk kommunikation (pp. 149–168). Copenhagen, Denmark: DJØF Publishing. Capelos, T., Provost, C., Parouti, M., Barnett, J., Chenoweth, J., Fife‐Schaw, C., & Kelay, T. (2015). Ingredients of institutional reputations and citizen engagement with regulators. Regulation and Governance. https:// doi.org/10.1111/rego.12097 Carpenter, D. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies 1862–1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Carpenter, D. (2002). Groups, the media, agency waiting costs, and FDA drug approval. American Journal of Political Science, 46(3), 490–505. Carpenter, D. (2004). Protection without capture: Product approval by a politically responsive, learning regulator. The American Political Science Review, 98(4), 613–631. Carpenter, D. (2010). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Carpenter, D. (2015). Foreword. In A. Waeraas & M. Maor (Eds.), Organizational reputation in the public sector (pp. ix–xi). New York and London: Routledge. Carpenter, D., & Krause, G. A. (2012). Reputation and public administration. Public Administration Review, 72, 26–32. Carpenter, D., & Krause, G. A. (2015). Transactional authority and bureaucratic politics. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 5–25. Deephouse, D. L., & Suchman, M. C. (2008). Legitimacy in organizational institutionalism. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Salin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 49–77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fombrun, C. J., & van Riel, C. B. M. (2004). fame and fortune: how successful companies build winning coalitions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Foreman, P. O., Whetten, D. A., & Mackey, A. (2012). An identity‐based view of reputation, image, and legitimacy: clarifications and distinctions among related constructs. In T. G. Polllock & M. L. Barnett (Eds.), the oxford handbook of corporate reputation (pp. 179–200). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Frandsen, F., Johansen, W., & Salomonsen, H. H. (2016). Responding to institutional complexity: Reputation and crisis management in Danish municipalities. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 20(2), 7–38. Fredriksson, M., Schillemans, T., & Pallas, J. (2015). Determinants of organizational mediatization: An analysis of the adaptation of Swedish government agencies to news media. Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12184 Gilad, S., Maor, M., & Bloom, P. B.‐N. (2013). Organizational reputation, the content of public allegations, and regulatory communication. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(2), 451–478. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mut041 Gilad, S., & Yogev, T. (2012). How reputation regulates regulators: illustrations from the regulation of retail finance. In T. G. Polllock & M. L. Barnett (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate reputation (pp. 320–340). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Grøn, C. H., & Salomonsen, H. H. (2018). Political instability and the ability of local government to respond to reputational threats in unison. International Review of Administrative Science. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0020852317714533 Hood, C. (2011). The blame game: Spin, bureaucracy, and self‐preservation in government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Retrieved from http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9353.html

226

Jan Boon and Heidi Houlberg Salomonsen

Jacobs, S., & Schillemans, T. (2015). Media and public accountability: typology and exploration. Policy & Politics, 44(1), 23–40. Krause, G. A., & Corder, K. J. (2007). Explaining bureaucratic optimism: Theory and evidence from US executive agency macroeconomic forecasts. The American Political Science Review, 101(1), 129–142. Luoma‐aho, V. (2007). Neutral reputation and public sector organizations. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(2), 124–143. Luoma‐aho, V. (2008). Sector reputation and public organizations. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(5), 446–467. Luoma‐aho, V., & Canel, M. (2016). Public sector reputation. In C. E. Caroll (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of corporate reputation (pp. 597–600). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. MacDonald, J. A., & Franko, W. W., Jr. (2007). Bureaucratic capacity and bureaucratic discretion does congress tie policy authority to performance? American Politics Research, 35(6), 790–807. Maor, M. (2007). A scientific standard and an agency’s legal independence: which of these reputation protection mechanisms is less susceptible to political moves? Public Administration, 85, 961–978. Maor, M. (2011). Organizational reputations and the observability of public warnings in 10 pharmaceutical markets. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 24, 557–582. Maor, M. (2015). Theorizing bureaucratic reputation. In A. Waeraas & M. Maor (Eds.), Organizational reputation in the public sector (pp. 17–36). London, UK: Routledge. Maor, M., Gilad, S., & Bloom, P. B.‐N. (2012). Organizational reputation, regulatory talk, and strategic silence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/ mus047 Maor, M., & Sulitzeanu‐Kenan, R. (2013). The effect of salient reputational threats on the pace of FDA enforcement. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 26, 31–61. Maor, M., & Sulitzeanu‐Kenan, R. (2015). Responsive change: Agency output response to reputational threats. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/ muv001 Mazzoleni, G., & Schulz, W. (1999). “Mediatization” of politics: A challenge for democracy? Political Communication, 16(3), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198613 Miller, G. J. (2005). The political evolution of principal–agent models. Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 203–225. Moe, T. M. (1995). The politics of structural choice: Toward a theory of public bureaucracy. In O. E. Williamson (Ed.), From Chester Barnard to the Present and Beyond (pp. 117–153). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Moffitt, S. (2010). Promoting agency reputation through public advice: Advisory committee use in the FDA. The Journal of Politics, 72(3), 880–893. Moldenæs, T. (2011). Visjonsarbeid i domstolene—mellom flere identiteter. In A. Wæraas, H. Byrkjeflot, & S. I. Angell (Eds.), Substans og fremtreden. Omdømmehåndtering i offentlig sector (pp. 162–179). Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget. Moynihan, D. P. (2012). Extra‐network organizational reputation and blame avoidance in networks: The Hurricane Katrina example. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 25(4), 567–588. Petkova, A. (2012). From the ground up: Building young firms’ reputations. In T. G. Pollock & M. L. Barnett (Eds.), Oxford handbook of corporate reputation (pp. 383–401). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1033–1049. Salomonsen, H. H., Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2015). Investigating public manager’s cognitive barriers and past experiences’ relation to strategic communication responses when exposed to reputational threats. In Proceedings of the International Communication Association (ICA) pre‐conference: Public Sector Communication – the Challenge of Building Intangible Assets, San Juan, Puerto‐Rico, May 21–25, 2015. EGOS.

Public Sector Organizations and Reputation

227

Salomonsen, H. H., & Nielsen, J. A. (2015). Investigating the politics of reputation management in local governments – the case of Denmark. In A. Wæraas & M. Maor (Eds.), Organizational reputation in the public sector (pp. 203–226). New York, NY: Routledge. Sataøen, H. L. (2011). Omdømmearbeid i helseforetak: Bade selvsagt og suspekt. In A. Wæraas, H.  Byrkjeflot, & S. I. Angell (Eds.), Substans og fremtreden: Omdømmehåndtering i offentlig sector (pp. 133–146). Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget. Schillemans, T. (2012). Mediatization of public services: How organizations adapt to news media. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang. Schillemans, T., & Busuioc, M. (2015). Predicting public sector accountability: From agency drift to forum drift. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 191–215. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests (4th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision‐making processes in administrative organization. New York, NY: Macmillan. Solbakk, M. N. (2011). Omdømmehåndtering i sykehussektoren: Hvorfor og hvordan? In A. Wæraas, H.  Byrkjeflot, & S. I. Angell (Eds.), Substans og fremtreden: Omdømmehåndtering i offentlig sector (pp. 180–194). Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget. Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13, 228–246. Waeraas, A. (2012). Public sector organizations and reputation management: Five problems. International Public Management Journal, 15(2), 186–206. Wæraas, A. (2013). Beauty from within, what bureaucracies stand for. The American Review of Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074013480843 Wæraas, A. (2015). Municipal reputation‐building in Norway: A reputational commons tragedy? In A. Wæraas & M. Maor (Eds.), Organizational reputation in the public sector (pp. 227–244). London, UK: Routledge. Wæraas, A., & Bjørnå, H. (2011). Kommunegrå eller unik? Omdømmebygging i kommunesektoren. In A. Wæraas, H. Byrkjeflot, & S. I. Angell (Eds.), Substans og fremtreden: Omdømmehåndtering i offentlig sector (pp. 230–248). Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget. Wæraas, A., Bjørnå, H., & Moldenæs, T. (2014). Place, organization, democracy: Three strategies for municipal branding. Public Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.906965 Wæraas, A., & Byrkjeflot, H. (2012). Public sector organizations and reputation management. International Public Management Journal, 15(2), 186–206. Wæraas, A., Byrkjeflot, H., & Angell, S. I. (Eds.) (2011). Substans og fremtreden: Omdømmehåndtering i offentlig sector. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget. Wæraas, A., & Maor, M. (2015). Understanding organizational reputation in a public sector context. In A. Waeraas & M. Maor (Eds.), Organizational reputation in the public sector (pp. 1–13). New York, NY: Routledge. Wæraas, A., & Sataøen, H. L. (2013). Being all things to all customers: Building reputation in an institutionalized field. British Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐8551.12044 Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York, NY: Basic Books.

15

Public Sector Communication: Risk and Crisis Communication Finn Frandsen and Winni Johansen

Introduction Managing and communicating risk and crisis have become a challenging task for many public sector organizations. “Governance has increasingly become a matter of crisis management” (Boin, ’t Hart, Stern, & Sundelius, 2017, p. 3). Disasters such as the Indian Ocean tsunami (2004), pandemics such as the H1N1 (or “swine”) flu pandemic (2009), terrorist attacks such as the truck attacks in Nice, Berlin, Stockholm, Barcelona, and London (2016–2017), but also political and administrative scandals leading to negative media coverage and public outrage, have emphasized the need for new and extended risk and crisis management (Drennan, McConnell, & Stark, 2015). As a consequence, public organizations increasingly transform into risk organizations (Power, 2007, 2016), which are embedded in a risk civilization or a risk society (Beck, 1992; Lagadec, 1982). Communication plays a key role in this transformation process. There are important differences between how risks and crises are managed and dealt with communicatively in the public sector and in the private sector, respectively. The best way to understand these differences is to apply a comparative approach. Such an approach is all the more relevant, as there has recently been a movement in public organizations toward adopting the approaches to risk and crisis management applied by private companies (Frandsen & Johansen, 2009, 2013; Frandsen, Johansen, & Salomonsen, 2016; see also the last section of this chapter). Risk and crisis, and the way they are understood by public emergency managers and their organizations, have changed over time. New types of risks and crises such as second‐order reputational risks (Power, 2004) and multi‐crises (Frandsen & Johansen, 2017) have emerged. At the same time, we have become aware of the fact that risk and crisis are handled differently by different types of public organizations. Crisis communication, for example, is not performed in the same way in local government organizations as in central government organizations (Frandsen et al., 2016). Recently, we have seen unexpected conflicts arise between local emergency organizations and central agencies. In 2014, the Danish government and Local Government Denmark (the interest organization of the 98 municipalities in Denmark) reached an agreement on cutting down

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

230

Finn Frandsen and Winni Johansen

the budget of the municipal fire and rescue services with DKK 175 million by reducing the number of emergency units from 86 to a maximum of 20 units. This agreement led to a conflict between the Danish Emergency Management Agency (DEMA) and emergency organizations in some of the municipalities, using fires and flooded motorways during a storm in 2014 as their battlefield. The emergency organizations deliberately broke the rules by not contacting DEMA right from the beginning of the emergencies, as they should have done, to emphasize that there was a need for rescue preparedness at the local level. The aim of this chapter is to introduce the reader to the field of public risk and crisis communication. The focus is of course on communication, but when necessary other aspects will be included. Most risk and crisis communication activities form part of managerial practices that are embedded in specific organizational contexts and regulated by law at the national, regional, and local level. On top of this, there is a political dimension where risk and crisis communication can transform into political communication (Boin et al., 2017). The first two sections of this chapter provide a general introduction to the field of risk and crisis communication in the public sector. What do we understand by public risk and crisis communication? How is risk and crisis preparedness organized in the public sector? Does the risk and crisis perception of public organizations differ from the risk and crisis perception of private organizations? The next section introduces three general perspectives on public risk and crisis communication: (a) an informational perspective, (b) a political perspective, and (c) an institutional perspective. These three perspectives are then further examined, discussing some of the most important theoretical frameworks, from the Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) model to the Politics of Crisis Management.

Risk and Crisis in the Public Sector The so‐called emergency services, that is, law enforcement, fire departments, and emergency medical services, form part of the services provided by the public sector in many countries. A wide range of local organizations and agencies are responsible for these services, but most of them exist only to address certain types of emergencies. We need the police to take care of criminals, we need the fire departments to put out fires, and we need ambulances to go to the hospital. However, to this basic level of emergency management we can add a more sophisticated level that is activated in case of, for example, floodings, earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, pandemics, and terrorism. At this more sophisticated level, where emergency management transforms into political risk and crisis management, the citizens in most countries expect that not only the emergency professionals, but also their political leaders and public managers will take care of things. “Crises […] are occasions for public leadership. Citizens whose lives are affected by critical contingencies expect governments and public agencies to do their utmost to keep them out of harm’s way” (Boin et al., 2017, p. 7). Public risk and crisis communication can be defined as all the communication activities taking place in relation to small‐scale and large‐scale risks and crises, emergencies, and disasters (before, during, and after). In other words, it is a very broad and diverse field of study: from the instructions and emergency psychological care offered to the victims of a natural disaster to local or national politicians complaining about ineffective emergency management, from public health campaigns to the mayor’s speech to the city after a terrorist attack. The main purpose of all these activities is to ensure the safety of citizens. It is about informing, warning, and protecting in the most effective way, but as we shall see, it is also about blaming, exploiting, and taking advantage of crises. Public risk and crisis communication are embedded in complex inter‐organizational contexts involving multiple actors at different operational and strategic levels. In the United States, for example, local public health agencies that address a wide range of public health issues, from assessing the health risks of environmental problems to providing emergency services during

Risk and Crisis Communication

231

natural disasters, interact with health agencies at the state and federal level, and these agencies interact with FEMA and the US Department of Homeland Security. The role of government agencies is outlined by a set of federal guidelines called the National Incident Management System (NIMS), which is a national standard for organizing agencies and improving coordination of emergency management operations. If we take this organizational complexity into consideration, including the communicative consequences, it is no surprise that a considerable amount of research into public emergency management has concentrated on collaboration and inter‐organizational or inter‐agency relationships (see, e.g., Kapucu, 2006; Kapucu, Arslan, & Demiroz, 2010). Do organizations from the private and the public sector share the same risk and crisis perception? Frandsen and Johansen (2004) conducted a national survey that demonstrated that in terms of crisis perception, local government organizations first and foremost focused on terrorism, bomb threats, and accidents involving person injuries, whereas private organizations also included IT breakdowns, product recalls, and negative media coverage among the most salient threats. How can we explain these differences? Fredriksson and Pallas (2016) claimed that research conducted by strategic communication scholars is often based on a general idea of organizations without taking into consideration the different conditions under which, for example, public and private organizations operate and the consequences this may have for “how, when, where, and why they can or are expected to communicate” (p. 149). As mentioned in the introduction: a comparative approach may help us solve this problem. Christensen, Lægreid, Roness, and Røvik (2007) identified three areas where public organizations differ from private organizations. They have political leaders elected by popular vote. They are multifunctional – that is, they are forced to handle functions, goals, and interests that are often incompatible or in conflict with each other. Finally, they do not operate within a free and competitive market. Drennan et  al. (2015) identified some key differences regarding the fundamental objective of these two types of organizations (to provide service to the community vs. to provide profit to the owners), their network of stakeholders, and their social and political environment. According to Drennan et al. (2015), these differences can explain why there is less risk‐taking activity in the public sector and why the public tolerance of risk is lower. However, they admit that the borders that separate the public and the private sector are increasingly blurred. Finally, they also draw attention to the fact that the citizens too have changed and developed a new claims culture. The multifunctionality, the claims culture, and the political dimension can explain why the field of public risk and crisis communication is so broad and diverse, why the performance of public emergency organizations are followed and evaluated so closely in the media, and why public risk and crisis communication can become political communication so rapidly.

Defining Risk and Crisis Communication The attentive reader may already have noticed that this chapter spans across two closely related, yet different bodies of knowledge and practices: risk communication and crisis communication. We need to determine how they differ from one another before we go into details with the models and theories that have been developed over the past two decades. Seeger, Sellnow, and Ulmer (2003) were among the first to establish a detailed list of the distinguishing features of risk and crisis communication (see Table 15.1). This type of list can be very useful. First and foremost they provide us with an overview. Risk and crisis communication have much in common. They are both involved in the production of public messages designed to create specific responses by the public. However, risk and crisis communication also differ. There basic goals are different. Seeger, Sellnow, and Ulmer’s list is not unproblematic. Crisis communication, for example, is portrayed in a rather old‐fashioned way reducing it to what would better be described as emergency

232

Finn Frandsen and Winni Johansen

Table 15.1  Distinguishing Features of Risk Communication and Crisis Communication. Risk communication

Crisis communication

Risk centered Messages regarding known probabilities of negative consequences Based on what is currently known Long‐term (pre‐crisis stage) More preparation (i.e., campaigns) Technical experts, scientists

Event centered Messages regarding current state or conditions

Personal scope Mediated: commercials, ads, brochures, pamphlets Controlled and structured

Based on what is known and what is not known Short‐term (crisis stage) Less preparation (i.e., crisis response strategies) Authority figures, emergency managers, technical experts Community or regional scope Mediated: press conferences, press releases, speeches, websites Spontaneous and reactive

Seeger, Sellnow, and Ulmer (2003, p. 203).

management. However, both in the private and the public sector, there has been a shift in the general perspective on crisis management: from a tactical, reactive, and event‐oriented perspective to a strategic, proactive, and process‐oriented perspective (Frandsen & Johansen, 2017; Gilpin & Murphy, 2008). This means that crisis communication is neither “event‐oriented,” “short‐term (crisis stage)” or “spontaneous and reactive,” as described by Seeger et al. (2003). It must be emphasized that risk and crisis communication research have generated insights that are of value also beyond the distinction between public and private. Thus, there has been a movement away from simple, sender‐oriented models, toward more interactive, receiver‐­ oriented approaches, and then again from these approaches toward more complex, multivocal models within both disciplines. In terms of senders and receivers, the one‐way or two‐way communication of public authorities, experts (first‐party communication) and citizens (second‐party communication) has been replaced with multi‐way communication (including third‐party communication). Both risk and crisis communication are facing new challenges today: the loss of trust in scientific authority in risk society, health activism, the growing number of third‐party interventions, etc. Table 15.2 provides an overview of the most important streams of research in risk and crisis communication. In risk communication, the differentiator is the specific risk understanding on which each stream of research is based: the objective risk, the subjective risk, the selected risk, the constructed risk. In crisis communication, the differentiator is the number of communicators who are involved: organization‐centric, stakeholder‐centric, multivocal.

General Perspectives We have found it useful to introduce a distinction between three general perspectives in public risk and crisis communication research and practice that differ from one other, not only in terms of how they define risk and crisis but also in terms of how they understand key concepts such as communication, management and organization, and citizens and society. The first perspective is the informational perspective. This perspective can be characterized as a rational, universalist, optimistic, and almost unsuspecting perspective, according to which the actors involved (public authorities, citizens) are able to reach consensus (in the sense of convergence, but not congruence, cf. Sellnow, Ulmer, Seeger, & Littlefield, 2009) on how to interpret risk and crisis and make rational decisions accordingly, and how to inform, warn, and protect the

Risk and Crisis Communication

233

Table 15.2  Approaches to Risk and Crisis Communication Research. Risk communication research 1 The objective approach

• Representative: probability theory • Ideal: correct information • Inspiration: education 2 The subjective approach

• Representative: psychometrics (Paul Slovic) • Ideal: effective communication • Inspiration: advertising and marketing 3 The culture‐oriented approach

• Representative: social anthropology (Mary Douglas) • Ideal: individual and goal‐oriented • Inspiration: segmentation models 4 The society‐oriented approach

• Representative: risk sociology (Ulrich Beck) • Ideal: dialogue and network communication • Inspiration: social and democratic learning processes Crisis communication research 1 The organization‐oriented approach

• Representative: image repair theory (William Benoit) • Ideal: verbal defense • Inspiration: apologia, accounts 2 The stakeholder‐oriented approach

• Representative: situational crisis communication theory (Timothy Coombs) • Ideal: correct match between reputational threat and choice of crisis response strategy • Inspiration: social psychology, attribution theory 3 The multivocal approach

• Representative: rhetorical arena theory (Frandsen & Johansen, 2017) • Ideal: improvisation • Inspiration: complexity theory citizens against risk and crisis. From this perspective, communication is often defined as the effective distribution of information, but there are also more sophisticated approaches such as the message‐oriented approach focusing on risk communication as an interactive process. Management and organization are viewed as obedient tools. The principle of best practice makes sense in this approach. From this perspective, communication is a top‐down process. However, the internet and the social media have forced the proponents of this perspective to rethink their conceptual framework. The second perspective is the political perspective. This perspective can be characterized as a more symbolic, pessimistic, and sometimes even Machiavellian or cynical perspective, according to which the actors involved (politicians, public managers, citizens) will normally not reach consensus about how to interpret a specific risk and crisis. On, the contrary, the “latent tensions that exist in any polity between public, the opposition’s, and government interests do not melt away during crises. […] these tensions will be even more pronounced than usual. Crises induce or amplify divisions” (Boin et al., 2017, p. 121). From this perspective, communication is an inherently rhetorical activity; it is about framing and framing contests. Management and organization are viewed as the site for political struggles over power and legitimacy.

234

Finn Frandsen and Winni Johansen

Table 15.3  General Perspectives on Public Risk and Crisis Communication. Informational perspective Rationale

Definition of crisis

Basic model

Key actors

Understanding of communication (communication strategy)

Internal approach To inform, warn, and protect against risk and crisis Safety of citizens Emergencies and disasters

Consensus model: rational approach Universalism Emergency organizations and agencies Distribution of information

Political perspective Internal approach To frame, to persuade Expectations of citizens

Certain situations “become crises” The political dimension of public sector crises Agonistic model

Political leaders (presidents, mayors, etc.) Rhetorical activity (persuasion)

Institutional perspective External approach To institutionalize Legitimacy of public organizations Crisis is institutionalized as part of a new vocabulary Consensus model: shared social reality Institutional logics

Institutional messages

The third perspective is the institutional perspective. This perspective is different from the two other perspectives. The informational and political perspectives both apply an internal or “inside out” approach, asking: How can we improve public risk and crisis management and communication and make them more effective? To put it differently: the first two perspectives are not afraid of offering recommendations. The institutional perspective, on the contrary, applies an external or “outside in” approach, asking: Why and how have the ideas of public risk and crisis communication been adopted or institutionalized? Why and how have they become taken for granted? (For an overview of the three perspectives, see Table 15.3).

An Informational Perspective on Public Risk and Crisis Communication In this section, we will present and discuss some of the most important concepts, models, and theories representing the informational perspective on public risk and crisis communication.

The Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication Model The most dominant approach to public risk and crisis communication in the United States is the Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication model (abbreviated CERC). It was developed by Barbara Reynolds and a team of researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a US federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services. The first edition of Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication was published in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the anthrax episode in 2001 (Reynolds, Galdo, & Sokler, 2002). The latter revealed that CDC’s approach to this type of emergency needed some rethinking (Seeger, Reynolds, & Sellnow, 2009). At a later stage in the development of CERC, the CDC researchers began collaborating with a group of crisis scholars, including Matthew W. Seeger, Timothy L. Sellnow, and Robert R.

Risk and Crisis Communication

235

Ulmer, the originators of Renewal Discourse Theory based on the idea of crisis as an opportunity (Ulmer, Sellnow, & Seeger, 2018). Among the most important books published by these scholars are Communication and Organizational Crisis (2003), Effective Crisis Communication (2018), and Theorizing Crisis Communication (2013). The CERC model is a good example of how risk and crisis communication can be integrated from an emergency management perspective in the public sector. As we shall see, CERC is based on a life cycle or staged approach, which is typical for emergency, disaster, and crisis management. The CERC model is presented in details in a voluminous 460‐pages‐long manual (CDC, 2014). The institutional sender of the CERC manual is described as “public health and emergency communicators” whose job is to “offer the information the public needs” during an emergency (CDC, 2014, p. 1). The target group of the manual is referred to as “community leaders.” The societal context is a “changing world” viewed from a US perspective, including increased population density in high‐risk areas, increased technological risks, an aging population, emerging infectious diseases and antibiotic resistance, increased international travel, and increased terrorism. The CERC model is more like a meta‐strategy or general framework. It consists of five stages, from pre‐crisis and initial event to maintenance, resolution, and evaluation. For each of these stages there is a certain number of communication processes (see Table 15.4). The five stages Table 15.4  The Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication Model. Stage

Communication processes

(1) Pre‐crisis Risk messages, warnings, preparations

Be prepared. Foster alliances. Develop consensus recommendations. Test messages. Acknowledge the event with empathy. Explain and inform the public, in simplest form, about the risk. Establish agency and spokesperson credibility. Provide emergency courses of action, including how and where to get more information. Commit to stakeholders and the public to continue communication. Help the public more accurately understand its own risks. Provide background and encompassing information to those who need it. Gain understanding and support for response and recovery plans. Listen to stakeholders and audience feedback and correct misinformation. Explain emergency recommendations. Empower risk/benefit decision‐making. Improve appropriate public response in future similar emergencies through education. Honestly examine problems and mishaps, and then reinforce what worked in the recovery and response efforts. Persuade the public to support public policy and resource allocation to the problem. Promote the activities and capabilities of the agency, including reinforcing, the corporate identity, both internally and externally. Evaluate communication plan performance. Document lessons learned. Determine specific actions to improve crisis systems or the crisis plan

(2) Initial event Uncertainty reduction, self‐efficacy, reassurance

(3) Maintenance Ongoing uncertainty reduction, self‐efficacy, reassurance

(4) Resolution Updates regarding resolution, discussions about cause and new risks/new understanding af risk

(5) Evaluation Discussions of adequacy of response, consensus about lessons and new understanding of risks

Reynolds and Seeger (2005, pp. 52–53).

236

Finn Frandsen and Winni Johansen

are based on the idea that “crises will develop in largely predictable and systematic ways” (Reynolds & Seeger, 2005, p. 31). In the private sector, the strategic, proactive, and process‐oriented perspective on crisis management has been the dominant paradigm since the 1980s (Frandsen & Johansen, 2017). Many private companies understand and handle crises as processes that move through a series of stages, as if a crisis had a life cycle with a beginning and an ending. Fink (1986) is often presented as the first book on crisis management, which applies such a staged approach. However, as Coetzee and van Niekerk (2012) notice, the idea of a crisis or disaster management cycle goes back almost a hundred years to Prince (1920) and Stoddard (1968) in sociology and psychology, respectively.

Best Practices in Risk and Crisis Communication From an informational perspective, it makes sense to identify best practices—that is, the one best solution to all organizations—as this perspective is based on universalist assumptions. Several communication scholars have felt tempted to develop lists of best practices. This also applies to public risk and crisis communication. In one of the most downloaded articles on crisis communication in the United States, Seeger (2006) synthesized the results of a best practices panel of crisis communication experts into 10 general best practices for effective crisis communication (see Table 15.5). He defined the best practices approach as a form of grounded theory for process improvement. Using inductive reasoning, grounded theory can help academics and practitioners develop generalized standards within a profession. However, Seeger warns: “Professional and organizational contexts are diverse, dynamic, and complex. Thus widespread adaptation of best practices should be undertaken cautiously with a firm understanding of contextual factors and situational variables” (p. 233). Take, for example, best practice (7) in Table  15.5: “Meet the needs of the media and remain accessible.” The recommendation sounds obvious, but it is easy to imagine situations where the opposite would seem to be the best practice. Best practices for crisis communication are general standards rather than specific prescriptions.

The Message‐Centered Approach to Public Risk Communication The last and most recent theory within the informational perspective is the so‐called message‐ centered approach to risk communication. The goal of risk communication research has been defined as to “increase the quality of risk decisions through better communication” (Palenchar & Heath, 2002, p. 129). However, risk communication can be approached from various Table 15.5  Best Practices for Effective Crisis Communication. 1 Process approaches and policy development. Risk and crisis communication is most effective when it is part of an ongoing and integrated process right from the beginning. 2 Pre‐event planning. 3 Partnerships with the public. The public must be accepted as a legitimate and equal partner. 4 Listen to the public’s concerns and understand the audience. 5 Honesty, candor, and openness. 6 Collaborate and coordinate with credible sources. 7 Meet the needs of the media and remain accessible. 8 Communicate with compassion, concern, and empathy. 9 Accept uncertainty and ambiguity. 10 Messages of self‐efficacy. Seeger (2006, pp. 36–43).

Risk and Crisis Communication

237

­ erspectives. From an economic perspective focusing on policy and cost‐benefit studies; from a p sociological perspective focusing on the collective behavior of the general population; or from a psychological perspective focusing on risk communication as a stimulus that generates a response in the individual. The message‐centered perspective focuses on the “interpretation of competing messages through an interactive process” (Sellnow et al., 2009, p. 11). Over the last three decades, public risk communication has developed considerably both in Europe and in the United States (for an overview, see McComas, 2006). The 1980s was an important period in this development. Before that time, public information models of one‐way risk communication dominated. In the 1980s, the National Research Council in the United States established the Committee on Risk Perception and Communication, which published an important book titled Improving Risk Communication in 1989. In this book, risk communication was established as a “democratic dialogue” and “an interactive process of exchange of information and opinion” (p. 21). Sellnow et  al. (2009) take their starting point in the rhetoric of Perelman and Olbrechts‐ Tyteca and the idea of risk communication as an interactive process with multiple messages and arguments from experts, administrators, and politicians. The citizens must construe meaning from all the messages related to a specific risk issue by assessing the importance and accuracy of the information and the authenticity of the source. This process takes places at different levels involving access to the necessary information, probability, credibility, and self‐efficacy. Within the framework of the message‐centered approach to risk communication, Sellnow et al. (2009) initiate an important discussion about convergence versus congruence, which is typical for public risk communication. Where the latter refers to a situation where all parties agree on the same interpretation of a risk situation, the former refers to a situation where nobody fully accepts the same interpretation. Congruence is absolute, but there are only degrees of convergence.

A Political Perspective on Public Risk and Crisis Communication In this section, we will present and discuss the second set of theories on public risk and crisis communication. These theories are not anchored in an informational perspective, but in a political perspective. We will first and foremost focus on the research tradition titled the politics of crisis management, which is one of the most influential in the field.

The Politics of Crisis Management The politics of crisis management approach is represented by scholars from two of the most important crisis research centers in Europe. The first is the Leiden University Crisis Research Center founded in 1989 by Uri Rosenthal. It has fostered researchers such as Arjen Boin and Paul ‘t Hart. Among the most important publications are: Coping with Crisis: The Management of Disasters, Riots, and Terrorism (Rosenthal, Charles, & ’t Hart, 1989); Managing Crisis: Threats, Dilemma, Opportunities (Rosenthal, Boin, & Comfort, 2001); Governing after Crisis: The Politics of Investigation, Accountability, and Learning (Boin, McConnell, & ’t Hart, 2008). The second is the Center for Crisis Management Research and Training (CRISMART), which is part of the Swedish Defence University in Stockholm. It was founded in 2000 by Bengt Sundelius. Eric Stern and Bengt Sundelius are two of the most prominent CRISMART scholars. Among the most important publications are: Beyond Group‐think: Political Group Dynamics and Foreign Policymaking (1997); Crisis Decisionmaking: A Cognitive‐Institutional Approach (1999). The best way to introduce the reader to this approach is to present the book by Boin, ’t Hart, Stern, and Sundelius: The Politics of Crisis Management: Public Leadership under Pressure (2005; second edition 2017). Their approach to political leadership during crisis is based on what the four authors identify as a normative assumption, namely that public leaders are responsible for their

238

Finn Frandsen and Winni Johansen

c­ itizens and their society or community. The citizens expect that their political leaders—presidents or mayors, elected administrators, or public managers—will eliminate the threat and minimize the damages of the crisis. Crisis management is defined as “a set of interrelated and extraordinary governance challenges” (p. 4). On the one hand, a crisis creates extraordinary circumstances for governance; on the other hand, a crisis provides political leaders with extraordinary opportunities. In short, a crisis can be the end of a political career, but it can also be the beginning of a political career. Boin, ’t Hart, Stern, and Sundelius have structured their book in accordance with a process model including five stages; (a) sense‐making, (b) decision‐making, (c) meaning‐making, (d) terminating, and (e) learning. Each stage represents a critical task in strategic crisis leadership. Each stage is described by means of a key question and a core claim (including sometimes a definition). Finally, in the last part of the book there are recommendations for improving strategic crisis leadership. In Table 15.6, we have tried to put all these elements together.

Table 15.6  The Five Core Tasks of Strategic Crisis Leadership. Stages

Core tasks

Recommendations

Sense‐making What is happening?

Key question: What factors affect the effectiveness of sense making before and during crises? Core claim: Many types of impending crises are very difficult to recognize in advance. Key question: How do political leaders make strategic, response‐shaping decisions and what can they do to achieve a coordinated response? Core claim: Crisis responses take shape not just through strategic decision making from the top down; they also depend on the quality of decision making and coordination throughout the response network(a). Key question: Why do leaders succeed or fail in shaping a common and widely supported understanding of what the crisis is about and what needs to be done to deal with it. Core claim: crisis meaning making makes a crucial difference between obtaining and loosing the “permissive consensus” that leaders need to make decisions and formulate policies in times of crisis.

Learn to see crises coming.

Key question: Why do some crises come to a clear, quick, and (relatively) clean ending while others continue to simmer, flare up, and transform? Core claim: When and how a crisis eventually ends depends to a considerable content on the way the accountability processes are managed. Key question: Why do some countries and organizations learn appropriate lessons and implement the lessons learned, whereas others do not? Core claim: The capacity of governments to learn and change is constrained by fundamental tensions between the imperatives of political crisis management and the conditions for effective reform.

Crises must be brought to closure.

Decision‐making What must we decide to do?

Meaning‐making How can we reduce uncertainty and inspire confidence in crisis leaders by formulating and imposing a convincing narrative? Accounting How can a crisis be terminated?

Learning What can we learn from the crisis?

Adapted from Boin, ’t Hart, Stern, and Sundelius (2017, pp. 10–15).

Centralized authority is overrated.

Political leaders who do not communicate persuasively will fail.

Learn!

Risk and Crisis Communication

239

Crisis Exploitation Strategy Another interesting contribution to the study of the politics of crisis management is the theory of crisis exploitation developed by Boin, ’t Hart, and McConnell (2009). They define crisis exploitation as the “purposeful utilization of crisis‐type rhetoric to significantly alter levels of political support for public office‐holders and public policies” (p. 83). We can form an idea of what is understood by exploitation in this context by returning to our comparison of private and public organizations. Coombs (2011) compared corporate crisis communication and political crisis communication. The former was defined as image repair theory (Benoit, 2015) and situational crisis communication theory (Coombs, 2015); the latter as presidential crisis rhetoric (Bostdorff, 1994) and the theory of crisis exploitation. According to Coombs, corporate crisis communication and political crisis communication share an interest in framing and crisis responsibility. However, political crisis communication has a more offensive approach to crisis. Politicians seek to label a situation crisis, and crises are viewed as a political weapon that may change political agendas, policies, and careers. Crises are viewed as “outside” crises that politicians step in to manage (adopting a hero role). Corporate crisis communication, on the contrary, has a more defensive approach. Corporate leaders try to avoid using the term crisis. Crises are “inside” crises, which must be managed by the organization. Boin et al. (2009) claim that when a crisis breaks out, it will give rise to conflicting interpretations concerning what has happened or what is happening. What are the causes and the short‐ term or long‐term consequences of the crisis? And last but not least, who is responsible and who can be blamed for its occurrence and escalation? These interpretations are conflicting because citizens in general, and politicians in particular, have conflicting values and interests. Based on this assumption, a crisis is defined as a contest between frames and counter‐frames fighting against each other to have their interpretation accepted as the dominant narrative. According to Boin et al. (2009), two framing contests can be identified. The first centers on the significance of the crisis event or situation. The second centers on the causality of the crisis event or situation. Four types of actors are involved in these contests: (a) the national or local government or other incumbent office holders, (b) the opposition or other critics, (c) status‐quo players, and (d) change advocates. These four types of actors enter two different types of exploitation games: the political crisis exploitation game and the policy crisis exploitation game. The first game is the game between government and opposition. The second is the game between those who defend the regulatory and administrative status quo and those who are in favor of policy paradigm shift or reform. Both within the informational and the political perspectives, scholars have become increasingly aware of the limitations of prevailing public risk and crisis communication models and the need for an alternative understanding. In the message‐oriented approach to risk communication, for example, it has become clear that there are many separate bodies of knowledge and subsystems within the larger system of discourse surrounding a risk issue (government agencies, technical experts, special interest groups, individual politicians or opposing political parties, etc.). In such a systemic approach, convergence is viewed as complex and multifaceted. Similarly, in the politics of crisis management tradition, it has become clear that crisis is about agon or conflict (framing contests, blame games, etc.). Thus, the field calls for an agonistic model with a multi‐vocal focus. The majority of corporate crisis communication models are organization‐centric, focusing on the “voice” of the organization in crisis (see Table 15.2). During the past decade, however, more complexity‐oriented approaches to crisis communication have gained traction in the private ­sector (Frandsen & Johansen, 2017, 2018). Rhetorical arena theory (RAT) is one of these approaches. It is based on a multi‐vocal approach to crisis communication. The overall goal of this theory is to “study the communicative complexity

240

Finn Frandsen and Winni Johansen

Figure 15.1  The rhetorical arena. Frandsen and Johansen (2017, p. 148).

of organizational crises by describing and explaining the dynamic patterns within the multiple communication processes that form the arena” (Frandsen & Johansen, 2017, p. 5). According to RAT, when a crisis breaks out, an arena opens up. Inside this arena, multiple voices start communicating to, with, from, against or about an organization, having different agendas and forming different patterns of communication, illustrated in Figure 15.1. The arena includes public and semi‐public spheres as well as private spheres. Typically, not only people and organizations who are involved in the crisis, but also third parties intervene promoting their own agenda. Politicians often enter the arena, not because they are directly involved but because they want to “exploit the crisis” in their own interest. Citizens also enter the arena, not because they are the direct or indirect victims of a crisis, but because a crisis may give them an opportunity to vent their anger toward public service organizations or politically elected representatives in general. Finally, various types of intermediaries, such as the news media, government agencies, interest organizations, and trade associations also form part of the arena mediating between the other voices and creating networks. A multi‐vocal approach seems to be more appropriate in the public sector than in the private sector due to the complexity of the former.

An Institutional Perspective on Public Risk and Crisis Communication In the two previous sections of this chapter, we have moved from an informational or message‐ oriented perspective to a political perspective on public risk and crisis communication; from a position claiming that the “effort to inform and warn the public is universally recognized” (CDC, 2014, p. 6) to a position claiming that “crises are political at heart” (Boin et al., 2017, p. 9). The last section of this chapter is devoted to the institutional perspective. As already emphasized, this perspective differs from the two others by taking an “outside in” approach. The aim is first of all to make us understand how and why public risk and crisis communication have become a taken for granted idea that most types of public sector organizations are eager to adopt. Neo‐institutional theory is not one theory but a plethora of theories. There are theories spread in time: from the early neo‐institutional theory, represented by the founding fathers, their articles from the end of the 1970s (e.g., DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977),

Risk and Crisis Communication

241

and their key concepts (decoupling, isomorphism, organizational field, etc.), to the more mature neo‐institutional theory, including the concept of institutional entrepreneurship (DiMaggio, 1988). Theories such as institutional work (Lawrence, Suddaby, & Leca, 2009) and institutional logics (Thornton, Ocasio &, Lounsbury, 2012) disagree. Recently, finally, the concept of communicative institutionalism has emerged, that is, the study of how processes of institutionalization unfold through rhetoric, language, text, discourse, and communication (Cornelissen, Durand, Fiss, Lammers, & Vaara, 2015). What these theories have in common is that they are all theories about the relationship between organizations and their social environment, about how this environment penetrates, constrains, and changes organizations in the shape of institutions, and about how organizations respond strategically to this process. Scott (2014) defines institutions as follow: “Institutions comprise regulative, normative, and cultural‐cognitive elements that, together with associated activities and resources, provide stability and meaning to social life” (p. 56). Neo‐institutional theory does not see formal organizations as rational and effective instruments for achieving specific goals. Organizations are first of all driven by a need for field‐level legitimacy. In short, public sector organizations do not import new ideas about crisis preparedness (e.g., reputation) from private companies because they want to become more effective, but because they want to have more legitimacy. Frandsen and Johansen (2009) were among the first to investigate the institutionalization of risk and crisis communication in the public sector. Inspired by the theory of institutional logics defined as “the socially constructed, historical patterns of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality” (Thornton & Ocasio, 1999, p. 804), they conducted a multiple case study in four Danish municipalities. They interviewed four emergency managers (fire departments) and four chief communication officers (communication departments), asking them how they defined and talked about crisis, crisis management and crisis communication, and how they perceived themselves and their colleagues. This case study revealed that two different institutional logics were interacting behind the total crisis preparedness of many Danish municipalities (see Table 15.7). The first institutional logic was the logic of emergency management. It was the oldest of the two logics, rooted with the emergency manager and the emergency committee. The second institutional logic was the logic of crisis communication. It was clearly the youngest of the two logics, rooted with the chief communication officer and the communication department. Representatives of the first logic preferred to talk about extraordinary incidents focusing on the safety of the citizens. They looked upon the others as “journalists.” Representatives of the second logic preferred to talk about crises, focusing on the reputation of the municipality. They Table 15.7  Institutional Logics in the Crisis Preparedness of Local Governments.

History Key actors Organizational embeddedness Terminology Archetypical event Focus Status

Emergency management logic

Crisis communication logic

Old logic (end of the 1930s) The emergency manager (the fire department) The emergency committee

New logic (after 2007) The communication manager (the communication department) The mayor (the city council)

Extraordinary incident The accident Safety of the citizens By law

Crisis The media crisis Reputation of the municipality Not by law

Adapted from Frandsen and Johansen (2013, p. 186).

242

Finn Frandsen and Winni Johansen

looked upon the others as living in “a world of their own.” There was no formal collaboration between the two groups of emergency managers and crisis communicators. In a follow‐up study, Frandsen and Johansen (2013) conducted a document analysis of a very large corpus of (a) general and specific (compulsory) emergency management plans, (b) (noncompulsory) crisis communication plans, (c) communication strategies and (d) communication policies in all the 98 municipalities in Denmark. The aim was to find out—at the textual level of these institutional messages (Lammers, 2011)—if the interaction between the two institutional logics was the same as five years earlier or if it had changed. The study showed that the two institutional logics actually were approaching each other. It also showed how important the existence of “concept literatures” and “arenas for development” such as Local Government Denmark and DEMA are to a complex process of institutionalization (Røvik, 1998, 2007). Finally, a third study was conducted by Frandsen et al. (2016), this time to investigate how and why reputation and crisis management—defined as two different yet not incompatible ideas stemming from the same institutional logic—have been institutionalized in the public sector in Denmark. More specifically, the study examined whether reputation and crisis management become integrated (coupling) or not (decoupling) as organizational practices in municipalities. The study revealed that although reputation and crisis management per se are widely disseminated within the field, they are neither entirely institutionalized nor strongly coupled.

Conclusion and Future Practice As demonstrated throughout this chapter, public risk and crisis communication represents a broad and diverse field of research and practice. We have tried to structure the field by introducing three general perspectives: an informational perspective, a political perspective, and an institutional perspective. Each of these three perspectives has generated important concepts, models, and theories. From the informational perspective, the focus is on public risk and crisis communication as a professional domain. From the political perspective, the focus is on public risk and crisis communication as a framing contest domain. From the institutional perspective, the focus is not so much on specific actors or domains as on institutional logics. In the future, it will become important to understand how these three perspectives can be combined.

References ’t Hart, P., Stern, K. E., & Sundelius, B. (Eds.) (1997). Beyound groupthink: Political group dynamics and foreign policy‐making. University of Michigan Press. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage. German original, 1986. Benoit, W. L. (2015). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategy (2nd ed.). Albany, NY: State University of New York. Boin, A., ’t Hart, P., & McConnell, A. (2009). Crisis exploitation: Political and policy impacts of framing contests. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(1), 81–106. Boin, A., ’t Hart, P., Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (2005). The politics of crisis management: Public leadership under pressure (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boin, A., ’t Hart, P., Stern, E., & Sundelius, B. (2017). The politics of crisis management: Public leadership under pressure (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Boin, A., McConnell, A., & ’t Hart, P. (Eds.) (2008). Governing after crisis: The politics of investigation, accountability and learning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bostdorff, D. M. (1994). The presidency and the rhetoric of foreign crisis. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2014). CERC manual. https://www.emergency.cdc. gov/cerc/index.asp. Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Røvik, K. A. (2007). Organization theory and the public sector. London, UK: Routledge.

Risk and Crisis Communication

243

Coetzee, C., & van Niekerk, D. (2012). Tracking the evolution of the disaster management cycle: A general system theory approach. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 4(1), 1–9. Committee on Risk Perception and Communication (1989). Improving risk communication. Washington, DC: National Research Council (U.S.). Coombs, W. T. (2011). Political public relations and crisis communication: A public relations perspective. In J. Strömbäck & S. Kiousis (Eds.), Political public relations: Principles and applications (pp. 214– 234). London: Routledge. Coombs, W. T. (2015). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage. Cornelissen, J. P., Durand, R., Fiss, P. C., Lammers, J. C., & Vaara, E. (2015). Putting communication front and center in institutional theory and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 40(1), 10–17. DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. G. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 3–21). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron case revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. Drennan, L. T., McConnell, A., & Stark, A. (2015). Risk and crisis management in the public sector (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Fink, S. (1986). Crisis management: Planning for the inevitable. New York, NY: American Management Association. Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2004). Hvor godt forberedte er de? En undersøgelse af danske virksomheders og myndigheders kriseberedskab anno 2003. Aarhus: Center for Corporate Communication. Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2009). Institutionalizing crisis communication in the public sector: An explorative study in Danish municipalities. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3(2), 102–115. Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2013). Kommunal kriseledelse og krisekommunikation – midt i en kompleks institutionaliseringsproces. In H. Salomonsen (Ed.), Offentlig ledelse og strategisk kommunikation (pp. 169–192). Copenhagen: DJØF Forlaget. Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2017). Organizational crisis communication: A multivocal approach. London: Sage. Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2018). Voices in conflict? The crisis communication of meta‐organizations. Management Communication Quarterly, 32(1), 90–120. Frandsen, F., & Johansen, W. (2020). Crisis Communication. Handbooks of Communication Science (Vol. 23). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter. Frandsen, F., Johansen, W., & Salomonsen, H. (2016). Responding to institutional complexity: Reputation and crisis management in Danish municipalities. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration, 20(2), 7–38. Fredriksson, M., & Pallas, J. (2016). Characteristics of public sectors and their consequences for strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(3), 149–152. Gilpin, D. R., & Murphy, P. J. (2008). Crisis management in a complex world. New York: Oxford University Press. Kapucu, N. (2006). Interagency communication networks during emergencies: Boundary spanners in multiagency coordination. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(2), 207–225. Kapucu, N., Arslan, T., & Demiroz, F. (2010). Collaborative emergency management and national emergency management network. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 19(4), 452–462. Lagadec, P. (1982). Major technological risk. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Lammers, J. C. (2011). How institutions communicate: Institutional messages, institutional logics and organizational communication. Management Communication Quarterly., 25(1), 154–182. Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Institutional work. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. McComas, K. A. (2006). Defining moments in risk communication research: 1996–2005. Journal of Health Communication, 11(1), 75–91. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. Palenchar, M. J., & Heath, R. L. (2002). Another part of the risk communication model: Analysis of communication processes and message content. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14(2), 127–158.

244

Finn Frandsen and Winni Johansen

Power, M. (2004). The risk management of everything. The Journal of Risk Finance., 5(3), 58–65. Power, M. (2007). Organized uncertainty: Designing a world of risk management. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Power, M. (Ed.) (2016). Riskwork: Essays on the organizational life of risk management. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Prince, S. H. (1920). Catastrophe and social change. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Reynolds, B., Galdo, J., & Sokler, L. (2002). Crisis and emergency risk communication. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Reynolds, B., & Seeger, M. W. (2005). Crisis and emergency communication as an integrative model. Journal of Health Communication, 10(1), 43–55. Rosenthal, U., Boin, R. A., & Comfort, L. K. (Eds.) (2001). Managing crisis: Threats, dilemmas, opportunities. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Rosenthal, U., Charles, M. T., & ’t Hart, P. (Eds.) (1989). Coping with crisis: The management of disasters, riots and terrorism. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Røvik, K. A. (1998). Moderne organisasjoner: Trender i organisasjonstenkningen ved tusinårsskiftet. Oslo, Norway: Fagbokforlaget. Røvik, K. A. (2007). Er det Trender og translasjoner: Ideer som former det 21. århundrets organisationer. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Seeger, M. W. (2006). Best practices in crisis communication: An expert panel process. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34(3), 232–244. Seeger, M. W., Reynolds, B., & Sellnow, T. L. (2009). Crisis and emergency risk communication in health contexts: Applying the CDC model to pandemic influenza. In R. L. Heath & H. D. O’Hair (Eds.), Handbook of risk and crisis communication (pp. 493–506). New York, NY: Routledge. Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (2003). Communication and organizational crisis. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2013). Theorizing crisis communication. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Sellnow, T. L., Ulmer, R. R., Seeger, M. W., & Littlefield, R. S. (2009). Effective risk communication: A message‐centered approach. New York, NY: Springer. Stern, E. K. (1999). Crisis decision‐making: A cognitive‐institutional approach. Stockholm, Sweden: University of Stockholm Dept. of Political Science. Stoddard, E. R. (1968). Conceptual models of human behaviour in disasters. El Paso, TX: Texas Western Press. Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843. Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. US Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014). Crisis emergency risk communication. Washington, DC: CDC. Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., & Seeger, M. W. (2018). Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

16

Public Sector Communication and Strategic Communication Campaigns Kelly Page Werder

Introduction The amplified technological environment that exists today—and its continuous innovation in information production and delivery—has led to the characterization of modern societies as information societies. There is support for the notion that, since all social processes are performed by the exchange of information, all societies are constituted by communication (Voltmer & Römmele, 2011, p. 149). Thus, the control of information becomes the central determinant of political power and social structure (Bell, 1973; Salvaggio, 1989). The success or failure of individual and collective actors depends on their ability to accumulate and distribute information in an increasingly complex environment. To be effective, public communication requires systematic planning (Voltmer & Römmele, 2011, p. 149). Public communication is communication that takes place in the public sphere (Trenholm, 2014). In the context of the public sphere—in contrast to interpersonal, group, and organizational contexts—communication is directed toward a “community of individuals with shared interests” (Trenholm, 2014, p. 233). Public communication affects groups of people rather than single individuals; it is characterized by heterogeneous audiences of many with topics that affect the well‐being of many. Communication in the public sphere “implies a communication process that is not one‐to‐one but involves many people with divergent ideas and is continuous and dynamic” (Holtzhausen & Zerfass, 2013, p. 286). The notion that the effectiveness of public communication is contingent on systematic planning presents a unique challenge for the public sector organization, which is typically assumed to operate from a position of objectivity derived from its intrinsic goal to serve the public good. The current technological environment allows a multitude of voices with competing agendas to enter the public sphere, and it is often difficult for citizens to determine what is, in fact, in their best interest. Thus, in today’s complex marketplace of ideas, the traditional role of the public sector organization as an information provider of unquestionable intent has become obscured and is no longer viable. Giving attention to this fundamental change, Luoma‐aho and Canel in the Introduction to this book define public sector communication as “goal‐oriented communication inside

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

246

Kelly Page Werder

organizations and between organizations and their stakeholders that enables public sector functions, within their specific cultural/political settings, with the purpose of building and maintaining the public good and trust between citizen and authorities” (p. 10). This definition adopts a purposefully broad view of the public sector organization, an entity that ranges from political to nonpolitical and is placed in societies with diverse degrees of democracy (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019). This definition also acknowledges the inherent strategic nature of the communication function in public sector organizations and positions the study of public sector communication in the strategic communication body of knowledge. Strategic communication is the purposeful use of communication by an organization to achieve its goals (Hallahan, Holtzhausen, van Ruler, Verčič, & Sriramesh, 2007) and encompasses all communication that is substantial for the survival and sustained success of an organization (Zerfass, Verčič, Nothhaft, & Werder, 2018). As an emerging field of study, strategic communication is unique in that it values integration of concepts, theories, and methods from diverse disciplinary domains to more fully understand and explain the communication of organizations (Hallahan et al., 2007). As an interdisciplinary paradigm, strategic communication enables innovative solutions to today’s complex problems that cannot be accomplished by a single disciplinary perspective (Werder, Nothhaft, Verčič, & Zerfass, 2018). The strategic communication campaign represents the intersection of these distinct perspectives on the communication function in organizations (Werder, 2015b). Specifically, the campaign serves as the output and the outcome of the strategic communication process and may be examined at the micro‐level of analysis, which addresses the application of theories to understand how communication takes place in a strategic context (Holtzhausen & Zerfass, 2013; Werder 2015b). While public sector organizations have long relied on campaigns to disseminate information and influence public opinion, today’s information society requires an ongoing strategic approach for campaigns to be effective. For public sector organizations, a strategic approach to the campaign recognizes that competition for control of public opinion and economic resources exists, and it provides the tools necessary for public sector organizations to effectively engage in this competition for the benefit of society. However, the adoption of a strategic approach to public sector communication is in opposition to the traditional view of its inherent objectivity. This chapter first examines strategic communication as the fundamental process by which public sector actors influence public opinion, and it examines the campaign as a function of that process. Next, the context in which strategic communication campaigns occur is explored and a review of theoretical perspectives relevant to the study of campaigns is provided. In addition, the aspects of the communication process important to public sector communication are presented, and challenges to the enactment of public sector communication campaigns are discussed. Finally, areas for future research are proposed.

Public Sector Communication as Strategic Communication Given its definition and purpose, public sector communication is well positioned as a strategic communication process. Hallahan et  al. (2007) first defined strategic communication as the purposeful use of communication by an organization to fulfill its mission, and it assumes that people will engage in deliberate communication practice on behalf of organizations, causes, and social movements (pp. 3–4). This often‐cited definition has provided a foundation for the study of strategic communication from diverse theoretical approaches, such as organization theory, communication theory, leadership and management theory, message effects, narrative theory, the crisis genre, public relations theory, sociocultural theory, political science, organizational communication, communication philosophy, critical theory, branding, reputation management, ethics, and business.

Public Sector Communication and Strategic Communication Campaigns

247

In 2013, Holtzhausen and Zerfass refined the definition to a more comprehensive conceptualization that honed notions of strategy, action, agency, and communication—and, notably, situated the phenomenon in the public sphere. Specifically, strategic communication is defined as “the practice of deliberate and purposive communication that a communication agent enacts in the public sphere on behalf of a communication entity to reach set goals” (p. 284). According to Holtzhausen, communicative entities encompass a broad range of economic and social sectors, such as trade and industry, politics, nonprofit and government agencies, activist groups, and even celebrities in the sports and entertainment industries (2008, p. 4849). This delineates the scope of organization type and communication purpose underlying the field and suggests a broad view of organizational context. However, Holtzhausen and Zerfass argue the ultimate aim of strategic communication is to maintain a healthy reputation for the communication entity in the public sphere, which has become participative rather than representative and has evolved into a communication sphere rather than a public sphere (2015, pp. 5–6). As an emergent view, the participative approach to communication in the public sphere has particular relevance for public sector organizations, as they are “challenged to incorporate a ‘communicative intelligence’ in their management within a new public sphere in which people need and take information from multiple sources,” and become, in turn, sources for a multiple‐ voices scenario (Luoma‐aho & Canel, Chapter 29 in this book, p. 457). In the Introduction to this book, Luoma‐aho and Canel argue that public opinion and citizens’ views can be more important for public sector organizations than for corporations since they serve as distributors of democracy in practice: “Despite the complex operating environment, almost all citizens have an opinion about public sector organizations or their reputation” (p. 3). Public opinion forms as stakeholders process the public organizations’ communication and weigh its achievements with their expectations and their level of trust in the organization. In addition, public opinion is shaped by both the media and the cultural setting in which it takes place (James & Moseley, 2014; Liu, Horsley, & Levenshus, 2010). Public sector organizations have suffered many challenges in effectively managing public opinion in a post‐modern society. According to the Introduction by Luoma‐aho and Canel, there is a global frustration with public sector performance and a general failure to acknowledge that communication in the public sector is goal‐oriented and requires strategic planning. Despite the increasing need for citizen involvement and engagement, there exists a general lack of understanding of the need for a strategic approach to communication in the public sector in order to achieve appropriate and effective outcomes for societies. Therefore, the characteristics of public sector organizations in a post‐modern society strongly support the adoption of a strategic communication management approach. Specifically, as described in the Introduction, the goals of public sector organizations rely on public support and action, and the degree of publicness of organizations operating in the public sector implies different specificities, constraints, and challenges for communication. Among these are segmentation of publics and the development and dissemination of appropriate and effective messaging for diverse groups. In addition, public sector organizations, like  other organizational entities, seek to build intangible assets such as reputation, brand, institutional social responsibility, and social capital, as well as establish long‐standing relationships between the organization and its stakeholders (see Introduction, p. 12; also Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019). A key stream in strategic communication scholarship focuses on relationship management (Werder et al., 2018) and the attempt to identify patterns of interaction, transaction, exchange, and linkage between an organization and its publics (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997; Ledingham & Bruning, 2000). Variables of importance to relationship ­management include stakeholder loyalty, antecedents to relational quality, trust, openness, involvement, satisfaction, commitment, mutual understanding, and symmetry (Ledingham & Bruning, 2000).

248

Kelly Page Werder

Clearly, the conceptual variables relevant to public sector communication reflect the need for a strategic approach to communication management. This chapter argues that the process of strategic communication management is, in fact, fundamental to public sector communication, and that public sector communication is strategically enacted through campaigns. The next ­section examines the campaign as an outcome of the strategic communication process.

Strategic Communication Campaigns Research that examines the communication campaign as the unit of analysis has a long and varied history that overlaps disciplinary boundaries. Historically, communication campaigns enacted by public sector organizations were termed public information campaigns due to the failure to acknowledge the persuasive approach necessary for any form of organizational communication to be effective in postmodern society. In fairness, the traditional view of the public sector focused exclusively on government and its agencies—entities that were principally seen as promoters of societal welfare that operated solely for the public good. However, this view was challenged early on by scholars like Weiss and Tschirhart (1994), who argued that the concept of governmental communication as purely informative was idealistic and that public information campaigns functioned as an instrument of government action and were, in fact, “government propaganda” (p. 82). According to Weiss and Tschirhart, public information campaigns served as “government‐ directed and sponsored efforts to communicate to the mass public or a segment of the public in order to achieve a policy result” and were “one way that government officials deliberately attempt to shape public attitudes, values, or behavior in the hope of reaching some desirable social outcome” (1994, p. 82). Over time, the skepticism surrounding the goals of public sector organizations and their communication efforts has been fueled by developments in technology, increased competition for resources, and competing views of democratic values. This has led contemporary scholars to argue that the term public information campaign no longer accurately reflects the communication efforts of public sector organizations. Despite this, there is relative consensus among scholars from various disciplines regarding the definition and general characteristics of communication campaigns. Although communication campaigns are conducted under many labels, “the campaign as process is universal across topics and venues, utilizing systematic frameworks and fundamental strategic principles developed over the past half century” (Atkin & Rice, 2013, p. 3). The majority of campaign literature draws from a seminal review of research by Rogers and Storey (1987), who identified key elements that characterize all communication campaigns. According to Rogers and Storey, “Public communication campaigns use the media, messaging, and an organized set of communication activities to generate specific outcomes in a large number of individuals and in a specified period of time” (1987, pp. 414–449). Building on this conceptualization, Atkin and Rice (2013) acknowledge that public communications campaigns impart ideas for a strategic purpose and are defined as purposive attempts to inform or influence behaviors in large audiences within a specified time period using an organized set of communication activities and featuring an array of mediated messages in multiple channels generally to produce noncommercial benefits to individuals and society. (p. 3)

In addition, campaigns are distinct from regular, ongoing communication programs in that they are typically focused on a specific topic or goal, take place during a defined time period, and utilize multiple media platforms for dissemination. Furthermore, communication campaigns require a management approach that allows for flexible adaption of campaign strategy based on continuous assessment (Atkin & Rice, 2013).

Public Sector Communication and Strategic Communication Campaigns

249

Werder (2015b) applied prior literature on communication campaigns to the unique discipline of strategic communication management and proposed a definition of strategic communication campaigns that privileges the multidisciplinary nature of the phenomenon, as well as the call for all types of organizational entities to act in the best interest of society. As such, a strategic communication campaign is defined as “a set of deliberate and purposive communication activities enacted by a communication agent in the public sphere on behalf of a communication entity to reach established goals that are informed by multiple perspectives” (Werder, 2015b, p. 79). By design, all of these definitions for campaigns are quite broad and are deliberately intended to capture the range of purposeful communication actions carried out by organizational entities seeking to influence social transformation in the long term. As such, it is helpful to explore the distinguishing characteristics of communication campaigns that set them apart from other organizational communication. One such distinction is campaign type, and several typologies of campaigns have been offered. Dorfman, Ervice, and Woodruff (2002) found that communication campaigns may be differentiated along axes of purpose, scope, and maturity. Purpose refers to the intent of the campaign to influence either individual behavioral change or public policy change. Scope refers to the size and reach of the campaign. Maturity relates to the level of development of both the campaign and the issue it addresses. “The purpose, scope, and level of maturity will influence what sort of evaluation is appropriate or even possible for a given communications campaign” (Dorfman et al., 2002, p. 4). Of these three characteristics, purpose is viewed as the most important, both in terms of planning communication campaigns and evaluating their effects following public dissemination. At the tactical level, communication campaigns may look very similar: many use the same general techniques (e.g., gathering news, getting on the editorial pages, advertising, and promotion). The distinguishing factors rest in what the campaign is trying to accomplish. (Dorfman et al., 2002, p. 4)

Specifically, a distinction can be made between two main types of communication campaigns based on whether their primary purpose is individual behavior change or policy change (Dorfman et al., 2002; Dungan‐Seaver, 1999; Henry & Rivera, 1998). These purposes are not mutually exclusive; rather, they lie at two ends of a continuum influenced by public attitudes, awareness, social norms, and public will (shown in Figure 16.1). According to Coffman (2003), behavior change campaigns try to modify individual behaviors that lead to social problems (e.g., smoking, drunk and distracted driving, having unprotected sex) or promote behaviors that lead to improved individual or social well‐being (e.g., wearing seatbelts, breastfeeding, getting daily exercise, conserving water). On the other end of the continuum are public will campaigns that attempt to mobilize public action for policy change. A public will campaign attempts to legitimize or raise the importance of a social problem in the public eye as the motivation for policy action or change (Coffman, 2003). An example of a public will campaign is the international effort to end global warming through the implementation of policies and laws that require more responsible management of natural resources by corporations and individuals. While a specific campaign may have the primary purpose of behavior change or policy change, in practice these goals are often intertwined. Although attempts to influence the extent to which the public cares about and supports a specific policy position is more often associated with policy change campaigns, behavior change campaigns may also have an element of policy change, since Behavior Change Attitudes

Policy Change Awareness

Social Norms

Figure 16.1  Continuum of campaign types according to purpose.

Public Will

250

Kelly Page Werder

public will may be related to social pressures about how an individual should or should not behave (Coffman, 2003, p. 3). Similarly, while behavior change campaigns are nearly always associated with attempts to influence awareness and attitudes, the same is often true for policy change campaigns. Communications efforts geared toward policy change often include an element of public will building for that change. If that will does not already exist, then those efforts may make an attempt to build it by influencing awareness or attitudes about that policy issue and position. (Coffman, 2003, p. 3)

A campaign’s primary purpose is a critical factor in decisions about campaign evaluation. On the one hand, determining a campaign’s purpose is important because it affects how a campaign will be judged in the end on the degree to which it has been successful. On the other hand, and more importantly, purpose is important to evaluation because it is the primary factor that drives a campaign’s theory of change, or what an evaluation is ultimately designed around. (Coffman, 2003, p. 3)

In addition, research focusing on environmental campaigns differentiates public communication campaigns from advocacy campaigns, although the typologies overlap. Whereas public communication campaigns are usually waged by institutional actors (Atkin & Rice, 2013), advocacy campaigns are often, though not always, waged by noninstitutional actors, aim for more systemic transformation, and seek to change external conditions such as a policy decision or project (Cox, 2013, p. 213). Despite the consistency of perspectives on campaign characteristics, processes, and typologies, campaign effectiveness research is less cohesive, moving from models of strong effects to limited effects before arriving at the conditional effects perspective currently recognized. Specifically, Rogers and Storey (1987) found that communication campaigns could be effective under certain conditions for specific audiences. They suggest that campaigns can be considered successful if 5% of the target audience develops measurable changes in behavior over the long term, and they stress the need to set realistic expectations for cognitive and behavioral change resulting from communication campaigns. Atkin and Freimuth (2013) state, “Over the life of a campaign, evaluation research encompasses collection of information about audiences at the formative stage, followed by process evaluation to assess implementation as the campaign unfolds, and finally summative evaluation to track campaign impact” (p. 54). While measurement of campaign outcomes via summative evaluation has remained rather elusive to scholars and practitioners seeking to determine the specific behavioral and/or public will changes that occur as a result of strategic communication campaigns, more is known about formative evaluation. Specifically, formative evaluation enhances campaign effectiveness by guiding the development of effective strategies and messages. According to Palmer (1981), formative research provides data and perspectives to improve messages during the course of campaign creation and can be divided into preproduction research, “in which data are accumulated on audience characteristics that relate importantly to the medium, the message, and the situation within which the desired behavior will occur” (p. 227) and pretesting, in which messages are evaluated to obtain audience reactions prior to production and dissemination. Public sector organizations increasingly utilize complex formative evaluation methods, particularly for strategic communication campaigns to promote health and social progress (Atkin & Freimuth, 2013), as research suggests that formative evaluation contributes to more successful campaigns (Noar, 2006). Information about the audience is most often utilized to identify specialized subgroups to be reached, to devise message appeals and presentation styles, and to select sources and channels. Furthermore,

Public Sector Communication and Strategic Communication Campaigns

251

the formulation of campaign goals and objectives is increasingly based on research identifying priority areas of concentration, prospects for attaining certain types of impact, and critical stages of the communication process that must be addressed. (Atkin & Freimuth, 2013, p. 54)

The next section examines the application of various theoretical foundations drawn from different areas of the social sciences to understand and explain strategic communication campaign evaluation.

Theoretical Perspectives for Strategic Communication Campaigns Communication campaigns have been looked at in a variety of contexts, as the situational nature of their enactment assumes changing characteristics of the source, message, receiver, and channel variables, as well as a dynamic environment. No general theory has emerged to explain and predict communication campaigns, but several theoretical perspectives have been used to inform campaign strategy and evaluation (Atkin & Rice, 2013). Although the abundance of theories applicable to strategic communication campaigns prevents a comprehensive review, Atkin and Rice (2013) outline common approaches to understanding campaign processes and effects. These theories focus on different variables of interest but they apply across the range of strategic communication campaigns and reflect the approaches relevant to public sector communication. Several theoretical approaches derive from studies of mass communication and the news media. Agenda‐setting (McCombs, 2004) explores issue salience and how it applies to “campaign impact on the perceived importance of social problems and the prominence of social issues” (Atkin & Rice, 2013, p. 4), while message framing (O’Keefe & Jensen, 2007; Quick & Bates, 2010) focuses on how message appeals are constructed “in terms of gain‐frame promotion of positive behavior versus loss‐frame prevention of negative behavior” (Atkin & Rice, 2013, p. 5). The associated process of priming involves media foregrounding the criteria for assessing public events or figures (McQuail, 2005). Uses and gratifications (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974; Rubin, 2002) is “useful in understanding audience motivations for selecting particular media, attending to media messages, and utilizing learned information in enacting behaviors” (Atkin & Rice, 2013, p. 5). Quite a few theoretical approaches have been borrowed from social psychology to understand campaign persuasive effects, particularly the influence of campaigns on knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors (Rossman, 2015). Instrumental learning (Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953), also called operant conditioning, features the message‐related concepts of source credibility, reinforcement incentives, and repetition of presentation to explain the effects of mediated communication (Atkin & Rice, 2013, p. 4). Social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986) “emphasizes the processes by which source role models, explicitly demonstrated behaviors, and depiction of vicarious reinforcement enhance the impact of mediated messages” (Atkin & Rice, 2013, p. 4). The Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) and the Heuristic Systematic Model (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) both highlight the role of audience involvement in shaping “cognitive responses, thought generation, and central versus peripheral routes to persuasion” (Atkin & Rice, 2013, p. 4). In addition, the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and subsequent theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 2005; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010) posit a combination of variables, including attitudes, perceived norms of influential others, and motivation to comply as predictors of intended behavior. These theories are based on the expectancy–value equation, which posits that attitudes are predicted by beliefs about the likelihood that a given behavior leads to certain consequences and one’s evaluation of those consequences (Atkin & Rice, 2013, p. 5). Finally, diffusion of innovations (Rogers, 2003) introduces “the ideas of relative advantage and trialability of recommended behaviors, and the individual adoption decision process, as well as opinion leadership that shapes diffusion through interpersonal channels and social networks via multistep flows” (Atkin & Rice, 2013, p. 4).

252

Kelly Page Werder

Other social psychology perspectives have been frequently applied to the unique domain of health communication. The Extended Parallel Process Model (Stephenson & Witte, 2001) focuses on the effectiveness of fear appeals and “understanding cognitive processes that control danger versus emotional processes, which control fear via denial or coping” (Atkin & Rice, 2013, p. 4). The Health Belief Model (Becker, 1974) examines the potency of health threat appeals via susceptibility and seriousness of consequences, and self‐efficacy and response efficacy of performing the recommended behavior (Atkin & Rice, 2013, p. 4). The Transtheoretical Model (Prochaska & Velicer, 1997) is a stage‐of‐progression model that identifies sub‐audiences on the basis of their stage in the process of behavior change with respect to a specific health behavior, which shapes the readiness to attempt, adopt, or sustain the recommended behavior (Atkin & Rice, 2013, p. 5). Several theories for understanding strategic communication campaigns are situated in the public relations domain. Image and crisis management frameworks have been consistently applied to the study and practice of campaigns. Image repair theory (Benoit, 1995, 2015) outlines communication strategies that mitigate damage to reputation and can be applied as an approach for understanding personal or organizational crisis situations. Situational crisis communication theory (Coombs, 2008), suggests that crisis managers should match strategic crisis responses to the level of crisis responsibility and reputational threat posed by a crisis. Evaluating the crisis type, crisis history, and prior relationship will help crisis managers predict the level of reputational threat of an organization and how that organization’s publics may perceive the crisis and attribute crisis responsibility. Theories of audience segmentation for targeted communication have also grown out of public relations scholarship. One well‐researched perspective is offered by the situational theory of problem solving (Kim & Grunig, 2011; Kim, Ni, Kim, & Kim, 2012), an extended and generalized version of the situational theory of publics introduced by Grunig and Hunt (1984). The situational theory of problem solving posits that communicative action in problem solving is dependent on problem recognition, constraint recognition, involvement recognition, referent criterion, and situational motivation in problem solving. Finally, several theoretical approaches draw from multiple frameworks. For example, the integrative theory of behavior change (Cappella, Fishbein, Hornik, Ahern, & Sayeed, 2001) combines the health behavioral model, social cognitive theory, and the theory of reasoned action “to specify how external variables, individual differences, and underlying beliefs contribute to differential influence pathways for outcome behaviors, intentions, attitudes, norms, and self‐efficacy” (Atkin & Rice, 2013, p. 4). In addition, the Integrated Model of Strategic Communication Messaging (Werder, 2015a; Werder & Schweickart, 2013) merges variables from the situational theory of problem solving (Kim & Grunig, 2011; Kim, et al. 2012) and the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) to provide a comprehensive way of understanding and explaining why publics engage in communication behavior, as well as other behaviors, related to organizational activities and goals. These theoretical perspectives, summarized in Table  16.1, may be applied situationally to develop a better understanding of the source, message, receivers, channel, and environment variables unique to public sector communication campaigns and the stakeholders they are aimed at. However, public sector communication presents unique challenges that remain unresolved. These are examined in the next section.

Challenges for Public Sector Communication Campaigns According to the Introduction by Luoma‐aho and Canel (p. 1), public sector organizations exist to make society work: they “govern, serve citizens, and run the public sector and its services according to principles set by the government”; and as a strategically planned function of public sector

253

Public Sector Communication and Strategic Communication Campaigns Table 16.1  Summary of Theoretical Frameworks for Understanding Public Sector Communication Campaigns. Disciplinary perspective

Theoretical framework

Sources

Summary

Mass communication

Agenda‐setting

McCombs (2004)

Message framing

O’Keefe and Jensen (2007), Quick and Bates (2010)

Priming

McQuail (2005)

Uses and gratifications

Katz et al. (1974); Rubin (2002)

Instrumental learning

Hovland et al. (1953)

Social cognitive theory

Bandura (1986)

Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

Petty and Cacioppo (1986)

Heuristic Systematic Model

Eagly and Chaiken (1993)

Theory of reasoned action

Fishbein and Ajzen (1975); Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) Ajzen (2005); Fishbein and Ajzen (2010) Rogers (2003)

Explores issue salience and how it applies to campaign impact on the perceived importance of social problems and the prominence of social issues. Focuses on how message appeals are constructed in terms of gain‐frame promotion of positive behavior versus loss‐frame prevention of negative behavior. Involves media foregrounding the criteria for assessing public events or figures. Focuses on audience motivations for selecting particular media, attending to media messages, and utilizing learned information in enacting behaviors. Examines the message‐related concepts of source credibility, reinforcement incentives, and repetition to explain the effects of mediated communication. Emphasizes the processes by which source role models, explicitly demonstrated behaviors, and depiction of vicarious reinforcement enhance the impact of mediated messages. Examines the role of audience involvement in shaping cognitive responses, thought generation, and central versus peripheral routes to persuasion. Examines systematic (deliberate and thoughtful) processing versus heuristic (reflexive and automatic) processing of information; similar to ELM. Posits a combination of variables (beliefs, attitudes, subjective norms, and motivation to comply) as predictors of intended behavior. Extension of theory of reasoned action that adds volitional control as a predictor of behavior. Examines relative advantage, trialability, the individual adoption decision process, and opinion leadership as variables that shape diffusion through interpersonal channels and social networks via multistep flows.

Social psychology

Theory of planned behavior Diffusion of innovations

(Continued)

254

Kelly Page Werder

Table 16.1  (Continued) Disciplinary perspective

Theoretical framework

Health Extended Parallel Communication Process Model

Public relations

Interdisciplinary frameworks

Sources

Summary

Stephenson and Witte (2001)

Focuses on the effectiveness of fear appeals and understanding cognitive processes that control danger versus emotional processes. Health Belief Model Becker (1974) Examines the potency of health threat appeals via susceptibility and seriousness of consequences, and self‐efficacy and response efficacy of performing the recommended behavior. Transtheoretical Prochaska and Identifies sub‐audiences on the basis of Model Velicer (1997) their stage in the process of behavior change, which shapes the readiness to attempt, adopt, or sustain a recommended behavior. Image repair theory Benoit (1995, 2015) Outlines communication strategies that mitigate damage to reputation as an approach for understanding crisis situations. Situational crisis Coombs (2008) Examines crisis type, crisis history, and communication prior relationship to predict how theory publics may attribute crisis responsibility and assesses reputational threat posed by a crisis. Examines problem recognition, Kim and Grunig Situational theory constraint recognition, involvement (2011); Kim et al. of problem recognition, referent criterion, and (2012) solving situational motivation to predict communicative action in publics. Combines health belief model, social Integrative theory Cappella et al. (2001) cognitive theory, and theory of of behavior reasoned action to specify how external change variables, individual differences, and underlying beliefs contribute to differential influence pathways for outcome behaviors, intentions, attitudes, norms, and self‐efficacy. Integrated Model Werder (2015a); Merges variables from the situational theory of problem solving and the theory of of Strategic Werder and reasoned action explain why publics Communication Schweickart engage in communication behavior. (2013) Messaging

organizations, public sector communication seeks to build and maintain the public good (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2019). The communication campaign is critical to this goal because it becomes the process by which public sector communication occurs. The campaign is enacted with a strategic purpose to prescribe individual and policy action (Dorfman et al. 2002). In addition, the process of societal modernization brings a growing need for communication campaigns since citizens have a greater desire to be informed about the actions of government and to participate in various aspects of governance (Klingemann & Römmele, 2011), as the cultural boundaries of their society allow.

Public Sector Communication and Strategic Communication Campaigns

255

Public sector organizations possess shared attributes that define them as organizational entities apart from other social systems; however, they also possess unique characteristics and “operate under different conditions with extensive consequences for how, when, where, and why they can or are expected to communicate” (Fredriksson & Pallas, 2016, p. 149). The unique features of public sector organizations include their political nature, their lack of autonomy, their mission to handle problems rather than take advantage of opportunities, their inherent conflicts between general principles, professional groups and stakeholder interests as well as an extensive demand for transparency. (Voltmer & Römmele, 2011, p. 149)

These characteristics present distinct challenges for the enactment of effective communication in the public sector; however, public sector communication—strategically planned—offers a fundamental benefit to society through its potential to create social change and improve the conditions of the communities and cultures that are served by public sector organizations. Future directions for the field are examined in the next section.

Future Directions in Public Sector Communication Campaigns This chapter argues that public sector communication in the twenty‐first century is inherently strategic. This view is supported by the fundamental purpose of public sector organizations to serve societal good, coupled with the existence of competing forces that drive societies in a post‐ modern world. Public sector organizations are increasingly tasked with influencing public opinion in order to reach the political, economic, and social goals of the communities in which they operate, and this can only be accomplished through a strategic management approach enacted through the communication campaign. Strategic communication allows the breadth and depth of perspective required to fully explicate campaign functions, processes, and outcomes. Research in this area furthers understanding of the power of strategic communication campaigns to influence society and motivate change. Yet, there are still unanswered questions that future research in both public sector communication and strategic communication campaigns may address. Some questions for further examination include the following: 1 What is the communication sphere, and how is it distinct from the public sphere? 2 What are the most appropriate and effective research methods for planning and implementing strategic communication campaigns in public sector organizations? 3 What are the most appropriate variables for understanding and predicting campaign effectiveness in public sector organizations? 4 How can research that attempts to inform ethical communication practice by public sector organizations be prevented from unethical use? 5 How can public sector organizations more effectively compete to influence public opinion in a saturated marketplace of ideas?

References Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior (2nd ed.). Milton‐Keynes, UK: Open University Press/McGraw‐Hill. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

256

Kelly Page Werder

Atkin, C. K., & Freimuth, V. (2013). Guidelines for Formative Evaluation Research in Campaign Design. In R. E. Rice & C. E. Atkin (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (4th ed., pp. 53–68). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Atkin, C. K., & Rice, R. E. (2013). Theory and Principles of Public Communication Campaigns. In R. E. Rice & C. E. Atkin (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (4th ed., pp. 3–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐Hall. Becker, M. H. (1974). The health belief model and personal health behavior. San Francisco, CA: Society for Public Health Education. Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post‐industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York, NY: Basic Books. Benoit, W. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Benoit, W. (2015). Image Repair Theory in the Context of Strategic Communication. In D. Holtzhausen & A. Zerfass (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of strategic communication (pp. 303–311). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Broom, G., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization–public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(2), 83–98. Canel, M., & Luoma‐aho, V. (2019). Public sector communication. Closing gaps between public sector organizations and citizens. Boston, MA: Wiley. Cappella, J., Fishbein, M., Hornik, R., Ahern, R. K., & Sayeed, S. (2001). Using Theory to Select Messages in Anti‐Drug Media Campaigns: Reasoned Action and Media Priming. In R. E. Rice & C. K. Atkin (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (3rd ed., pp. 214–230). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Coffman, J. (2003). Lessons in evaluating communications campaigns: Five case studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Coombs, T. (2008). The Development of the Situational Crisis Communication Theory. In T. Hansen‐ Horn & B. Neff (Eds.), Public relations: From theory to practice (pp. 262–277). Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Cox, R. (2013). Environmental communication in the public sphere (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Dorfman, L., Ervice, J., & Woodruff, K. (2002). Voices for Change: A Taxonomy of Public Communications Campaigns and Their Evaluation Challenges. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Media Studies Group. Retrieved from http://www.mediaevaluationproject.org/b2.pdf Dungan‐Seaver, D. (1999). Mass media initiatives and children’s issues: An analysis of research and recent experiences relevant to potential philanthropic funders [Electronic version]. Paper prepared for the McKnight Foundation. Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). Psychology of attitudes. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attention, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison‐Wesley. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group. Fredriksson, M., & Pallas, J. (2016). Characteristics of public sectors and their consequences for strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(3), 149–152. https://doi.org /10.1080/1553118X.2016.1176572 Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., van Ruler, B., Vercic, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2007). Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(1), 3–35. Henry, G.T., & Rivera, M. (1998). Public information campaigns and changing behaviors. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, New York. Holtzhausen, D., & Zerfass, A. (2013). Strategic Communication: Pillars and Perspectives of an Alternative Paradigm. In K. Sriramesh, A. Zerfass, & J.‐N. Kim (Eds.), Public relations and communication management: current trends and emerging topics (pp. 283–302). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Holtzhausen, D., & Zerfass, A. (2015). Strategic Communication: Opportunities and Challenges of the Research Area. In D. Holtzhausen & A. Zerfass (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of strategic communication (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Public Sector Communication and Strategic Communication Campaigns

257

Holtzhausen, D. R. (2008). Strategic Communication. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication (Vol. 10, pp. 4848–4855). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Hovland, C., Janis, I., & Kelley, H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. James, O., & Moseley, A. (2014). Does performance information about public services affect citizens’ perceptions, satisfaction and voice behaviour? Field experiments with absolute and relative performance information TION. Public Administration, 92(2), 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12066 Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of Mass Communication By the Individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19–32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Kim, J.‐N., & Grunig, J. E. (2011). Problem solving and communicative action: A situational theory of problem solving. Journal of Communication, 61, 120–149. Kim, J.‐N., Ni, L., Kim, S.‐H., & Kim, J. R. (2012). What makes people hot? Applying the situational theory of problem solving to hot‐issue publics. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(2), 144–164. Klingemann, H.‐D., & Römmele, A. (2011). Campaigns and Surveys: An Introduction. In H.‐D. Klingemann & A. Römmele (Eds.), Public information campaigns and opinion research. SAGE Publications. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000). Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Liu, B. F., Horsley, J. S., & Levenshus, A. B. (2010). Government and corporate communication practices: Do the differences matter? Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(2), 189–213. https://doi. org/10.1080/00909881003639528 McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Malden, MA: Blackwell. McQuail, D. (2005). McQuail’s mass communication theory (5th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Noar, S. M. (2006). A 10‐year retrospective of research in health mass media campaigns: Where do we go from here? Journal of Health Communication, 11(1), 21–42. O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain‐framed and loss‐framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 623–644. Palmer, E. (1981). Shaping Persuasive Messages with Formative Research. In R. E. Rice & W. Paisley (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (pp. 227–242). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer‐Verlag. Prochaska, J., & Velicer, W. (1997). The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12, 38–48. Quick, B., & Bates, B. (2010). The use of gain‐ or loss‐frame messages and efficacy appeals to dissuade excessive alcohol consumption among college students: A test of psychological reactance theory. Journal of Health Communication, 15, 603–628. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press. Rogers, E. M., & Storey, J. D. (1987). Communication Campaigns. In C. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 817–846). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rossman, C. (2015). Strategic Health Communication: Theory‐ and Evidence‐Based Campaign Development. In D. Holtzhausen & A. Zerfass (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of strategic communication (pp. 409–423). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Rubin, A. M. (2002). The Uses‐and‐Gratifications Perspective of Media Effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 525–548). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Salvaggio, J. (1989). The information society: The economic, social, and structural issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stephenson, M., & Witte, K. (2001). Creating fear in a Risky World: Generating Effective Health Risk Messages. In R. E. Rice & C. K. Atkin (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (3rd ed., pp. 88–102). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Trenholm, S. (2014). Thinking through communication (7th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Voltmer, K., & Römmele, A. (2011). Information and Communication Campaigns: Linking Theory to Practice. In H.‐D. Klingemann & A. Römmele (Eds.), Public information campaigns and opinion research. SAGE Publications.

258

Kelly Page Werder

Weiss, J. A., & Tschirhart, M. (1994). Public information campaigns as policy instruments. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13(1), 82–119. Werder, K. P. (2015a). A Theoretical Framework for Strategic Communication Messaging. In D. Holtzhausen & A. Zerfass (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of strategic communication (pp. 269–284). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Werder, K. P. (2015b). The Integration of Domains: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Strategic Communication Campaigns. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 9(2), 79–86. Werder, K. P., Nothhaft, H., Verčič, D., & Zerfass, A. (2018). Strategic communication as an emerging interdisciplinary paradigm. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(4), 333–351. Werder, K. P., & Schweickart, T. (2013). An experimental analysis of message strategy influence on receiver variables: Advancing an integrated model for explaining the communication behavior of publics. Paper presented at the 16th Annual International Public Relations Research Conference, Miami, FL. Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., Nothhaft, H., & Werder, K. P. (2018). Strategic communication: Defining the field and its contribution to research and practice. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(4), 487–505.

Further Reading Atkin, C. K., & Rice, R. E. (2013). Public Communication Campaigns (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Coffman, J. (2003). Lessons in evaluating communications campaigns: Five case studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Holtzhausen, D., & Zerfass, A. (2015). The Routledge handbook of strategic communication. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Rogers, E. M., & Storey, J. D. (1987). Communication Campaigns. In C. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 817–846). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

17

Public Sector Communication and  NGOs: From Formal Integration to Mediated Confrontation? Tine Ustad Figenschou

Introduction: NGO Communication and the Public Sector Today, more political stakeholders are employing a greater range of media platforms in more sophisticated ways to gain political influence (Kuhn & Nielsen, 2014). Although a professionalization of communication and media can be found across the political spectrum, the distinct contextual characteristics of the actors in the private sector, the public sector, and the third sector (civil society) largely influence their strategic communication and media work. In recent years, nongovernmental interest groups or organizations (NGOs) have become more influential political communicators. For public sector organizations, NGOs and interest groups are part of an extensive range of stakeholders that also includes politicians, other public sector organizations, corporations, the media, experts, lobbying organizations, and the public. NGOs and interest groups play multiple roles in relation to the public sector—as experts, service providers and partners, service users, lobbyists, or public critics—and the ways in which this multifaceted relationship impacts on public sector communication is the focus of this chapter. This chapter presents the key developments in and characteristics of nongovernmental organizations’ communication and discusses these areas in relation to public sector communication. The primary aims are threefold: 1 To synthetize and combine extant research on NGO communication from political science and media studies literature in a cross‐disciplinary approach to NGO communication; 2 To discuss what shapes the communication strategies of nongovernmental organizations and interest groups in relation to the media and the public sector; 3 To discuss what kind of communicative resources and challenges NGOs and interest groups represent for public sector communication. There are three main reasons for studying nongovernmental organizations’ communication in relation to the public sector. First, nongovernmental organizations have become more influential political communicators. Historical analysis has documented that communication has always

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

260

Tine Ustad Figenschou

been an integrated core task for NGOs (Davies, 2013; Powers, 2014). Still, nongovernmental organizations have traditionally lacked the coercive resources of states, the political power of governments, or the financial resources of corporations, and this has positioned them outside the political establishment that has dominated mediated political debates. In recent decades, however, nongovernmental organizations have become institutionalized, professionalized, and competitive communicators (Powers, 2014, 2015; Vestergaard, 2014). Overall, NGOs have gone from being short‐lived social movements to being stable organizations that have professional staff (in the form of communication, marketing, research, and policy professionals) who produce complex information and media, and they now compete with other political stakeholders and each other for public attention (Cottle & Nolan, 2007; Powers, 2015). These changes in the organizational ecology (in terms of institutionalization, financial models, and membership models) and within organizations are closely related to changes in political structures and the media landscape (Berkhout, 2015). Second, nongovernmental organizations today are less integrated in formal policy‐making processes than they were before, and consequently, alternative channels of political influence, including the media, have become more important. Corporatist structures, which historically secured influential organized interests’ representation in public policy committees, have been weakened in recent decades (Christiansen et al., 2010). Changes in both the organizational and political landscapes have significantly weakened the corporatist channel, including in northern Europe, where corporatist structures have been comparatively strong (Christensen & Rommetvedt, 1999; Rommetvedt et al., 2012; Öberg et al., 2011). These changes in the strategic terrain have made both direct communication strategies (lobbying) and media relations a priority for organizations as they aim for political influence (Binderkrantz, 2008, 2012; Rommetvedt, 2017). Third, the media landscape has changed dramatically over the last decade. It has gone from being a system controlled and dominated by professional media organizations (Waisbord, 2013) to being a hybrid media system in which mainstream media and networked media both interact and collide (Chadwick, 2013). Today, an unprecedented number of media platforms are available for organized actors that seek media visibility, while media attention remains scarce and organized interests must compete harder for media visibility (Thrall, 2006; Thrall, Stecula, & Sweet, 2014). For NGOs and other organized interests, getting noticed by those in power is imperative (De Bruycker & Beyers, 2015). From the perspective of public sector organizations, NGOs’ and interest groups’ communications represent a less predictable, more vocal, and more complex voice in today’s public debates. There are more NGOs (particularly single‐issue and ad hoc organizations); they have become strategic, professional communicators; they employ indirect (media) and direct (lobbying) communication to gain political influence; and this communication challenges, informs, and supports public sector organizations.

Defining NGO Communication Most scholars agree that there is no clear and uniform scholarly definition of nongovernmental organizations or interest groups. Broad definitions of organized interest groups often include a wide range of nonprofit or voluntary organizations, business interest organizations, and social organizations (Berkhout, 2015). The lack of conceptual clarity largely reflects the vast heterogeneity of civil society organizations globally (Halpin, Baxter, & MacLeod, 2012; Powers, 2016a; Van Leuven & Joye, 2014). Addressing the conceptual confusion, Baroni, Carroll, Chalmers, Marquez, and Rasmussen (2014) first distinguish between (a) those scholars who use a behavioral definition—that is, a classification of groups based on their observable, policy‐related activities—and (b) those who define interest groups based on organizational characteristics. Overall, the behavioral approach can be difficult to delimit, and a central trend has been to understand

Public Sector Communication and NGOs

261

interest groups as membership organizations working to obtain political influence. Interest groups can then be distinguished from political parties (as the former do not run for office) and from private businesses (which are not membership organizations) (Binderkratz, 2008, p. 177). A second broad distinction in the literature is often made between groups working for broad, collective interests (such groups are often called “public interest groups” or “citizen groups”) and groups representing more narrow interests and self‐interest (e.g., economic groups) (Baroni et al., 2014). Citizen groups thus represent either specific groups of citizens or broader causes (e.g., identity groups, public interest groups, or leisure groups) beyond their membership bases, whereas economic groups (e.g., business groups, trade unions, institutional groups, or professional groups) are primarily involved in advocacy that addresses the interests of their members (Binderkrantz, Bonafont, & Halpin, 2016; Binderkrantz, Christiansen, & Pedersen, 2015). “Nongovernmental organization” is a frequently used label that embraces a large number of such public interest groups. Today, it is estimated that there are 10 million NGOs worldwide (Techreport.ngo, 2018). NGOs are nongovernmental groups of individuals or organizations that are “formed to provide services or to advocate a public policy” (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2017). Most NGOs are self‐ governed entities and have regular organized activities (e.g., meetings and formalized d ­ ecision‐ making processes); they are private organizations (i.e., they are not set up or controlled by governments, although they may receive public funding); most are nonprofit organizations that finance their work through a variety of income sources (e.g., grants from foundations or governments, membership dues, sales of services, or business activities); and participation or membership is voluntary. NGOs can have local, national, or international aims (those that fall into the latter category are often referred to as international nongovernmental organizations, or INGOs). Most NGOs cover social or political issues such as humanitarian concerns, gender equality, environmentalism, and poverty. NGOs’ relations with political authorities reflect the political context in which they operate, which may range from authoritarian governments’ attempts to directly control NGOs or establish government nongovernmental organizations (GONGOs) to a framework of national legislation that regulates the right to assembly and association as well as official funding and that has an impact on NGO budgets and priorities. Overall, organizations’ relations with other political stakeholders—such as governments, public sector organizations, business organizations, and political parties—and with each other differ, depending on their goals, the jurisdiction in which they operate, and the mandate of a particular institution. This specifically aims to discuss NGO communication, understood broadly as the communicative aspects related to nongovernmental organizations—for example, information campaigns, publicity, media requests, and reactive and proactive communication strategies—that aim to inform people about and bring attention to social or political issues, gain publicity and raise funds for the organization, and/or have an impact on political decision‐making processes. The following section outlines how and to what extent NGO communication has been studied in the political science and media studies literature.

Two Approaches to NGO Communication Extant research on NGO communication can be situated at the intersection between political science, media and communication studies, and organizational theories. Political scientists have largely approached NGO communication through quantitative analysis of organized groups’ access to channels of political influence (a macroperspective on NGO communication). Interest groups employ a number of strategies to promote their interests vis‐à‐vis public sector organizations, politicians in parliament, and the public. Which organizations are most capable of advancing their causes is a fundamental democratic question that has been carefully investigated in political science for over a century (Binderkrantz, 2008). An extensive literature

262

Tine Ustad Figenschou

within political science has studied bias versus diversity of group representation within different arenas and systems (e.g., Binderkrantz et al., 2015). Pluralist approaches argue that all active and legitimate groups have opportunities to promote their cases in the political system, a modern pluralist position often represented by Dahl’s American pluralism (see Thrall (2006) for a debate on this area). In the European context, extending Rokkan’s (1966) emphasis on group resources, scholars have analyzed the privileged access of some groups over others based on resources, position, and group type (Binderkratz, 2008). Overall, political scientists have studied media strategies indirectly, as one of several strategies that nongovernmental organizations and interest groups use to gain political influence. Political scientists have traditionally emphasized political and corporatist structures and only recently analyzed interest groups’ and nongovernmental organizations’ media and communication strategies in studies of political influence. Dominant methods among scholars who focus on interest groups have been quantitative mappings of group representations in and between various channels of influence, surveys among groups, and quantitative content analysis of media representations of organized interests (see Halpin et al. (2012) for a critical discussion). A key lesson from this scholarship is how changes in the organizational and political landscape have made strategic communication more important for organized interest groups and how these changes indicate a potentially more pluralist system (Binderkrantz, 2008, 2012; Christiansen & Rommetvedt, 1999; Rommetvedt, 2017, Rommetvedt et al., 2012). Within media and communication theory, NGO communication has been primarily understood in relation to the mainstream news media (mesolevel analysis). Until the last decade, media and communication scholars largely ignored NGO communication, but new approaches have gradually overcome the mediacentric bias (Couldry, 2005) and yielded more comprehensive, integrated contributions inspired by organizational studies (Powers, 2014, 2015). Systematizing existing perspectives, Powers (2014) identifies three main perspectives on NGO publicity: 1 NGO communication as informative and impartial (normative approach) (e.g., Lang, 2013); 2 NGO communication as strategic communication, formed by internal considerations (organizational approach) (e.g., Cohen, 2001; Dogra, 2014); 3 NGO communication as adaptation to the media logic (the news media’s narratives, formats, rhythm, and values) (e.g., Cottle & Nolan, 2007; Fenton, 2010; Waisbord, 2011). More recently, media scholars have also underlined key characteristics of NGOs as heterogenous, complex organizations with their own dynamics and logics (intraorganizational characteristics) to understand NGO communication (e.g., Nolan & Mikami, 2012; Powers, 2014; Orgad, 2013; Waisbord, 2011). These studies explain different NGO communication strategies through a combination of NGO funding (unrestricted core funding versus project‐based funding), political profile (whether the organization aspires to cooperation and political neutrality or takes antagonistic, confrontational positions), intraorganizational dynamics between research and marketing (where organizations with strong research departments aim for elite media publicity and organizations with strong marketing departments aim for mass audiences), and organizational aims (whether organizations seek to bring about policy change or raise funds or awareness; see Powers (2014) for an in‐depth discussion of this model). The majority of these studies are based on interviews with senior NGO officials that focus on media and communication strategies in leading humanitarian NGOs, which are more professional, better resourced, and more ambitious than most national and local NGOs and interest groups (Donges & Jarren, 2014). Although the interview has been the main methodological approach, it is sometimes combined with content analysis focused on media access (e.g., Thrall et al., 2014) and use of materials produced by NGOs (van Leuven & Joye, 2014). In essence, media and ­communication scholarship illuminates how NGOs have become increasingly professionalized communicators. There are relatively few scholarly contributions focused on the consequences of

Public Sector Communication and NGOs

263

this professionalization. Reviewing normative approaches to NGO communication, Powers (2016a) finds that although NGOs have become prominent media experts and increasingly realize participatory ideals, they are criticized for prioritizing strategic objectives rather than aiming to facilitate debate. Furthermore, NGOs have been criticized for not challenging dominant mainstream media norms and for often cloning, adopting, and even overpromoting issues that are already in the media spotlight (Fenton, 2010; Waisbord, 2014).

NGO Communication: Insider and Outsider Strategies Nongovernmental organizations have employed a number of strategies to influence politicians, public sector organizations, the media, and public opinion. In the remaining parts of the chapter, I will first provide a thorough discussion of the strategies deployed by NGOs and interest groups to influence political and administrative authorities as well as the media. Once the changes in interest groups’ and NGOs’ strategies of influence have been outlined, the final sections of the chapter discuss how these changes relate to and affect public sector communication, the main topic of this book.

Insider and Outsider Positions Vis‐à‐Vis Political and Administrative Authorities Overall, researchers across disciplines distinguish broadly between insider organizations and outsider organizations (Sireau & Davis, 2007). The literature generally distinguishes between direct approaches made to decision makers in the bureaucracy and parliament (insider strategies) on the one hand and indirect means of gaining influence by mobilizing the media or the organizations’ members or supporters (outsider strategies) on the other. Outsider strategies have usually been emphasized in the pluralism tradition (e.g., Thrall, 2006), whereas insider strategies have been analyzed in the privileged pluralism tradition, though these differences are less clear‐cut today (e.g., Rommetvedt, 2017). Both organizational resources and political goals decide organizations’ relative access to decision makers and to public arenas. One dominant line of study has examined various nongovernmental organizations’ and interest groups’ strategies, by analyzing group characteristics in relation to the groups’ positions vis‐à‐vis political (governments and parliaments) and administrative actors (public service organizations). These studies find that organizations with corporatist insider resources (e.g., economic organizations able to influence the economy through controlling private or public sector personnel) have used the formal corporatist channels more often than other organizations have (Binderkrantz et al., 2015). Nongovernmental groups lacking corporatist privileges, on the other hand, often employ public appeals made to the media, members, and the general public to gain visibility, voice, and authority as an indirect means of political influence. It is primarily public interest organizations (e.g., humanitarian, environmental, or social groups) or identity groups (e.g., patients, immigrants, or sexual minorities) that mobilize through the media (Binderkrantz et al., 2015). Overall, political scientists studying interest groups have traditionally perceived media strategies and media appearances as a tool for less influential organizations and as a compensatory measure taken by interest groups that are excluded from more attractive insider access to policy‐making processes (compensation thesis), rather than as a prioritized strategy for the most influential organizations (Binderkrantz, 2012; Kriesi, Tresch, & Jochum, 2007). An alternative approach has entailed arguing that, rather than being a way to compensate for a lack of insider access, media presence is part of a multiplicity of tactics employed by powerful organizations that seek broad influence within contemporary politics (Binderkrantz, 2012, Kriesi et al., 2007). Researchers have found that lobbying has become more important in recent years as a strategy to gain political influence (Rommetvedt, 2017; Rommetvedt et al., 2012; Tresch & Fischer, 2015).

264

Tine Ustad Figenschou

As lobbying may be directed toward parliament, civil servants, and government bureaucracy, Rommetvedt et al. (2012, p. 467) distinguish between parliamentary lobbyism, governmental lobbyism, and bureaucratic lobbyism. Overall, competition for political influence has tightened, and interest groups are more proactive in securing their interests; they now target both parliament and government. Bureaucratic lobbying, in contrast, has not increased. Studies of lobbying strategies and group characteristics have found that both economic groups and citizen groups employ the strategy of parliamentary lobbying (i.e., contacting parliamentary committees, party spokespersons, other members of parliament, and party organizations), though they do so for different reasons. Corporatist outsiders use parliamentary lobbying strategies primarily as a substitute for corporatist representation, whereas corporatist insiders use it to supplement corporatist representation and are the most active lobbyists (Rommetvedt, 2017). Citizen groups are also more likely to employ the parliamentary strategy more than other interest groups are, because they promote public interests rather than specialized, particular interests (Rommetvedt, 2017). Moreover, public interest groups have a more generalized engagement with public policy (in contrast to specialized niche interests) (Halpin & Binderkrantz, 2011). An alternative approach to group types and lobbying has found that one key predictor for lobbying strategies is resource competition and organizational maintenance objectives, as some organizations lobby to raise funds and interact with members, donors, and patrons rather than to influence policy makers (Hanegraaf, Beyers, & De Bruycker, 2016). Although indirect strategies such as agenda‐setting through the media have traditionally been perceived as a strategy for corporatist outsiders in the interest group literature, media visibility has gradually become more important across the organizational landscape and among political scientists (Binderkrantz, 2012; Christiansen & Rommetvedt, 1999; Rommetvedt, 2017; Rommetvedt et al., 2012). It is well established within the interest group literature that different groups choose different political arenas, a finding that indicates greater pluralism in group representation and impact (Halpin et al., 2012). At the same time, another key finding is that only some major players among the organizations studied have privileged access to all arenas, and here “resources are paramount” across group types (Baroni et  al., 2014; Binderkrantz et  al., 2015, p. 109). In essence, different groups use different channels of influence, yet some groups have relatively more access across all channels, something that Binderkrantz et al. (2015) describe as a model of privileged pluralism.

Insider and Outsider Positions Vis‐à‐Vis the Mainstream Media Media attention is limited and varies significantly between policy sectors. Within journalism and political communication research, a broad range of studies has analyzed the relations between the media (owners, editors, and/or reporters) and political elites, documenting what has been characterized as the political establishments’ privileged access to the mainstream media (see Manning (2001) for an informative overview). The structural factors that give insider advantages to establishment sources do not give them carte blanche access to the news, however. Political elites can rarely control (promote and restrict) information flows at their own convenience. They are confronted by external competition, intraelite conflicts, and negotiations with journalists (Manning, 2001, pp. 148–149). Historically, nongovernmental organizations and interest groups have not held an insider position vis‐à‐vis the mainstream media (Lang, 2013; Powers, 2015). In addition, it has traditionally been those groups that were corporatist outsiders (see Section 17.4.1) that have strived to use the media as a channel, whereas political insiders have been less interested in professionalizing their media strategies (Binderkrantz, 2012, p. 135). The ways in which different organizations prioritize media strategies are not necessarily reflected in the attention that those organizations receive within the media. Studies of which kinds of NGOs and interest groups are present in the mainstream media have found that those organizations that benefit from privileged access and close

Public Sector Communication and NGOs

265

involvement in decision‐making processes are also the ones that are most strongly represented in the media (Thrall, 2006; Thrall et al., 2014; Van Leuven & Joye, 2014). The organizations that are most successful in gaining media attention systematically have superior organizational resources in terms of both tangible resources (e.g., money, staff, and members) and nontangible resources (e.g., reputation, expertise, intellectual capital, relationships, and branding) than the majority of other organizations do (Thrall, 2006, p. 410). Multiple empirical studies confirm that a few major organizations—predominantly high‐status, well‐resourced, and legitimate groups— largely dominate the media agenda (Binderkrantz et al., 2016; Thrall, 2006; Thrall et al., 2014; Van Leuven, Deprez, & Raeymaeckers, 2013; van Leuven & Joye, 2014). When in the media, such influential organizations are primarily quoted as credible expert sources (authoritative and impartial alternative voices) (Halpin et al., 2012), packaging their work according to journalistic formats and values (see Cottle and Nolan (2007), Fenton (2010), Powers (2016b), or Waisbord (2011) regarding this tendency). Other researchers have reached a contrary conclusion, finding that those organized interests that adopt a negative position vis‐à‐vis policy proposals (e.g., by aiming to change or to block a proposal) attract significantly more media attention compared to those who voice a milder, supportive, or unclear position (De Bruycker & Beyers, 2015). Some studies also indicate that there has been a shift within the mainstream media toward greater pluralism in the form of representation of an increasingly diverse range of interests (Tresch & Fischer, 2015) and changes in the relative importance of groups (citizen groups among others have gained media influence) (e.g., Binderkrantz, 2012; Binderkrantz et  al., 2015). Overall, these changes in media presence reflect three parallel processes: (a) a potential power shift among organized interests; (b) the weakened influence of traditional power players in the corporatist system; and (c) the comparative advantage enjoyed by groups that represent issues that are prioritized in the media such as justice, health, social affairs, immigration, and foreign policy (Binderkrantz, 2012; Binderkrantz et al., 2015). Studies of systematic differences in media access and influence have also studied outsider group characteristics—“outsider groups” referring here to organizations and groups that struggle to access the mainstream media (Grant, 1989, 2004; Koopmans, 2004). Aiming to expand the understanding of outsider groups, Grant (1989) distinguishes three subdivisions within the broad outsider category: (a) potential insiders (those which can potentially secure routine access if the political climate changes); (b) outsiders by necessity (those that lack the understanding and political skills to be influential sources); and (c) ideological outsiders (those which choose to be on the outside as critics for ideological reasons). Outsider groups rarely possess the authority or means to attract media attention; they have few opportunities to exploit interactions between political and media elites; and they have little bargaining power vis‐à‐vis journalists (Manning, 2001, pp. 150–151). Consequently, publicity stunts and protests have often been their main option when it comes to obtaining media attention. Such media strategies and the appearances that they bring about are largely double‐edged swords, as publicity stunts and protests may garner short‐term attention at the expense of long‐ term political marginalization (Koopmans, 2004; Manning, 2001). Depending on the context, being a news source not only provides the potential to influence public debates but also involves risks on many levels (e.g., the risk of being misrepresented, misunderstood, sanctioned, or even prosecuted). Such risks are relatively higher for outsider groups than they are for the most powerful organizations (Thrall, 2006). New digital technologies potentially enable NGOs and interest groups across the insider–outsider continuum to bypass the mainstream media and communicate directly with the public and political authorities. The networked media platforms have been proposed as an important channel—particularly for NGOs and organized interests that struggle to access the broader public and political and administrative bodies through the media or corporatist channels (Powers, 2016a). Networked media platforms have proved to be important in organizing, informing, and mobilizing recent civic movements (see Bennet & Segerberg, 2013; Papacharissi, 2015).

266

Tine Ustad Figenschou

Additionally, in a few cases that have attracted widespread attention, smaller NGOs have managed to set the global agenda through compelling professional viral campaigns, and this has inspired the NGO community (e.g., the 2012 Kony campaign initiated by US group Invisible Children; see, among others, von Engelhardt and Jansz (2014) for critical discussions). The interactivity of social media allows interest groups to build communities and engage in direct communication with potential target audiences. Surveys of NGOs from across the globe that employ digital tools have found that Facebook is the preferred social media platform (93% of the surveyed NGOs had a page), followed by Twitter (77%), Linkedin (56%), and Instagram (50%) (Techreport.ngo, 2018). The vast majority of the NGOs perceived social media to be an effective tool for communicating directly with potential members, donors, and partners (Techreport.ngo, 2018). Only a third of the NGOs had a written social media strategy, however, indicating that their social media strategies are not yet professionalized and formalized. Overall, existing studies have found that nongovernmental organizations have struggled to integrate and successfully employ digital strategies, have largely been using their websites to further existing agendas (Kingston & Stam, 2013), and have continued to engage and target the news media (Fenton, 2010; Powers, 2016b; Waisbord, 2011). According to Powers (2016a), a media‐oriented strategy persists because donors continue to see mainstream media visibility as a proxy of political impact and value media coverage as a way of learning about advocacy groups’ demands, and also because NGOs perceive journalists as socially proximate “allies” in their quest for publicity. In addition, comprehensive digital strategies are resource intensive, and this privileges large, established organizations with superior budgets, credibility, technical knowhow, and political relations (Powers, 2016b; Thrall et al., 2014; Van der Graaf, Otjes, & Rasmussen, 2016). Moreover, attention is scarce in today’s hybrid, multidirectional media landscape, and organized groups must compete with other, more powerful political actors and an increasing number of other NGOs for attention. It is primarily the internationally oriented groups that employ social media, and they do so to reach scattered members and stakeholders (van der Graaf et al., 2016). So far, attention and visibility in both the mainstream media and social media have remained heavily concentrated on selected large and well‐funded entities (Thrall et al., 2014), and social media has so far not significantly altered existing inequalities between groups (van der Graaf et al., 2016).

Implications for Public Sector Communication For public sector organizations, the weakening of corporatist structures implies that communication with and from NGOs has become more complex and multifaceted, taking place in multiple channels. The public sector’s access to facts, information, insights, opinions, or critique from organized interests through formalized insider strategies (e.g., public committees and hearings) is still present and valuable, but it is only one among many strategies for influencing policy among nongovernmental organizations and interest groups. As outlined in this chapter, the increased emphasis on direct (lobbying) and indirect (media) strategies implies a communication process and influence on public policy formulation that is gradually taking place outside of corporatist structures. Overall, nongovernmental organizations and public sector organizations have a common interest in a continuous policy dialogue that takes place via multiple meetings, informal talks, and networking. Studies of lobbying undertaken by interest groups, however, have found that organizations increasingly target parliament and members of government rather than civil servants, as bureaucratic lobbyism is perceived as less beneficial and efficient than it was before (Rommetvedt et al., 2012). For public sector organizations, this indicates that organized interests increasingly also target other policy actors (e.g., government, parliament, and supranational institutions) in addition to pursuing their formal and informal bureaucratic strategies. In addition to listening to lobbyists and participating in meetings initiated by NGOs, public sector organizations call multiple meetings at which NGOs are invited to present their aims,

Public Sector Communication and NGOs

267

portfolios, and policy concerns. Such public sector initiatives are often linked to public sector organizations’ communication strategies and alliance building, in which the positions of and potential support from important interest groups are integrated and used in stakeholder analysis undertaken to inform communication plans. They can be closed or open meetings, and one example here is stakeholder group meetings, which are organized to legitimize new policies among key organizations at the policy‐formulation stage, proactively prepare for potential implementation problems and foster partnerships and alliances (Halpin et al., 2012). Another related example is stakeholder conferences, where relevant interest groups and organizations are invited to publicly debate proposed policy with each other and with other stakeholders (e.g., politicians, users, researchers, and the media). For public sector organizations, these venues serve several purposes: they represent a test presentation of new policy; they bring out counterarguments; and they bring together knowhow and expertise across the sector. Another public sector initiative is so‐called “anchoring talks,” where important stakeholders, including the most influential interest groups, are briefed on new policy. Conducted ahead of any major policy launch, the strategic aim of such behind‐the‐scenes briefings is for public sector organizations to pitch and frame the policy aims to influential organizations and to make sure that such organizations do not learn about new initiatives from the news media. For the organizations, these informal alerts on new policy enable them to prepare their statements and public response. As discussed throughout this chapter, NGOs have strengthened their position in the media vis‐à‐vis other political actors, at the same time as the unprecedented growth of nongovernmental organizations globally has led to an intensified competition for media attention between interest groups and between interest groups and other stakeholders (Binderkrantz, 2012; Binderkrantz et al., 2017; Fenton, 2010; Powers, 2014; Thrall, 2006; Thrall et al., 2014). Most organized interests today do seek media attention more actively and arguably work more intensely to gain media visibility (De Bruycker & Beyers, 2015). To stand out and attract the attention of the media and political and administrative elites, NGOs increasingly seek to adopt and adapt to commercial tabloid values such as negativity, conflict, human interest, entertainment, and celebrity (Cottle & Nolan, 2007; De Bruycker & Beyers, 2015; Fenton, 2010; Imison, 2013). Among these, celebrity advocacy has been the most debated strategy both inside and outside of NGO circles, and it has been criticized for promoting individual celebrity actors rather than raising substantial policy issues (Chouliaraki, 2011). As outlined above, such media strategies are most often carried out by organizations that have strong marketing departments, deploy a project‐based funding model, and need to mobilize the public (Powers, 2014), but the strategies epitomize broader developments in a highly competitive civil sector (Frölich & Jungblut, 2018). Moreover, NGO communicators are aiming to take advantage of the downsizing and financial weakening of mainstream news organizations by offering information subsidies and prepackaged information to gain access (Fenton, 2010). The increased competition that NGOs face in their media and communication strategies has implications for public sector communication. Although public sector organizations have professionalized and institutionalized communication, news campaigns organized, initiated, or supported by NGOs pose recurrent communicative challenges for public sector communicators. On the one hand, increased competition may increase confrontational communication strategies from NGOs (Frölich & Jungblut, 2018), as critical media appearances where NGO experts offer certainty‐framed, strong statements which generate more media attention (De Bruycker & Beyers, 2015), and consequently public sector organizations must prepare for more direct confrontations from interest organizations in the media. NGOs are often considered by journalists as objective, trustworthy experts with a special legitimacy and reliability (Frölich & Jungblut, 2018). Furthermore, NGOs are the most trusted institution among both the most informed sectors of the public and the general international public (see Edelman Trust Barometer (2018) for details). For NGOs, which often aim to balance multiple communication aims, such confrontational strategies might weaken their legitimacy as experts in the longer run. For public sector

268

Tine Ustad Figenschou

organizations, public criticism and mediated confrontation from trustworthy, credible NGOs can be particularly challenging. One variation of such mediatized critique is when organized interests frame their critique of public authorities through individual cases or human interest (e.g., individual social clients, patients, immigrants, or other victims of failed policies, programs, or public services). For NGOs, these stories demonstrate the dramatic, individual, real‐life consequences of failed policies: suffering that can mobilize public and political support (Figenschou, Thorbjørnsrud, & Larsen, 2015). Previous studies have found such NGO media campaigns to be most successful in gaining public attention when the victims are idealized (see Figenschou et  al. (2015); Ihlen & Thorbjørnsrud (2014); and Nichols (2013) for a discussion of this area). Such stories tend to downplay complex incremental processes or indirect causes, as they often increase the attribution of responsibility to the authorities and potentially redistribute communicative power from public authorities to NGOs or lay actors (Boukes, Boomgaarden, Moorman, & de Vreese, 2015). Although such formats built on personal stories are not new and have traditionally been used particularly by outsider groups, the role of these of storylines has become more important in the hybrid media landscape (Chadwick, 2013) and should be understood in relation to the explosion of unedited, personal stories in networked and social media (Beckett & Deuze, 2016). Among NGOs, networked campaigns that have attracted widespread attention have also been striking examples of such compelling, personal narratives (von Engelhardt & Jansz, 2014). If this emphasis on conflict, human interest, and entertainment strengthens, the communicative space available for political discourse in which public sector organizations can participate will potentially contract further (Koopmans, 2004). More recently, researchers have also identified a supportive/networking strategy among interest groups and NGOs. As more resourceful insider groups have employed media strategies, scholars have sought to explain such media work in a way that goes beyond the traditional agenda‐setting model (where interest groups use the media to influence public policy). Finding that media savvy, resourceful insider groups target the media as part of their lobbying efforts, Trapp and Laursen (2017) identify what they label as the “boosting strategy.” In contrast to the confrontational strategy, the aim of the boosting strategy is to enhance the public’s impression of policy makers (through flattery and praise in legacy and social media), gain goodwill, and strengthen relationships with policy makers or heads of public sector organizations. Furthermore, Trapp and Laursen (2017) argue that media strategy depends on how far into a lobbying process interest groups are, rather than what kind of groups they represent. For public sectors organizations, particularly ministries and public agencies, the boosting strategy amplifies and supports public policies in the media and on social media rather than challenging and criticizing them (see also Figenschou et al. (2018)).

Five Avenues for Future Research This chapter has aimed to synthetize insights regarding the communication undertaken by nongovernmental organizations and interest groups based on insights from political science, media and communication studies, and organizational theories, and it has also considered how these developments challenge and contribute to public sector communication. It is worth noting three points. First, the ways in which organized interests communicate and use the media have not been prioritized in any of these disciplines (although there is emerging academic interest in these issues). Second, research interests in various disciplines have distinct approaches to NGO communication. And third, insights into how developments in NGO communication affect public sector communications have been particularly underresearched. A review of this field reveals that there are many unanswered questions to be asked and answered in relation to this topic. First, we need more insights into how the new, more complex interactions and communications between NGOs and interest groups have an impact on public policy processes. How and

Public Sector Communication and NGOs

269

to what extent do organizations’ new strategies for political influence impact on public sector organizations’ principles of accountability, neutrality, and factuality? Do they represent a new type of politicizing pressure on public sector organizations? Second, NGOs and interest groups are organizations with multiple aims, but they are most often invited to appear in the media as “neutral” experts—that is, as sources used to challenge, explain, or boost political authorities and public organizations. Moreover, organizations today conduct research and produce extensive reports and investigations, and this further contributes to positioning them as trustworthy experts. Future studies should investigate to what extent interest groups as sources represent a new type of expertise in the contemporary media and public discourse and how this expertise challenges or strengthens the authority traditionally accorded to political authorities and public organizations. Third, the existing media studies literature has largely emphasized the major international organizations (primarily transnational humanitarian organizations), whereas the interest group literature has primarily analyzed group representation on the national or international (EU) level. Although the organizational landscape is becoming more centralized, we need more insights into the interactions, negotiations, and communication between NGOs and public sector organizations on the local level and into the ways in which these are affected by changes in corporatist structures, the media, and the wider organizational landscape. Fourth, existing scholarly knowledge is primarily based on quantitative mappings, surveys, and elite interviews with communication managers and leaders in major NGOs and/or interviews with editors and senior reporters. There is a lack of ethnographic on‐the‐ground investigations in relation to both NGO communication practices and how NGOs interact with other stakeholders. Furthermore, there is a lack of insight into how other stakeholders (e.g., civil servants, communication officials in public sector organizations, governments, and parliamentarians) perceive the competition from NGOs. It is thus crucial to ask how other stakeholders perceive the communicative power of NGOs and how they interact with, respond to, or counter their communication strategies. Fifth, most existing studies have found that resourceful and dominant organizations gain influence through the mainstream media, networked media, lobbying campaigns, and informal interactions with political authorities. These processes are more opaque, informal, and “hidden” than formal representation in corporatist structures is. For the research community, this is a challenge that calls for comprehensive new mixed‐methods approaches and a willingness to combine insights across disciplines.

References Baroni, L., Carroll, B. J., Chalmers, A. W., Marquez, L. M. M., & Rasmussen, A. (2014). Defining and classifying interest groups. Interest Groups and Advocacy, 3(2), 141–159. Beckett, C., & Deuze, M. (2016). On the role of emotion in the future of journalism. Social Media + Society, 2, 1–6. Bennet, W. L., & Segerberg, A. (2013). The logic of connective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berkhout, D. J. (2015). Interest organization demography research in Europe. In D. Lowery, D. Halpin, & V. Gray (Eds.), The organization ecology of interest communities: Assessment and agenda (pp. 37–60). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. Binderkrantz, A. (2008). Different Groups, different strategies: How interest groups pursue their political ambitions. Scandinavian Political Studies, 31(2), 173–200. Binderkrantz, A. S. (2012). Interest groups in the media: Bias and diversity over time. European Journal of Political Research, 51, 117–139. Binderkrantz, A. S., Bonafont, L. C., & Halpin, D. R. (2017). Diversity in the News? A Study of Interest Groups in the Media in the UK, Spain and Denmark. British Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 313–328.

270

Tine Ustad Figenschou

Binderkrantz, A. S., Christiansen, P. M., & Pedersen, H. H. (2015). Interest group access to the bureaucracy, parliament and the media. Governance, 28(1), 95–112. Boukes, M., Boomgaarden, H. G., Moorman, M., & de Vreese, C. H. (2015). Political news with a personal touch: How human interest framing indirectly affects policy attitudes. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(1), 121–141. Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chouliaraki, L. (2011). The theatricality of humanitarianism. A critique of celebrity advocacy. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 9(1), 1–21. Christensen, P. M., & Rommetvedt, H. (1999). From corporatism to lobbyism? Parliaments, executives and organized interests in Denmark and Norway. Scandinavian Political Studies, 22(3), 195–220. Christiansen, P. M., Nørgaard, A. S., Rommetvedt, H., Svensson, T., Thesen, G., & Öberg, P. O. (2010). Varieties of Democracy: Interest Groups and Corporatist Committees in Scandinavian Policy Making. Voluntas, 21(1), 22–40. Cohen, S. (2001). States of denial. Knowing about atrocities and suffering. Cambridge: Polity Press. Cottle, S., & Nolan, D. (2007). Global humanitarianism and the changing aid‐media field. Journalism Studies, 8(6), 862–878. Couldry, N. (2005). Transvaluing media studies. In Curran, J. & Morley, D. (Eds.) Media and Cultural Theory, 177–194, Abingon: Routledge. Davies, T. (2013). NGOs: A new history of transnational civil society. London: Hurst & Company. De Bruycker, I., & Beyers, J. (2015). Balanced or biased? Interest groups and legislative lobbying in the European news media. Political Communication, 32(3), 453–474. Dogra, N. (2014). Representations of global poverty: Aid, development and international NGOs. London: IB Tauris. Donges, P., & Jarren, O. (2014). Mediatization of political organizations:changing parties and interest groups? In F. Esser & J. Strömbäck (Eds.), Mediatization of politics: Understanding the transformation of Western democracies (pp. 181–199). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Edelman Trust Barometer (2018) https://www.edelman.com/trust‐barometer Fenton, N. (2010). NGOs, new media and the mainstream news: News from everywhere. In N. Fenton (Ed.), New media, old news: Journalism & democracy in the digital age (pp. 153–168). London, UK: Sage. Figenschou, T. U., Thorbjørnsrud, K., & Larsen, A. G. (2015). Mediatized asylum conflicts: Human interest framing and common‐sense public morality. In M. F. Eskjær, S. Hjarvard, & M. Mortensen (Eds.), The dynamics of mediatized conflicts (pp. 129–143). Peter Lang. Frölich, R., & Jungblut, M. (2018). Between factoids and facts: The application of ‘evidence’ in NGO strategic communication on war and armed conflict. Media, War & Conflict, 11(1), 85–106. Grant, W. (1989). Pressure groups, politics and democracy in Britain. New York, London: Philip Allan. Grant, W. (2004). Pressure politics: The changing world of pressure groups. Parliamentary Affairs, 57(2), 408–419. Halpin, D., Baxter, G., & MacLeod, I. (2012). Multiple arenas, multiple populations: Counting organized interests in Scottish public policy. In D. Halpin & G. Jordan (Eds.), The scale of interest organization in democratic politics: Data and research methods (pp. 118–140). Basingstroke: Palgrave Macmillan. Halpin, D. R., & Binderkrantz, A. S. (2011). Explaining breadth of policy engagement: Patterns of interest group mobilization in public policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(2), 201–219. Hanegraaff, M., Beyers, J., & De Bruycker, I. (2016). Balancing inside and outside lobbying: The political strategies of lobbyists at global diplomatic conferences. European Journal of Political Research, 55, 568–588. Ihlen, Ø., Figenschou, T. U., & Larsen, A. (2015). Behind the framing scenes: Challenges and opportunities for NGOs and authorities framing irregular immiration. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(7), 822–838. Ihlen, Ø., & Thorbjørnsrud, K. (2014). Tears and framing contests: Public organizations countering critical and emotional stories. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 8(1), 45–60. Imison, M. (2013). Selling the story. Journalism Practice, 8(4), 438–453. Kingston, L. N., & Stam, K. R. (2013). Online advocacy: Analysis of human rights NGO websites. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 5(1), 75–95. Koopmans, R. (2004). Movements and media: Selection processes and evolutionary dynamics in the public sphere. Theory and Society, 33, 367–391. Kriesi, H., Tresch, A., & Jochum, M. (2007). Going public in the European Union: Action repertoires of Western European collective political actors. Comparative Political Studies, 40(1), 48–73.

Public Sector Communication and NGOs

271

Kuhn, R., & Nielsen, R. K. (Eds.) (2014). Political journalism in transition: Western Europe in a comparative perspective. London, UK: Taurus. Lang, S. (2013). NGOs, civil society and the public sphere. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Manning, P. (2001). News and news sources: A critical introduction. London, UK: Sage. Nichols, W. J. (2013). The DREAMers: How the undocumented youth movement transformed the immigrant rights debate. Stanford, CT: Stanford University Press. Nolan, D., & Mikami, A. (2012). ‘The things that we have to do’: Ethics and instrumentality in humanitarian communication. Global Media and Communication, 9(1), 53–70. Öberg, P., Svensson, T., Christiansen, P. M., Nørgaard, A. S., Rommetvedt, H., & Thesen, G. (2011). Disrupted exchange and declining corporatism: Government authority and interest group capability in Scandinavia. Government and Opposition, 46(3), 365–391. Orgad, S. (2013). Visualizers of solidarity: Organizational politics in humanitarian and international development NGOs. Visual Communication, 12(3), 295–314. Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology and politics. Oxford University Press. Powers, M. (2014). The structural organization of NGO publicity work: Explaining divergent publicity strategies at humanitarian and human rights organizations. International Journal of Communication, 8, 90–107. Powers, M. (2015). Contemporary NGO‐Journalist relations: Reviewing and evaluating an emergent area of research. Sociology Compass, 9(6), 427–437. Powers, M. (2016a). The new boots on the ground: NGOs in the changing landscape of international news. Journalism, 17(4), 401–416. Powers, M. (2016b). NGO publicity and reinforcing path dependency: Explaining the persistence if media‐ centered publicity strategies. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 21(4), 490–507. Rommetvedt, H. (2017). Scandinavian corporatism in decline. In O. Knudsen (Ed.), The Nordic models in political science: Challenged, but still viable? (pp. 171–192). Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget. Rommetvedt, H., Thesen, G., Christiansen, P. M., & Nørgaard, A. S. (2015). Coping with corporatism in decline and the revival of parliament: Interest group lobbyism in Denmark and Norway 1980–2005. Comparative Political Studies, 46(4), 457–485. Sireau, N., & Davis, A. (2008). Interest groups and mediated mobilisation: Communication in the Make Poverty History campaign. In A. Davis (Ed.), The mediation of power: A critical introduction (pp. 131–150). London, UK: Routledge. Techreport.NGO. (2017). 2018 Global NGO Technology Report. http://www.techreport.ngo. Thrall, A. T. (2006). The myth of the outside strategy: Mass media news coverage of interest groups. Political Communication, 23(4), 407–420. Thrall, A. T., Stecula, D., & Sweet, D. (2014). May we have your attention please? Human‐rights NGOs and the problem of global communication. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(2), 135–159. Trapp, N. L., & Laursen, B. (2017). Inside out: Interest groups’ media work as a means to manage ‘inside’ lobbying efforts and relationships with politicians. Interest Groups and Advocacy, 6(2), 143–160. Tresch, A., & Fischer, M. (2015). In search of political influence: Outside lobbying behaviour and media coverage of social movements, interest groups and political parties in six Western countries. International Political Science Review, 36(4), 355–372. Van der Graaf, A., Otjes, S., & Rasmussen, A. (2016). Weapon of the weak? The social media landscape of interest groups. European Journal of Communication, 31(2), 120–135. Van Leuven, S., Deprez, A., & Raeymaeckers, K. (2013). Increased news access for international NGOs? Journalism Practice, 7(4), 430–445. Van Leuven, S., & Joye, S. (2014). Civil society organizations at the gates? A gatekeeping study of news making efforts by NGOs and government institutions. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 19(2), 160–180. Vestergaard, A. (2014). Mediatized humanitarianism: Trust and legitimacy in the age of suspicion. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(4), 509–525. von Engelhardt, J., & Jansz, J. (2014). Challenging humanitarian communication: An empirical exploration of Kony 2012. International Communication Gazette, 76(6), 464–484. Waisbord, S. (2011). Can NGOs change the news? International Journal of Communication, 5(2011), 142–165. Waisbord, S. (2013). Reinventing professionalism: Journalism and news in global perspective. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Part IV

Public Sector Communication and Citizens Karen B. Sanders

Introduction Since the beginning of the twenty‐first century, votes for populist parties and leaders have tripled across Europe: around 7% of European citizens voted for populists in 2,000 compared to one in four voters by the close of 2018 (Lewis, Clarke, Barr, Holder, & Kommenda, 2018). Populist leaders now head their respective governments in Brazil, the Philippines, and the United States. The democratic triumph of populist leaders and causes, notably the 2016 election of Donald Trump and the victory of Brexit in the UK referendum of the same year, point toward a deep citizen disengagement from and dissatisfaction with mainstream politics and governments. This is borne out by global surveys that show a decrease in trust in the political system that is particularly acute in the west. The Edelman, 2017 Trust Barometer reported that 85% of what is defined as the mass population—those with relatively lower levels of income and education— distrust the establishment (media, politics, and experts) as against 15% of the informed public (Edelman Trust Barometer, 21 January 2017). These figures continued virtually unchanged in 2018 apart from some increase in trust in experts and greater distrust of the media (Edelman Trust Barometer, 21 January 2018). Collapsing levels of trust and bewilderment about where truth can be found should concern us all (D’Ancona, 2016). One of Confucius’s most well‐ known sayings is that there are three things necessary for effective government: arms, food, and trust. Of the three, he said, trust should be maintained until the end because “without trust we cannot stand.” Citizens, those who vote and report their deep‐seated dissatisfaction and distrust of their society’s key institutions, who use public services and elect public representatives, are the subject of this section. Indeed, the section’s topic—public sector communication and citizens [and stakeholders]—is the ineluctable theme of this Handbook. An effective public sector—a complex and culturally contingent ecosystem comprised of a multiplicity of service and enterprise entities paid for by the taxpayers and/or the state to serve stakeholders—depends on a number of factors. Communication is one of them. Research tells us that public sector communication is not only necessary for all kinds of practical reasons but can also contribute to enhancing intangible values such as trust and legitimacy, which are key for healthy democracies (Kettl, 2017; Kim & Krishna, 2018). Public sector communication makes no sense, of

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

274

Karen B. Sanders

course, without citizens. It is predicated on their existence. Therefore, every chapter of this book sheds light on aspects of public sector communication that relate to citizens as stakeholders, as persons with a stake in the efficacy, efficiency and purposes of communication in the public sector, not forgetting that the public servants charged to communicate in the public sector are also themselves citizens. Part 1 examines questions related to how public sector communication fosters democratic values and those values that uphold democracy. Organizational issues and how they impact on efficacious communication are the theme of Part 2. Effective public sector communication in the varied contexts of campaign, crisis, and reputation management are the subject of Part 3. Part 5 examines tools for ensuring public sector communication’s efficiency. The lynchpin to all these chapters—the citizen—is the primary focus of Part 4. In what follows, a number of leading scholars examine key areas that go to the heart of what citizen‐focused public sector communication implies. In Chapter 18, Paloma Piqueras, Maria‐ José Canel, and Vilma Luoma‐aho bring their critical gaze to bear on the key notion of citizen engagement. Public sector theory and practice have in the past exhibited some ambivalence about public participation in the public sector. The authors, however, make clear that this is no longer an option in an era of technologically enabled citizens. They point to the advantages of co‐production and user design of services, providing many valuable examples, while acknowledging that public sector organizations may not yet have the necessary training and mindsets in place to facilitate citizen engagement to the extent that is both desirable and beneficial (see Arnstein, 1969). Dialogue is one of the key approaches used to enhance citizen engagement. Karen B. Sanders and Elena Gutiérrez‐García examine in Chapter 19 this slippery concept, inextricably linked to the notion of engagement. They propose the need for a sharper conceptual definition and more incisive empirical operationalization of dialogue, together with clearer understanding of dialogue’s contribution to public goods such as trust and accountability. They suggest approaches that will strengthen the dialogic reality of public sector organizations, both for internal and external stakeholders, and tools that could help standardize and disseminate good dialogic practice (see Sanders, 2019). What citizens expect from the public sector and how expectations are shaped and satisfied by communication is central to understanding the constraints and opportunities available to communicators working in the public sector. These are issues explored by Luoma‐aho, Laura Olkkonen, and Canel in Chapter 20 as they place understanding of expectations at the heart of public sector communication planning. The authors provide valuable theoretical and practical understanding of how to identify gaps between citizens’ expectations and performance and manage communication accordingly, while ensuring that institutional legitimacy and reputation are not undermined. The advent of social media has disintermediated communication and contributed to a hybrid media landscape (Chadwick, 2013). The consequences are that any public servant or citizen can be a communicator with significant implications for communication expertise, capacity and protocols within government and for relationships with citizens. A qualitative survey and interviews (WPP, 2017, p. 3) with government communicators and leaders from 29 countries found that they considered social media to have contributed to loosening “governments’ historical and collective ‘grip’ on trust.” Their role as information providers had been transformed, as social media flattened and democratized communication flows, providing more channels to engage citizens but at the same time, fragmenting audiences and “enabling misinformation to be corroborated by anonymous users and politicians alike, and at ever increasing speeds.” Leading social media researchers Alessandro Lovari and Chiara Valentini expertly examine in Chapter 21 the challenges posed by the social media environment in which citizens and public officials now interact. They pinpoint the benefits but also the possible pitfalls related to issues of ethics, data

Introduction to Public Sector Communication and Citizens

275

management, privacy, and rates of participation. Their chapter provides comprehensive and lucid analysis of the topic and suggests further key areas for research. Based on their work together in health communication and management, Sanders and Maria de la Viesca examine in Chapter 22 the application of high‐reliability principles to public sector communication. They suggest that practices that build reliability require more effective, ethical communication, enhancing the trust and engagement of stakeholders and citizens. They put forward concrete recommendations about how high‐reliability principles can enhance public sector communication for the benefit of citizens and suggest an attractive research agenda for an underexplored field. Drawing on her deep experience of intercultural communication in Asian‐Pacific settings, in Chapter 23 Marianne D. Sison suggests that communication practitioners re‐conceptualize their work as taking place in global and intercultural contexts with necessary consequences for research and practice of inclusive communication. She provides a necessary and welcome corrective to overly national approaches to public sector communication and practical examples of what this might look like in the real world. A number of key themes for research and practice emerge from this section’s stimulating and diverse contributions. First, and in no particular order, the development of a new digital, global communication ecosystem challenges us to understand more precisely citizens’ changing expectations (see Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, 2016). As the UK diplomat Tom Fletcher (2017) has pointed out, social media have changed the rules of the communication game for politicians and public servants. Citizens have become used to fast‐moving, conversational, and interactive modes of communication. Social media are changing public expectations as to what are considered to be acceptable response times (where the limited data available suggests that there is room for considerable improvement, Macnamara, 2015), communication styles, and approaches, including styles that are inclusive of all citizens. A changed external environment for public sector communication suggests a closer examination, in second place, of how public sector’s internal systems can be more effectively fine‐tuned to citizens, enabling more authentic engagement and dialogue with them based on an application of organizational principles derived from high reliability entities that would allow public sector organizations to become truly reliable for citizens. Reliably operating organizations necessarily require systems and operations, which are transparent, accessible, and accountable and these are attributes too that our authors identify as key to building the bedrock of trust required for effective public sector communication. Adequate institutional capacity and training are central to achieving some of these practical challenges and this provides a third area for empirical and theoretical future development. However, an overarching theme from the section is that equally if not more important for more effective, citizen‐ focused public sector communication, is a values‐ and vision‐led commitment to developing trust‐building practices and policies. The temptations to manipulate, to deceive and to control citizens are now particularly acute in an environment where big data and digital capacity provide substantial power to governments. The activities undertaken by Cambridge Analytica, a political data firm hired to provide services during the 2016 US presidential campaign, demonstrated social media users’ vulnerability to manipulation. They also highlighted the risk for governments in using platforms such as Twitter and Facebook as engagement tools—there are no guarantees for stakeholders’ privacy or that they will not be deceived or manipulated by misinformation. The use of behavioral economics in public sector communication—the so‐called nudge agenda—is rife with moral hazard, requiring strong mechanisms of accountability, as the founder of the Nudge Unit acknowledged (Halpern, 2015). Understanding normative issues and developing appropriate regulation and training to tackle the challenges and dilemmas that necessarily accompany public sector communication is, then, one of the key projects that emerges from this section. It could be embodied in research translating into

276

Karen B. Sanders

recommendations about structures, resources, processes, and outcomes that are driven not only by managerial imperatives but also by normative concerns about the quality of civic life.

References Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. D’Ancona, M. (2016). Post‐Truth: The new war on truth and how to fight back. London, United Kingdom: Penguin. Edelman. (21 January, 2017). 2017 Edelman Trust Barometer. https://www.edelman.com/research/ 2017‐edelman‐trust‐barometer. Edelman. (21 January, 2018). 2018 Executive summary. Edelman Trust Barometer. https://www.edelman. com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2018‐10/2018_Edelman_TrustBarometer_Executive_ Summary_Jan.pdf. Fletcher, T. (2017). The naked diplomat. Understanding power and politics in the digital age. London, UK: William Collins. Halpern, D. (2015). Inside the Nudge unit: How small changes can make a big difference. London, UK: Random House. Kettl, D. F. (2017). Can governments earn our trust? Malden, MA: Polity Press. Kim, S., & Krishna, A. (2018). Unpacking public sentiment toward government: How government communication strategies affect public engagement, cynicism, and word of mouth behavior. International Journal of Strategic Communication., 12(3), 215–236. Lewis, P., Clarke, S., Barr, C., Holder, J., & Kommenda, N. (20 November, 2018). Revealed: One in four vote Europeans vote populist. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng‐interactive/2018/ nov/20/revealed‐one‐in‐four‐europeans‐vote‐populist. Macnamara, J. (2015). Organisational listening: The missing essential in public communication. Peter Lang. Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (2016). Complaints about UK government departments and agencies, and some UK public organisations 2015–16. www.ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ complaints‐about‐uk‐government‐departments‐and‐agencies‐and‐some‐uk‐public‐0. Sanders, K. (2019). Government communication and political public relations. In J. Strömbäck & S. Kiousis (Eds.), chapter 8 Political public relations. Principles, practices, and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. WPP (2017). The Leaders’ report. The future of government communication. How can governments better connect with their citizens in today’s increasingly polarised world? London, UK: The Government and Public Sector Practice. https://sites.wpp.com/govtpractice/…/wppgov/leadersreport/wppgov_ lr_executive_su

18

Citizen Engagement and Public Sector Communication Paloma Piqueiras, María‐José Canel, and Vilma Luoma‐aho

Introduction Public sector organizations cannot exist in an environment in which they do not interact with citizens, as they exist to serve the common good. Globally, citizen engagement has become a central aim for public management, based on the assumption that involving those who are served is vital for a thriving society (Bowden, Luoma‐aho, & Naumann, 2016; Carpini 2004; Fung 2015; Tam 1998). Engagement is related to public deliberation (Carpini, Cook, & Jacobs, 2004), and its underlying idea is that public services will improve through collaboration with citizens and (Bowden, Gabbott, & Naumann, 2015; Bowden et  al., 2016; Holmes 2011; Steward 2009). There is proof that engagement programs benefit society, and “citizen engagement is no longer hypothetical: it is very real, and public administrators are central to its evolution” (cited in Denhardt & Denhardt, 2015, p. 666). In short, citizen engagement is about listening to citizens (Marlowe 2005), and public engagement is believed to increase citizens’ positive behaviors—for example, positive word of mouth—that relate to public organizations (Men & Tsai, 2014). The traditional approach to citizen engagement involves obtaining citizens’ approval for whatever public sector organizations need to do to achieve their goals. In fact, “Whilst the rhetoric of policy makers emphasises the importance of citizen ‘participation’ and interactivity, in practice the reality of this ‘participation’ is often basic and one‐way ‘consultation’” (Bowden et al., 2016, p. 259). However, new forms of citizen engagement entail undertaking dialogue and real collaboration in the form of coproduction between citizens and authorities. Some remarkable examples of promising citizen engagement processes can be found across the world. For example, the most recent Kenyan constitution now makes citizen engagement obligatory (Peixoto 2016); the Indian government under Prime Minister Modi has launched its highly collaborative Clean India movement (Khan, 2017); and a new government communication guide in Finland (Prime Minister’s Office, 2016) states that for citizens to be truly engaged, their expectations must be understood.

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

278

Paloma Piqueiras, María‐José Canel, and Vilma Luoma‐aho

In fact, an embracing of citizen engagement seems to be a global trend for governments (Coursey, Yang, & Pandey, 2012; Denhardt & Denhardt, 2015; Head, 2008). This state of affairs may partly be the result of political factors, but it has also been caused by the availability of improved communications technologies (Men & Tsai, 2013, pp. 257–273), the need to share responsibility for resolving complex issues (Head, 2008, p. 441). In practice, engaging citizens requires a bottom‐up perspective, which represents a departure from the traditional one‐way communication culture apparent in many public sectors around the world (Bowden et al., 2016; Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2015). As a concept, citizen engagement is not new (Carpini et al., 2004). One argument put forth to explain its rising importance is the global decline of trust in government (Wang & Wan Wart, 2007, p. 265), with citizen engagement posited as a means to solve this problem. Another argument explaining why citizen engagement is of importance today focuses on changes in citizen expectations that have occurred with the increasing digitization of society (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2015). As citizen communication patterns and needs change, so do citizens’ expectations about both public and private service providers. Moreover, public sector organizations have been plagued by a reputation for inefficiency and bureaucracy (Wæraas & Sataøen, 2015), and engaging citizens in their processes has been suggested as a solution for fostering a deeper understanding among publics as to why public sector organizations do what they do. Engagement is supposed to work by reestablishing the relationship between citizens and public organizations on an equal footing: in the context of public sector organizations’ shift from a one‐way flow of information to a two‐way flow of dialogue, engagement is seen as the approach that best suits technologically advanced and empowered citizens. Overall, as public sector organizations move toward service design and services centered on citizen needs, there is a heightened need to incorporate citizen feedback more systematically and to understand more comprehensively the needs of citizens as end users of public services (Bourgon, 2009; Elías & Alkadry, 2011; Thijs & Staes, 2008). In this chapter, the literature on citizen engagement is divided into two main streams: 1 Literature on the citizen side of citizen engagement. This includes analysis of what engagement is and what it means to be engaged; engagement as a mental process; the expressions, causes, and effects of engagement. 2 Literature on the organizational side of engagement. This includes descriptions and analysis of the specific actions that public authorities undertake in order to engage citizens. Although these two sides can never be fully separated in the actual process of citizen engagement, studies have thus far focused more strongly on one or the other of them, perhaps for reasons of clarity. This chapter begins by defining citizen engagement and exploring these two streams of literature in more detail. After doing so, the growing phenomenon of coproduction of services aimed at citizens is discussed, and the communication related to citizen engagement is examined. The chapter concludes with a summary of critiques focused on the concept and suggestions for future research.

Defining Citizen Engagement Definitions from different dictionaries refer to the ideas of agreement, obligation, interlocking, and mutuality. Within the organizational world, the idea of “involvement” has dominated definitions of “engagement”: when organizations engage, they manage to get others involved in something. As Canel and Luoma‐aho (2018) state, “Engagement is the intangible asset which measures the capacity of an organization to get citizens involved in public administration processes.” Public management literature has characterized citizen engagement as a form of participation (Steward,

Citizen Engagement and Public Sector Communication

279

2009), whereas communication scholars see it as the “interaction between an organization and those individuals and groups that are impacted by, of influence the organization” (Bruce & Shelley, 2010, p. 30). Engagement is understood to express the way in which political and bureaucratic executives relate to those who are not in direct power relations with them. The concept of engagement often translates in practice into involvement, and it is very similar to the notion of dialogue (Taylor & Kent, 2014). Several concepts are used in the literature to refer to what public sector authorities do to engage citizens. These include “collaborative citizenship” (Smith, 2010), “community engagement” (Head, 2007), “collaborative governance” (Sirianni, 2009), “citizen‐centered collaborative public management” (Cooper, Bryer, & Meek, 2006), “coproduction” (Bovaird, 2007; Bovaird & Loeffler, 2012; Bovaird, Van Ryzin, Loeffler, & Parrado, 2015; Brandsen & Honingh, 2015), and “citizen involvement efforts” (Heikkila & Isett, 2007; Yang & Callahan, 2005, 2007; Yang & Pandey, 2011). The literature’s two streams focused, respectively, on the individual view of citizens (often addressed through political science and public management studies) and on the organizational view (often addressed through marketing and management studies) need to be combined to produce a holistic definition of citizen engagement (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2015). In the case of the former stream, the concept of civic engagement is central, and in that of the latter, the concept of customer engagement is the starting point. We will now examine the two streams in more detail.

Individual and Civic Engagement “The roots of citizen engagement in the public sector context lie in civic and political engagement” (Bowden et al., 2016, p. 259) of the kind that relates to collaboration that takes place between people to enable governance. The outcome of civic engagement is hence good citizens who maintain a democratic society. The concept of “civic” implies that engagement occurs in the public sphere (Dahlgren, 2009, p. 58) and contributes to the public good (Dahlgren, 2009; Halpin & Thomas, 2012; Theiss‐Morse & Hibbing, 2005). Civic and political engagement are interrelated, as civic engagement can be seen as a precondition for political engagement to occur. In fact, some describe “democratic engagement” as consisting of both political engagement and civic engagement (Carpini 2004). As Adler and Goggin note, “Civic engagement describes how an active citizen participates in the life of a community in order to improve conditions for others or to help shape the community’s future” (2005, p. 241). Definitions of “civic engagement” also relate to deliberative actions and the ways in which these might affect political actions. Cooper, for example (2005, p. 534), characterizes the concept as referring to “people participating together for deliberation and collective action within an array of interests, institutions and networks, developing civic identity, and involving people in governance processes.” In fact, civic engagement describes how citizens improve community and living conditions through participation (Adler & Goggin, 2005). So that the concept integrates the organizational point of view of engagement, concepts such as “citizen involvement” (Heikkila & Isett, 2007; Yang & Callahan, 2005; Yang & Pandey, 2011), “collaborative citizenship” (Smith, 2010), and “community engagement” (Head, 2007) have emerged to describe what public authorities do to engage citizens. In sum, civic engagement as it is conceptualized by political scientists is often focused on the individual’s contribution to society (Amnå, 2012, p. 613) as well as on long‐term effects, and it is viewed as process‐like and as a mostly desirable phenomenon that contributes to positive developments in society. However, what the civic engagement tradition fails to do is acknowledge the organizational point of view’s bearing on how public sector organizations can foster citizen engagement. The citizen side of engagement is often addressed and measured through citizens’ voting behaviors and participation in clubs, as well as through the extent to which they help others or influence public matters. What all of these things have in common is that they are real acts performed by citizens.

280

Paloma Piqueiras, María‐José Canel, and Vilma Luoma‐aho

Organization and Customer Engagement In a similar vein to the action orientation of civic engagement in political science, marketing science defines “engagement” in terms of a psychological state involving specific relational drivers (e.g., Bowden, 2009; Bowden & Naumann, 2013; Brodie, Hollebeek, Jurić, & Ilić, 2011; Vivek, Beatty, & Morgan, 2012). In the marketing view, customer engagement examines interaction between “citizen customers” and their “public sector service providers,” who jointly contribute to the process of value creation (Bowden, 2009; Brodie et al., 2011; Vivek et al., 2012). An established definition of engagement (Brodie et al., 2011, p. 260) is the psychological state that occurs by virtue of interactive, coercive customer experiences with a focal agent/object (e.g., a brand) in focal service relationships. It occurs under a specific set of context dependent conditions generating differing customer engagement levels; and exists as a dynamic, iterative process within service relationships that co‐create value.

Customer engagement is a process that consists of several stages (Hollebeek, 2011; So, King, & Sparks, 2012). Depending on whether these stages are successfully completed, customer engagement may then manifest itself through cognitive (attention and absorption), emotional (positive feelings, emotions, and pride), and behavioral (activation) dimensions (Hollebeek & Chen 2013, 2014). These engagement dimensions contribute to different outcomes for the organization—for instance, a good/bad reputation, customers’ willingness to collaborate, and customer value and brand equity (So et al., 2012). Customer engagement concentrates on the short‐term effects within the relationship context. It stresses cocreation and sharing, a tendency that highlights the exchange‐based nature of relationships. Citizen engagement does not occur by itself; it involves a “network of continuous interactions” (Bowden et al., 2016, p. 270) between citizens and authorities on all levels, from practical matters to policy. Various studies have focused on how citizen participation is fostered (Hong, 2015; Smith, 2010; Wang & Wan Wart, 2007; Yang & Callahan, 2005; Yang & Pandey, 2011) and how effective practices that seek to encourage it have been (Fung, 2015; Heikkila & Isett, 2007). The following organizational resources have been shown to be related to citizen engagement: capacity, support, dialogue, consensus, social cohesion, accountability, and legitimacy (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2018). In the context of public sector organizations, involving citizens has been shown to be vitally beneficial when it comes to resolving community‐based issues such as political microconflicts over service provision, land use, and infrastructure projects (Hemmati 2012; Innes & Booher, 1999, 2003, 2004). There is also evidence to support the argument that engagement provides an important integrating mechanism that brings together a wide variety of stakeholders in the public domain (Bovaird 2007). Engagement is also of value for organizations when they must address deep and complex problems, and for this reason broader civic participation in deliberative processes focused on important social issues has been strongly recommended (Dryzek, 2000; Fung, 2003; Head, 2008, p. 449). Yang and Callahan (2005, 2007) suggest that there are three possible drivers behind public authorities’ participation in efforts to involve citizens: (a) the presence of pressure to do so from external stakeholders; (b) the nature of managerial attitudes regarding the value of participation; and (c) perceived obstacles, including resource‐related, capacity‐related, and structural barriers. Based on a survey with chief administrative officers from local governments, they found that citizen involvement efforts reflect all three of these drivers, but public managers’ attitude toward the value of participation had the greatest explanatory power (Yang & Callahan, 2007). Moreover, they note that when a government approaches these actions by focusing only on complying with regulations or satisfying funding requirements, it is less likely to engage citizens in administrative processes. In comparison, if a government aims to improve accountability, trust, or service quality, it is more likely to foster engagement.

Citizen Engagement and Public Sector Communication

281

Coursey et al. (2012) further develop these findings and suggest a direct and positive relationship between public sector employees’ motivation and citizen participation. They suggest that two strategies that public sector organizations might pursue are to recruit managers with higher levels of public sector motivation and to increase the level of motivation among current managers, and they also emphasize the importance of communicating the organization’s commitment to citizen participation.

Citizen Engagement in Practice: Coproduction and Service Design of Public Services One of the practical forms of citizen engagement in the public sector context is the coproduction of public services. Public sector organizations generally understand that public sector services operate in multisector contexts and generally require inputs from both professionals and users to be fully effective (Bovaird et al., 2015; Brandsen & Honingh 2015, p. 427). In fact, coproduction has been found to be a key driver for improving publicly valued outcomes (Bovaird & Loeffler, 2012). The idea is to create a relationship and together make the public sector better and its use of resources more effective (Bovaird & Loeffler, 2012). In general, coproduction refers to public services and policies whose design and implementation involve citizens (Ryan, 2012; Virtanen & Stenvall, 2014). The original definition of “coproduction” comes from Ostrom (1996, p. 1073), for whom it is “the process through which inputs used to produce a good or service are contributed by individuals who are not ‘in’ the same organization.” Others have stressed the relationships and efforts needed to maintain coproduction. Brandsen and Honingh (2015, p. 431), for instance, define “coproduction” as “a relationship between a paid employee of an organization and (groups of) individual citizens that requires a direct and active contribution from these citizens to the work of the organization.” Previous studies report that citizens find it easier to engage in tasks that they can undertake by themselves, as opposed to ones that require societal collaboration (Bovaird et al., 2015). According to Brudney and England, coproduction can take on individual, group, and collective forms (1983, pp. 63–64). Complementary coproduction in implementation occurs when citizens are actively engaged in the implementation, but not the design, of a complementary task. Examples here include patients who share their experiences with other patients who are undergoing the same treatment and citizens who promote new resources for recycling in their neighborhoods. A deeper coproduction in design and implementation takes place when citizens are directly involved in producing the core services of an organization and in both designing and implementing the individual services provided to them—for example, design of the social services needed by disabled people or public school students’ determining of their own learning objectives. Coproduction in the implementation of core services occurs when citizens are actively engaged in the implementation, but not the design, of an individual service that is at the core of the organization. The typology of formats suggested by Bovaird (2007) includes the following types of coproduction: 1 Traditional professional service provision with user‐community consultation on service planning and design issues. Services are delivered by professionals, but the planning and design stages closely involve citizens (e.g., participatory budgeting). 2 User codelivery of professionally designed services. Public sector professionals dictate the design of the service, and users and community members deliver the service (e.g., service vouchers for care services for the elderly). 3 Full user‐professional coproduction. Users and professionals fully share the task of planning, designing, and even delivering the service (e.g., neighborhood watches).

282

Paloma Piqueiras, María‐José Canel, and Vilma Luoma‐aho

4 User‐community codelivery of services alongside professionals, without formal planning or design processes. Users and community groups take responsibility for undertaking activities but call on professional service expertise when needed (e.g., a local golf club’s organization of a drive for wildlife preservation). 5 User‐community sole delivery of professionally planned services. Users and other community members take responsibility for delivering services planned by professionals (e.g., citizens working at helplines for bullied children). 6 User‐community sole delivery of coplanned or codesigned services. Users or other community members deliver services that they partly also plan and design (e.g., the maintenance of a neighborhood park by local residents). 7 Traditional self‐organized community provision (e.g., local bake sales). Since the improvement of public services is the result of joint efforts and only happens if both sides have a legitimate voice and see the process as fulfilling, coproduction implies a benefit for both sides. Public administrations have undertaken different actions across a wide range of topics and problem areas to make citizens become engaged and participate in different organizational forms. One stream of coproduction is public service design, which builds on service dominant logic (Vargo & Lusch, 2004). Service design has been defined as “the orchestration of clubs, places, processes, and interactions that together create holistic service experiences for customers, clients, employees, business partners, or citizens” (Ostrom et al., 2010, p. 17). The focus of service design therefore falls on making services that best meet citizen needs through understanding the journeys undertaken by citizens before they came to use the service and the logic behind the choices that those citizens made (Whicher & Cawood, 2013). It is a user‐centric ideal that empowers citizens to collaborate with the authorities in connection with the services that citizens themselves use (Trischler & Scott, 2016). It could be stated that as service design becomes more common, citizens also become producers and cocreators in the context of public sector services. But to enable the best possible experience for both public sector employees and citizens, public sector management needs transformations: the traditional model of discrete departments will need to be replaced by a common goal and cross‐organizational sharing of data and information (McChrystal, Collins, Silverman, & Fussell, 2015).

Engagement, Coproduction, and Public Sector Communication In the context of public sector communication, citizen engagement entails a shift from one‐way communication to two‐way communication. Since coproduction and citizen involvement stem from relationships between citizens and professionals (civil servants) who make reciprocal use of each other’s strengths, communication is a prerequisite if engagement is to take place: it is only through communication that the required mutual understanding can be arrived at. In fact, one could argue that the demand for greater engagement has arisen mostly as a consequence of the changing communication environment, because changes in traditional means of communication have altered the way in which citizens seek to interact with public administrations (Lovari & Parisi, 2015). Traditional one‐way, transaction‐focused forms of communication are rapidly becoming less effective in reaching and engaging with citizens, and citizens expect a much more dynamic, interactive, and cocreative experience (Kietzmann, Silvestre, McCarthy, & Pitt, 2012). Within this new communications environment, the flow of information is multidirectional, interconnected, and dynamic, and it falls outside the public sector organization’s control (Luoma‐aho & Vos, 2010). In turn, this has not only reduced the importance that citizens attribute to formal communications from authorities but also called into question the trustworthiness of those messages (Quandt, 2012) and increased the urgency with which citizens want

Citizen Engagement and Public Sector Communication

283

their questions answered and their needs satisfied (Luoma‐aho, Tirkkonen, & Vos, 2013). Public sector communication and, by extension, the quality of public services are assessed not only at the individual level through citizens’ own direct experiences with these organizations but also online and collectively via social networks (Lovari & Parisi, 2015). Engagement has been proposed as one way to close the gap between traditional, one‐­ directional, static public sector communication and the need to more effectively meet citizens’ dynamic and changing expectations (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2018). In fact, the value of engagement lies in the understanding that it offers of how dialogue is developed and of how participation is enabled (Taylor & Kent, 2014). It could be said that there is a need for public sector organizations to evolve so that a more progressive culture of citizen‐focused communication and service provision develops to meet citizens’ changing expectations (Dollery, Wallis, & Allan, 2006; Lovari & Parisi, 2015; Thijs & Staes, 2008). Engagement is not something that occurs by itself; it requires dedication from the whole organization. Some have called for a new public service ethos that will allow engagement to occur: public managers need to change their whole approach so that a more supporting, empowering, and encouraging form of collaboration arises (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2018). Such a shift would mostly amount to a change in attitude, and we suggest communication professionals hold the key to this change. Communicators can function as internal officers to encourage and broker new roles that include more coproduction within public sector organizations (Bovaird, 2007). Engagement challenges the idea that public sector organizations know what citizens need and want, and it calls for more listening to and understanding of citizens’ expectations (Luoma‐aho, Vilma, & Olkkonen, 2016). Several governments have made good progress in public sector communication through behavioral economics and work focused on obtaining deep insights into citizens’ motivations (Ramsey, 2015). As communication becomes the central means of democracy and of collaborating with citizens inside their communication bubbles, communication is becoming an increasingly important element of governments’ expenditures. This relevance of communication requires an attitude change and training in new practices on the part of authorities and political decision makers on the one hand, and on the part of citizens and stakeholders on the other (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2015).

Critiquing the Concept of Citizen Engagement Citizen engagement appears to be a positive phenomenon. However, there is some “mixed evidence” related to citizen engagement. Major concerns and critiques have emerged in response to the negative effects arising from the high cost burdens that citizen engagement actions place on the organizations involved in them (Thomas, 1995) and from the need for increased organizational resources that they create (Bovaird, 2007). Moreover, the values of power differences between engaged citizens pose challenges: “Some stakeholders have conflicting values and differential levels of power, so outcomes of self‐organizing processes around coproduction are not always socially desirable” (Bovaird, 2007, p. 857). Also, the risks involved in engaging and collaborating with citizens are greater than those that arise from the use of professionalized services (Bovaird & Loeffler, 2012). In general, citizen engagement has faced skepticism about whether it actually creates authentic citizen involvement or is merely a crowd‐sourced or outsourced form of state‐directed resource acquisition (Head, 2007). Critics have also addressed the danger of confusing citizen engagement with empowerment, and Marlowe (2005) warns that in a representative democracy, public engagement should not be a substitute for reasoned policy‐making. In addition, citizen engagement does not solve all the challenges that public administrations face but merely suggests a better way to allow citizens to collaborate with authorities.

284

Paloma Piqueiras, María‐José Canel, and Vilma Luoma‐aho

Criticisms have also been directed toward coproduction. Critics note that the word has been used to describe interactions that may in practice be one sided and that coproduction can only benefit everyone involved to the extent that both parties contribute resources and have a legitimate voice. In practice, it is often questionable whether actual power is shifted from public sector professionals to end users (Bovaird, 2007; Bovaird & Loeffler, 2012).

Future Research We believe that several research lines focused on engagement, coproduction, and public sector communication could yield important insights. First, thus far in studies of citizen engagement, the side of engagement of public sector employees and administrators has received limited attention, and research has focused on individual facets such as morale, satisfaction, or motivation. As the communication environment in which public sector organizations exist is changing, heightened emphasis should be placed on the interaction between public sector employees and stakeholders, as well as on their experiences and expectations. In practice, new education and training initiatives are needed to help public administrators to become better equipped to listen to citizens and to bring about both formal and informal forms of citizen engagement, and so the allocation of resources should be critically reviewed. The mental burden and the nature of the emotional work that public administrators today are engaged in must also be better understood. Second, as the process of citizen engagement is dialogic, future research should look into the antecedents that allow this dialogue to occur in practice and in different cultures. Behavioral economics could be drawn on to a greater extent to understand both citizens’ and public sector employees’ attitudes and practices related to engagement and coproduction. As coproduction is understood to also produce social and environmental value, future studies should look into how this value is actually produced, whom it benefits, and how it is maintained over time, as understanding these issues will very likely be highly valuable when attempts are made to trigger behavior changes aimed at preventing future societal problems (Bovaird & Loeffler, 2012).

References Adler, R. P., & Goggin, J. (2005). What do we mean by “civic engagement”? Journal of Transformative Education, 3(3), 236–253. Amnå, E. (2012). How is civic engagement developed over time? Emerging answers from a multidisciplinary field. Journal of Adolescence, 35(3), 611–627. Bourgon, J. (2009). New directions in public administration: Serving beyond the predictable. Public Policy and Administration, 24(3), 309–330. Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860. Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, E. (2012). From engagement to co‐production: The contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(4), 1119–1138. Bovaird, T., Van Ryzin, G. G., Loeffler, E., & Parrado, S. (2015). Activating citizens to participate in ­collective co‐production of public services. Journal of Social Policy, 44(1), 1–23. Bowden, J. (2009). The process of customer engagement: A conceptual framework. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17(1), 63–74. Bowden, J., Gabbott, M., & Naumann, K. (2015). Service relationships and the customer disengagement– engagement conundrum. Journal of Marketing Management, 31(7‐8), 774–806. Bowden, J., Luoma‐aho, V., & Naumann, K. (2016). Developing a spectrum of positive to negative citizen engagement. In R. J. Brodie, L. Hollebeek, & J. Conduit (Eds.), Customer engagement contemporary issues and challenges (pp. 257–277). New York, NY/London, UK: Routledge.

Citizen Engagement and Public Sector Communication

285

Bowden, J., and Naumann, K. 2013. Us Versus Them: the Operation of Customer Engagement and Customer Disengagement within a Local Government Service Setting. Proceedings of ANZMAC, December 2013, The University of Auckland Business School, Auckland, New Zealand. Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2015). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 427–435. Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011). Customer engagement conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 252–271. Bruce, P., & Shelley, R. (2010). Assessing stakeholder engagement. Communication Journal of New Zealand, 11(2), 30–48. Brudney, J. L., & England, R. E. (1983). Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Public Administration Review, 43(1), 59–65. Canel, M. J., & Luoma‐aho, V. (2015). Crisis en la Administración Pública, oportunidad para la intangibilidad [Crisis in public administration, an opportunity for intangible assets]. In J. Villafañe (dir.). In La comunicación empresarial y la gestión de los intangibles en España y Latinoamérica (pp. 121–132). Madrid, Spain: Gedisa. Canel, M. J., & Luoma‐aho, V. (2018). Public sector communication. Closing gaps between public sector organizations and citizens. Boston, MA: Wiley‐Blackwell. Carpini, M. D. (2004). Mediating democratic engagement: The impact of communications on citizens’ involvement in political and civic life. In L. Lee Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research (pp. 357–394). London, UK: LEA. Carpini, M. D., Cook, F., & Jacobs, L. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315–344. Cooper, T. L. (2005). Civic engagement in the twenty‐first century: Toward a scholarly and practical agenda. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 534–535. Cooper, T. L., Bryer, T. A., & Meek, J. W. (2006). Citizen‐centered collaborative public management. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 76–88. Coursey, D., Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K. (2012). Public service motivation (PSM) and support for citizen participation: A test of Perry and Vandenabeele’s reformulation of PSM theory. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 572–582. Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and political engagement. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press Cambridge. Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2015). The new public service revisited. Public Administration Review, 75(5), 664–672. Denis, J., Ferlie, E., & Van Gestel, N. (2015). Understanding hybridity in public organizations. Public Administration, 93(2), 273–289. Dollery, B., Wallis, J., & Allan, P. (2006). The debate that had to happen but never did: The changing role of Australian local government. Australian Journal of Political Science, 41(4), 553–567. Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyer‐seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 11–27. Elías, M. V., & Alkadry, M. G. (2011). Constructive conflict, participation, and shared governance. Administration & Society, 43(8), 869–895. Fung, A. (2003). Associations and democracy: Between theories, hopes, and realities. Annual Review of Sociology, 29(1), 515–539. Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public Back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 513–522. Halpin, D. R., & Thomas, H. (2012). Evaluating the breadth of policy engagement by organized interests. Public Administration, 90(3), 582–599. Head, B. W. (2007). Community engagement: Participation on whose terms? Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 441–454. Head, B. W. (2008). Community engagement: participation on whose terms? Australian Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 441–454. Heikkila, T., & Isett, K. R. (2007). Citizen involvement and performance management in special‐purpose governments. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 238–248.

286

Paloma Piqueiras, María‐José Canel, and Vilma Luoma‐aho

Hemmati, M. (2012). Multi‐stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability: Beyond deadlock and conflict. New York, NY: Routledge. Hollebeek, L. (2011). Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555–573. Hollebeek, L.D. and Chen, T. 2013. Positively‐vs. Negatively‐Valenced Engagement: Implications for SD Logic, Naples Forum on Service, Naples, Italy, June, 18‐21. Hollebeek, L. D., & Chen, T. (2014). Exploring positively‐ versus negatively‐valenced brand engagement: A conceptual model. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 23(1), 62–74. Holmes, B. 2011. Citizens’ Engagement in Policymaking and the Design of Public Services: research paper no. 1, 2011–12. Parliament of Australia Department of Parliamentary Services. www.aph.gov.au/About_ Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1112/12rp01, last retrieve 17th May 2016. Hong, S. (2015). Citizen participation in budgeting: A trade‐off between knowledge and inclusiveness? Public Administration Review, 75(4), 572–582. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 412–423. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2003). Collaborative policymaking: Governance through dialogue. In M. A. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (Eds.), Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society (pp. 33–59). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2004). Reframing public participation: Strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory & Practice, 5(4), 419–436. Khan, M. 2017. Swachh Bharat Abhiyan: The Clean India Mission (April 9, 2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2949372. Kietzmann, J. H., Silvestre, B. S., McCarthy, I. P., & Pitt, L. F. (2012). Unpacking the social media phenomenon: Towards a research agenda. Journal of Public Affairs, 12(2), 109–119. Lovari, A., & Parisi, L. (2015). Listening to digital publics. Investigating citizens’ voices and engagement within Italian Municipalities’ Facebook pages. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 205–213. Luoma‐aho, V., Olkkonen, L., & Lähteenmäki, M. (2013). Expectation management for public sector management. Public Relations Review, 39(3), 248–250. Luoma‐aho, V., Tirkkonen, T., & Vos, M. (2013). Monitoring the issue arenas of the swine‐flu discussion. Journal of Communication Management, 17(3), 239–251. Luoma‐aho, V., & Vos, M. (2010). Towards a more dynamic stakeholder model: Acknowledging multiple issue arenas. Corporate Communication: An International Journal, 15(3), 315–331. Marlowe, H.A. 2005. Public engagement: theory and practice. Working paper. McChrystal, S., Collins, T., Silverman, D., & Fussell, C. (2015). Team of teams. New rules of engagement for a complex world. New York, NY: Portfolio. Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. S. (2013). Towards an integrated model of public engagement on corporate social network sites: Antecedents, the process and relational outcomes. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 7(4), 257–273. Men, L. R., & Tsai, W. S. (2014). Perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes of organization–public engagement on corporate social networking sites. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 417–435. Ostrom, A. L., Bitner, M. J., Brown, S. W., Burkhard, K. A., Goul, M., Smith‐Daniels, V., & Rabinovich, E. (2010). Moving forward and making a difference: Research priorities for the science of service. Journal of Service Research, 13(1), 4–36. Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073–1087. Peixoto, T. 2016. "Citizen Engagement in Kenya: From Law to Practice." Governance for Development, October 20th 2016. Prime Minister’s Office. 2016. Openly, Bravely and Together ‐ Recommendations for Public Sector Communication. Helsinki: Prime Minister’s Office, Finland. Quandt, T. (2012). What’s left of trust in a network society? An evolutionary model and critical discussion of trust and societal communication. European Journal of Communication, 27(1), 7–21. Ramsey, P. (2015). The Engage programme and the Government Communication Network in the UK, 2006–2010. Journal of Public Affairs, 15(4), 377–386. Ryan, B. (2012). Co‐production: Option or obligation? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 71(3), 314–324.

Citizen Engagement and Public Sector Communication

287

Sirianni, C. (2009). Investing in democracy. Engaging Citizens in Collaborative Governance. Washington, DC: Brookings. Smith, N. (2010). The public administrator as collaborative citizen: Three conceptions. Public Administration Quarterly, 34(2), 238–261. So, K. K. F., King, C., & Sparks, B. (2012). Customer engagement with tourism brands: Scale development and validation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 38(3), 304–329. Steward, J. (2009). Dilemmas of engagement: The role of consultation in governance. Canberra, AU: ANU E‐press. Tam, H. (1998). Communitarianism: A new agenda for politics and citizenship. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan. Taylor, M., & Kent, M. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(5), 384–398. Theiss‐Morse, E., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Citizenship and civic engagement. Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 227–249. Thijs, N., & Staes, P. (2008). “European primer on customer satisfaction management”, 5th European Quality Conference (pp. 20–22). Paris: EUPAN. Thomas, J. C. (1995). Public participation in public decisions: New skills and strategies for public managers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. Thomas, J. C. (2013). Citizen, customer, partner: Rethinking the place of the public in public management. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 786–796. Trischler, J., & Scott, D. (2016). Designing public services: The usefulness of three service design methods for identifying user experiences. Public Management Review, 18(5), 718–739. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. Virtanen, P., & Stenvall, J. (2014). The evolution of public services from co‐production to co‐creation and beyond: New public management’s unfinished trajectory? International Journal of Leadership in Public Service, 10(2), 91–107. Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2012). Customer engagement: Exploring customer relationships beyond purchase. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(2), 122–146. Wæraas, A., & Sataøen, H. (2015). Being all things to all customers: Building reputation in an institutionalized field. British Journal of Management, 26(2), 310–326. Wang, X., & Wan Wart, M. (2007). When public participation in administration leads to trust: An empirical assessment of managers’ perceptions. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 265–278. Whicher, A., & Cawood, G. (2013). An overview of service design for the private and public sectors. Cardiff, Wales, Australia: SEE network. Yang, K., & Callahan, K. (2005). Assessing citizen involvement efforts by local governments. Public Performance & Management Review, 29(2), 191–216. Yang, K., & Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: Participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 249–264. Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? Public Administration Review, 71(6), 880–892.

19

Understanding the Role of Dialogue in Public Sector Communication Karen B. Sanders and Elena Gutiérrez‐García

Introduction Dialogue is a multifaceted concept with a great variety of theoretical and practical approaches. It is expressed in manifold processes and intentions: social media Q&A processes; gathering information from users through social media tools, allowing organizations to “listen” to queries and demands or have an early warning system in place; participatory budgets; public citizen consultation processes and engagement on a regular basis such as the European Commission multi‐ stakeholder initiative for enhancement of directives. On the one hand, dialogue is associated with listening to stakeholders because of its usefulness or value for decision makers. On the other, dialogue is about responsiveness, the commitment to respond, to be engaged, accountable, and transparent. Dialogue also implies the willingness to change as a consequence of interaction and public demands. In focusing the analysis on dialogue, several authors underline the importance of considering and widening the theoretical framework to take into account features such as “value, ethics, relation, reflexivity, mutually engaged performance, community, and responsibility” (Anderson, Baxter, & Cissna, 2004, p. 1). These areas connect to key contemporary societal and political concerns about the rise of citizen disenchantment with the mainstream political class and increased support for populist political actors who speak a language that citizens understand (see Aalberg, Esser, Reinemann, Strömbäck, & de Vreese, 2017). Engaging in meaningful citizen dialogue and conversation, and understanding what this consists of, is part of the growing shift on the part of governments to recognize the need for an “architecture of listening” (Macnamara, 2016) in the public sector. As Macnamara has evidenced, all types of organizations tend to “talk” more than “listen” (Macnamara, 2016, 2018). The complex nature of decision‐making in the public sector makes dialogue an activity that can complicate the task of managing citizens’ relationships. The practical management challenges for political leaders and public servants involve taking into account features such as openness, flexibility, accountability, transparency, and a listening culture. The complexities of the public ­sector (see van der Wal, 2017)—organizational structure, bureaucratic culture, short‐term management practices—make a dialogic management mentality challenging. Nevertheless, there is an opportunity for leaders to rebuild public confidence through its use.

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

290

Karen B. Sanders and Elena Gutiérrez‐García

In the research literature, the topic of dialogue is underdeveloped and there is little evidence of how it is being enacted in organizations. The richness of the concept and its practice make it difficult to build a theoretical framework or inductively ascertain its main features through empirical analyzes. Dialogue’s multifaceted reality partially explains both why the concept has been so ubiquitous in scholarship from a variety of perspectives and also, we will argue, why it currently lacks a theoretical and empirical cutting edge. The purpose of this chapter is to examine past thinking, current knowledge, and future challenges for public sector communication in relation to dialogue. The chapter will first examine the concept of dialogue as defined by a variety of subject disciplines but more particularly within the public relations field where the notion has been more thoroughly explored. This will set the scene for an account of the disciplinary context, methods, models, and chief research findings for this area of analysis as well as the theoretical relevance of the topic to public sector communication. The chapter concludes with an examination of the principal challenges and questions for future research for this field.

Defining Dialogue The concept of dialogue is central to the Western tradition of thinking about both the generation of meaning between human beings and the ethical implications of communication practice. The celebrated works of Plato (427–327 bce) record the first use of the term dialogue from the Greek διά/dia, through, and λόγος/logos, speech or reason. Socratic dialogue proceeds through dialectic or reasoning about disputed issues among two or more people to gain knowledge and arrive at the truth. In more recent times, the concept of dialogue has been taken up by a number of disciplinary traditions including philosophy and theology in the work of the philosopher, Martin Buber (1878–1965), the physicist, David Bohm (1917–1992), and pedagogy in the work of Paulo Freire (1921–1997). These three scholars have had a particular impact on psychology, pedagogic theory, and applied social ethics. Buber’s influential 1923 book Ich und Du (I and Thou) lays out his view of all human experience as relational and essentially dialogic as articulated by the variables I‐Thou and I‐It: the latter conceptualizes relationships as instrumental where the other is object whilst I‐Thou recognizes another center of value in which an encounter reveals the presence of another in a “world of relation” to nature, human, and spiritual beings (see Buber, 1923/2013, p. 5). Bohm’s work On Dialogue stressed that dialogue is a multifaceted process that rests on a commitment to mutual contemplation of diverse viewpoints. Writing before the development of the internet, he claimed that “in spite of [this] worldwide system of linkages, there is (…) a general feeling that communication is breaking down everywhere on an unparalleled scale” (Bohm, 1996/2004, p. 1). And that “the problem of communication,” as he termed it, is that: “Different groups … are not actually able to listen to each other” (1996/2004, p. 2). His solution was to encourage dialogue understood as communication in which participants do not seek to win arguments or persuade others of their ideas but rather to come to new and shared understandings. This differentiates it from discussion or negotiation, for example. In negotiations and discussions, ideas are debated, positions held, fundamental assumptions defended. However, in Bohm’s words, “a dialogue is something more of a common participation, in which we are not playing a game against each other, but with each other. In a dialogue everybody wins” (1996/2004, p. 7). Buber’s and Bohm’s philosophical insights provide a necessary reference point for thinking about dialogue in the public sector. However, their work was largely pitched at a highly abstract conceptual level related almost exclusively to the interpersonal level of dialogue or, in the case of

Understanding the Role of Dialogue in Public Sector Communication

291

Bohm, the practice of group dialogue. The analysis of the concept and practice of dialogue in more structured, organizational settings is to be found in the social sciences and, more particularly, the public relations tradition.

Dialogue in Public Relations and Organizational Communication Reviewing published work in books and journals from the fields of public relations, public administration, corporate, organizational and political communication, it is clear that the concept of “dialogue” has been most commonly employed in the communication disciplines and, more particularly, in the area of public relations where a number of researchers have attempted to locate the place, meaning and importance of dialogue for contemporary communication theory and practice from and within organizations. This is challenging because, as Pieczka stresses, “it seems problematic to assume that encounters between individuals and organizations can be treated in exactly the same way as encounters between individuals” (2011, p. 117). In organizational contexts, several issues need to be taken into account in understanding the nuances of the multifaceted concept of dialogue including among others the existence of interlocutors with diverse social power and influence capabilities, different organizational cultures, as well as varying resources available for dialogue and influence in the public domain (Ledingham & Bruning, 2000a; Paquette, Sommerfeldt, & Kent, 2015; Pieczka, 2011). The concept of dialogue has been a central topic in public relations literature since the end of the twentieth century and has flourished with the emergence of relational theory led by Ledingham and other scholars (see Coombs & Holladay, 2015; Ledingham, 2003; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998, 2000a). However, despite this considerable attention in the public relations literature, the concept is more cited than theoretically developed (Pieczka, 2011, p. 109; Taylor & Kent, 2014, p. 384; Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012, p. 5). Echoing Bohm’s thinking, Anderson et  al. highlight the fact that (2004, p. 1): “dialogue implies more than a simple back‐and‐forthness of messages in interaction; it points to a particular process and quality of communication in which the participants ‘meet’, which allows for change and being changed.” When translated into organizational frameworks, this form of communication occurs in formal and informal ways. Informal dialogue is referred to as the natural and numerous interpersonal interactions that occur on a daily basis, both internally and externally to the organization. Formal organizational dialogue is a planned, strategically organized communication activity oriented toward specific organizational aims. These can be enacted through mediated activities or processes such as using social media channels to listen to publics’ concerns and opinions regarding specific issues and policies or in participatory processes where an organization may promote dialogic engagement with specific stakeholders by letting them have a say in order to inform organizational decision‐making. In organizational contexts, this suggests that dialogue is about more than knowledge acquisition and includes the achievement of strategic goals as a key aspect of dialogue. Indeed, a number of authors (Makki, 2012; Morsing & Schultz, 2006; Willis, 2016) suggest that dialogue’s value lies in improving decision‐making processes by contributing to increased public trust in and credibility of the organization. We shall examine evidence for this below. Scholars agree that the concept of dialogue needs to be considered from a managerial perspective in organizational contexts because dialogue itself needs to be managed (Gutiérrez‐García & Recalde, 2016; Mykkänen & Vos, 2015). In doing so, scholars underscore that dialogue processes with publics contribute to the enrichment of social capital, trust and goodwill in the public sphere which are fundamental features for their license to operate and for their social legitimacy (Bruning, Dials, & Shirka, 2008; de Bussy, 2010). The idea of dialogue between organization and publics is one that public relations scholars find attractive. As Davidson puts it, “Several paradigms of public relations scholarship, despite

292

Karen B. Sanders and Elena Gutiérrez‐García

the vastly different points and epistemological assumptions, have converged on advancing dialogic forms of communication as representing the best normative theories for shifting practice toward democracy‐friendly norms” (2016, p. 146). Part of the reason for this attraction lies in the fact that the public relations discipline has long sought “to build a model for public relations’ constructive contribution to civic society” (2016, p. 147), which also explains why the literature is primary focused on normative analyzes. The “public relations dialogic theory” proposed by Kent and Taylor influential work in 2002 is an example of such an approach, as we shall see later. However, dialogue cannot be understood without other key related concepts such as engagement (see Chapter 18 for a thorough discussion of this concept). In this regard, Taylor and Kent have stated that “exploring the concept of engagement helps to clarify what dialogue is, and what it is not.” They argue that “the best way to explicate engagement (…) is to position the discussion of engagement within dialogic theory” (Taylor & Kent, 2014, p. 387). In their view, engagement is a feature of the principle of propinquity (see Kent & Taylor, 2002). Dialogic propinquity means that “publics are consulted in matters that influence them, and for publics, it means that they are willing and able to articulate their demands to organizations” (p. 26). Engagement “assumes accessibility, presentness, and a willingness to interact” (Taylor & Kent, 2014, p. 387). For Taylor and Kent, however, dialogue transcends engagement because engagement is a feature of dialogue itself. In other words, engagement enriches dialogue, facilitating a relational, “give‐and‐take between organizations and stakeholders‐publics with the intended goal of (a) improving understanding among interactants, (b) making decisions that benefit all parties involved (…); and (c) fostering a fully functioning society, where decisions are made based on informed participative interactions that involve stakeholders” (2014, p. 388). This explains why engagement is one of a number of concepts that are frequently linked to dialogue in the literature (de Bussy, 2010; Johnston, 2014; Kang, 2014). Other intertwined and overlapping concepts include two‐way communication and symmetry (Grunig, 2006; Grunig & Grunig, 2008; Toth, 2006), both of which lie at the heart of perhaps the most influential theoretical account of public relations, the Excellence theory. Both in the corporate communication and public relations field, relationships, interactions (Bruning et al., 2008; Ledingham & Bruning, 2000a, 2000b) and responsiveness (Avidar, 2013) are also cognate concepts that are seen to be linked to and dependent on dialogue. The concept of responsiveness also figures largely in the public administration literature. In conclusion, dialogue has taken a central role in thinking about public relations because it appears to be part and parcel of the required management of relations. However, there remains a lack of consensus with regards to the specific practical and theoretical content of dialogue in the literature, even though it is an area of significant empirical work. In the organizational communication literature, “communication‐centricity” accounts of organizations are the key theoretical starting point for examining the role of dialogue (see, for example, Putnam & Nicotera, 2009; and Blaschke & Schoeneborn, 2017). There is a significant literature in this field, which Putnam and Nicotera (2009, p. ix) have summarized as examining the communication‐organization relationship through “treating organizations as conversations and texts (Cooren, Taylor, & Van Every, 2006), as sense‐making (Weick, 1995), [and] as discursive constructions (Fairhurst & Putnam, 2004).” The notion of dialogue is intrinsically bound up in understanding organizations as constituted by communication. However, there does not appear to be a significant body of research examining dialogue as such in organizational communication but rather studies in which dialogue is highlighted as having particular significance for specific organizational contexts. Work on community risk communication (see O’Hair, Kelley, & Williams, 2011, p. 236), for example, examines how an effective communication infrastructure, in which collaboration, access to information, participation and dialogue occur, contributes to increased trust in communities in which risks are being communicated. In examining knowledge in health‐care organizations, Murphy and Eisenberg

Understanding the Role of Dialogue in Public Sector Communication

293

(2011) argue that medical doctors should be trained in dialogue and reflection and not just schooled in the effective, systemic transmission of knowledge. Organizational communication generally embraces the idea of dialogue, understood loosely as a conversational, interactive mode of communication. However, with the exception of work in specific organizational settings and circumstances, there is limited study of the conditions, constraints, and effects of dialogic communication in organizations.

Dialogue in Public Administration and Political Communication The awareness of contemporary challenges to representative democracy, including the growing lack of public trust, the rise of populist politics, ever more real‐world complexity together with the development of technology that facilitates participatory approaches and platforms and diffuses power through a hybrid media system (Chadwick, 2013), have focused political communication and public administration scholarly interest on notions such as engagement, responsiveness, and participation. The concept of dialogue has not received the same attention. We have already mentioned the conceptual overlap between engagement and dialogue. The concept of responsiveness can also be considered a cognate notion to dialogue given that response is a necessary condition for dialogue to take place. In the public administration literature, responsiveness has typically been conceptualized as “outcome‐oriented,” that is, policy change as a result of policy debates in the public sphere is taken as the way of measuring governments’ responsiveness (see Dekker & Bekkers, 2015, p. 504). However, Dekker and Bekkers’s meta‐synthesis of research into responsiveness to citizens’ discussions in the virtual public sphere suggests that this is an overly restrictive focus for research. They suggest that scholars should also add “a practice‐based conceptualization of responsiveness as an attitude of individual policymakers” (2015, p. 505), linked to policy makers’ characteristics as displayed by skills, competences and perceptions of their professional roles. These authors find that most research suggests that government responsiveness is related to institutional factors such as available resources and organizational values and practices as well as factors such as issue complexity and the quality of the debate. Responsiveness is one of the key characteristics of “adaptive governments” as defined by Janssen and van den Voort (2016). These authors argue that real‐world complexity requires public sector organizations to be able to adapt rapidly to disruptive change. Adaptive governance understands the need to live with uncertainty and deal with this in part through giving learning a central role in the organization while using strategies such as mobilization and/or cooperation with multiple stakeholders in decision‐making (Janssen & van den Voort, 2016, p. 4). The concept of responsiveness is also explored by Avidar (2013) in a content analysis of the online responses of 799 Israeli businesses and third‐sector organizations to a request for further information. She concludes that representatives from “both organizational types either were not interested in using interactive responses or were not aware of the dialogic and relational potential of the organizational responses” (2013, p. 448). Examining the political communication literature, we find a limited explicit consideration of the concept of dialogue. Davidson (2016, p. 147) suggests, however, that what he states is “the shift to dialogue in public relations scholarship mirrors the trend in related academic fields.” In particular, he suggests that the notion of deliberative democracy implies “the value of dialogic communications and consensus seeking in the interactions between institutions and citizens.” The model of deliberative democracy, which has at its heart the notion that democratic legitimacy flows from decision‐making founded on rational deliberation, is closely identified with Habermassian ideas (1989) of communicative rationality and the public sphere. However, as Dahlgren (2005) has pointed out, there are many communicative modes other than Habermas’s discursive rationality that are valuable for democracy and, furthermore, its commitment to consensus building may not even be desirable in circumstances where power is unequally distributed.

294

Karen B. Sanders and Elena Gutiérrez‐García

New political movements associated with participatory democratic models offer a more promising arena for the discussion of the role and meaning of dialogue. Participatory democracy seeks to broaden and to enable the meaningful participation of citizens in politics and policy‐making and social media have been considered central in making this possible. A special edition of the International Journal of Press and Politics (Chadwick & Stromer‐Galley, 2016) titled “Digital media, power, and democracy in parties and election campaigns: party decline or party renewal?” explores these issues through a number of case studies, including that of Spain’s Podemos, which emerged from the Indignados anti‐austerity protest movement. Digitally savvy citizens and politicians can interact in ways that contribute to the remaking of political organizations and to unexpected political outcomes, as the examples of Podemos and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential victory show. The study of digital media’s impact on political communication ranges over a number of issues related to how dialogue may be facilitated, impeded, or enriched in a networked world (see, e.g., Vaccari, Chadwick, & O’Loughlin, 2015 on citizen engagement in political media events; Xenos & Foot, 2005 on dialogue on campaign websites). However, in general terms political communication scholarship has not given either sustained or systematic attention to the concept of dialogue.

Models, Methods, and Findings for  Understanding Dialogue As can be seen from our discussion of definitions and disciplinary treatments of the concept, dialogue has been an area of multidisciplinary research in which the public relations field has played the leading role in seeking to understand dialogue as such in organizational contexts. In this section, we will identify the main theoretical contributions from public relations and whether they are grounded in models that permit the framing of research questions and hypotheses that allow scholars to generate empirical findings for the public sector.

Models and Theories As is well known, models can be useful tools for theory building and testing. They simplify reality but, in portraying the principal components of a structure and its processes as well as the relationships between them, they permit scholars to develop appropriate research questions, hypotheses, and theories. Model‐building on dialogue can be divided into two main approaches: first, dialogue has been conceptualized as a principle that guides organizational communication behaviors in the work of Pearson (see 1989a, 1989b), which fed into the development of the Excellence theory (see Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2002); and second, dialogue has been examined theoretically as a process that needs to be managed with certain ethical considerations in mind (Kent & Taylor, 2002; Ledingham & Bruning, 2000b). The second approach has generated an extensive literature exploring how the quality of relationships can be measured mainly from a two‐way, dialogic perspective. Taking Pearson’s approach first, his work made normative arguments for the practice of ­dialogue in organizations, considering it to be the most ethical approach to organizational behaviors and relationships. However, Pearson did not specify which criteria should be used for dialogue processes nor did he examine their feasibility in complex environments with multiple publics or stakeholders as found in the public sector. Pearson considered that only what he labeled as “dialogic communication” is appropriate because “dialogue is a precondition for any legitimate corporate conduct that affects a public of that organization” (Pearson, 1989b, p. 128). The author underlined the fact that organizations should be required to have an a­ ttitude of responsiveness in their relations with publics, arguing that “if establishing and maintaining

Understanding the Role of Dialogue in Public Sector Communication

295

dialogical communication between a business organization and its publics is a precondition for ethical business practices affecting those publics, managers also need clear‐cut rules and guidelines” (1989b, p. 125). Based on Plato’s ideas in Phaedro, one of Pearson’s concerns is the ability of organizational managers to embrace a specific attitude. In his words: “A key value in dialogue—the speaker’s attitudes toward and relationship with the listener” is being willing “to treat each other as ends rather than means” (Pearson, 1989a, p. 124). In relation to Pearson’s ideas, PR scholars have since engaged in an intense debate about how to balance the required organizational openness with a willingness not to take control of the conversation or to spin the dialogue for their own interests because, as Pieczka points out, “dialogue is not merely an exchange of ideas (…). Dialogue does not aim at resolving all differences between the parties,” nor in “achieving a common way of thinking” (Pieczka, 2011, p. 114). The debate among PR scholars about dialogue as a means to an end or an end in itself with multiple means has dominated much work in this area. The dominant model in public relations research for the past approximately 30 years, as already mentioned, has been the so‐called Excellence theory. This theory considers dialogue as a means to a specific end namely, organizational effectiveness. Excellence theory scholars underlined the importance of public relations as a discipline that aims to analyze how complex organizational relationships are realized. The theoretical work and empirical findings were first developed thanks to a research project commissioned in 1985 (see Grunig et al., 2002) on PR practice. Excellence theory originally posited “symmetrical” or two‐way communication as being the ideal model of relationships with stakeholders, which necessarily implies dialogic communication. However, Excellence theory’s approach to organizational communication can appear to privilege the organizational voice, often at the expense of other stakeholder voices: Communication is considered as a way of achieving organizational goals and therefore, needs to be strategically managed (Hallahan, Holtzhausen, van Ruler, Verčič, & Sriramesh, 2007), and be considered as a senior management discipline (Falkheimer, 2014). Scholars in the Excellence theory tradition have emphasized that a pure symmetrical dialogical model cannot be fulfilled in practice because organizations and publics have different interests, making dialogue difficult to achieve with the attitude Pearson recommends. In other words, dialogue is enacted by organizations to negotiate diverse interests and to balance organizations’ and publics’ interests. This framing of the concept of dialogue is distinct from Bohm’s conceptualization, in which he differentiated dialogue from negotiation and persuasion. For James E. Grunig (2000, p. 34): …mixed motives, collaborative advocacy, and cooperative antagonism all have the same meaning as symmetry. Symmetry means that communicators keep their eye on a broad professional perspective of balancing private and public interests

The Excellence theory prompted extensive normative debate that has given rise to a large number of empirical studies around the world (Ki & Ye, 2017). Nonetheless, as mentioned at the beginning of the chapter, there remains work to be done in the development of clearly defined theoretical constructs that can be used in empirical research focused on dialogue. There is a challenge, for example, in understanding how to define and measure the dimensions of dialogue. It has been taken up in the work of Kent and Taylor.

Methods and Findings Dialogue has been researched empirically in organizational settings chiefly by scholars from the public relations field. The research is predominantly quantitative, measuring publics’ attitudes toward the dialogue process and providing some evidence for how publics assess dialogic relationships with organizations.

296

Karen B. Sanders and Elena Gutiérrez‐García

In this regard, Huang and Zhang (2013) conducted an analysis of published articles concerning research on organization–public relationships (OPRs) from 2000 to 2011, examining which methodologies are most commonly used. They found that researchers preferred quantitative approaches, with 75% of studies using these methods and the survey method (87.5%) principally used for measuring relationship features. Empirical analyzes are mainly grounded theoretically in the influential work on dialogic PR theory pioneered by Kent and Taylor (2002). These authors proposed five principles (2002, pp. 25–28) of dialogue based on “an extensive literature review of the concept of dialogue in communication, public relations, philosophy, and psychology.” These principles were identified as mutuality, the acknowledgment that organizations and publics are inextricably linked; propinquity, the willingness and capacity of publics to express their demands to the organization, and the latter’s ability to consult the former regarding matters of mutual interest; empathy, the atmosphere or environment required for fruitful dialogue; risk, the fact that the outcome of a dialogic process may be unpredictable; and, finally, commitment, the parties to the dialogue must be truly committed to real conversation. These principles have been explored in extensive empirical work (see, e.g., Paquette et al., 2015). The OPR approach to public relations analysis (initiated by Ledingham & Bruning, 1998, 2000a) is another branch of the field that has prompted theoretical and empirical research related to dialogue. Dialogue is considered as one of the key aspects that can enhance an organization and publics’ relationship. Scholars have focused on the two theoretical clusters identified by Huang and Zhang (2013): the Hon and Grunig’s (1999) quality of relationship measurement scale and the Bruning and Ledingham scale on attitudes toward an organization. Hon and Grunig’s six items (1999, pp. 28–30) are trust, control mutuality, commitment, satisfaction, communal relationships, and exchange relationships. Extensive international survey research using these items has been conducted that latterly has been synthesized into four dimensions: control mutuality, satisfaction, trust, and commitment. This approach relies on a dialogic perspective for understanding the quality of relationships and their outcomes for key intangibles such as trust (Kim, 2001; Yang, 2007). The Bruning and Ledingham (1999) scale on attitudes toward an organization focuses on a multiple item scale including trust, openness, involvement, and commitment. International research in this tradition has also explored how the application of dialogic relational principles could have important consequences for organizations’ abilities to build social capital and trust with their publics. Bruning et al. (2008), for example, have shown that dialogic relationships are key for gaining positive organizational outcomes. They conducted a survey among citizens of municipal governments, applying Bruning and Galloway’s (2003) OPR scale, focusing on three of Kent and Taylor’s dialogic tenets namely, mutuality, propinquity, and empathy. They found that relationship attitudes influence a specific behavioral outcome—that is, the level of support that a public may provide to an organization. These results demonstrate quantitatively that effective relationship building links to important organizational outcomes, and suggest that organizations benefit when public relations practitioners develop programs and initiatives based upon key public member input, interaction, and participation. (Bruning et al., 2008, p. 29)

They concluded that: “The results from the current investigation also suggest that organizations facilitate relationships best through a dialogic process.” Yang, Kang, and Cha (2015) developed a 28‐item scale of dialogic communication, based on the given theoretical consensus up to date, in order to show that dialogue can contribute to desirable outcomes such as trust. In the authors’ words, “theoretically, previous studies suggest that the perceived quality of OPDC—organization public dialogic communication—is expected to be strongly associated with public evaluation of trust and distrust. This study found empirical

Understanding the Role of Dialogue in Public Sector Communication

297

links between the proposed measure of OPDC and trust/distrust.” In this regard, for example, the openness factor seemed to have much stronger effects on public trust and distrust, because, for example, “a perceived lack of transparency can strongly lead to distrust judgments” (p. 189). However, Yang et al. also stated, “Although there is a wide range of discussion on dialogic communication, or dialogue, little research has dealt with the empirical measurements of ­organization‐public dialogue” (2015, p. 175). The view chimes with Huang and Zhang’s conclusion that “definitive criteria (…) continue to be elusive” (2013, p. 87) because of the multidimensional nature of OPR. There remains much work to be done in the development of clearly defined theoretical constructs that can be used in empirical research focused on dialogue (see Davidson, 2016). The main conceptual and methodological challenges regarding dialogue in PR studies are shared with the OPR literature. Empirical research is still relatively scarce and has focused on developing specific items—scales that allow us to understand how publics assess dialogic relationships with organizations and their consequences for publics’ attitudes and behavioral outcomes such as increases or decreases in levels of trust or in assessments of reputation.

Dialogue in the Public Sector As we have seen, apart from the public relations literature, the meaning and language of “dialogue” are more rarely interrogated or used as such in other communication and public administration traditions. The term dialogue is used as a synonym of participation, debate, discussion, deliberation, and engagement. Its distinctive features as a “special kind of talk” (Dixon, 1996, p. 24), which seeks mutual understanding on the basis of equality and empathy, are often elided into other communication modes. However, the term dialogue is frequently employed by public sector practitioners to describe initiatives in which citizens’ views are sought. As governments and public sector organizations are challenged by a world of complexity and wicked problems, public sector officials see the fostering of dialogue as a way of counteracting the loss of trust in democratic institutions, of improving the quality of decision‐making, and of increasing citizen buy‐in to policy decisions. The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SALAR) used these kinds of rationales to launch in 2006 a project named Engagement and Citizen Dialogue, considering that it would “support representative democracy by creating transparency, improving people’s understanding of the system and developing a collaboration between those who govern and those who are governed” (SALAR n.d., p. 7). SALAR developed specific criteria for dialogue, including respect of differences, clarification of the different roles of those participating in the dialogue, and evaluation of the possibility that the dialogue could affect the decision outcome. Without this last condition, they argued, the dialogue would be equivalent to meaningless debate and discussion, which would be worse than no dialogue at all. Indeed, they advised that (n.d., p. 13): “If the politicians have already made up their minds,” then it is preferable “to refrain from citizen dialogue and instead hold a public information meeting.” The dialogues were employed across various thematic areas, including the key area of how public money should be spent, a model derived from the participatory budgets employing dialogue methods that began in Latin America in the 1980s and are now used across the world. As Lovari and Valentini point out in Chapter 21, the development of social media has been a significant driver for facilitating participatory dialogue with citizens. Linders (2012) goes further in suggesting that social media are contributing to the development of “we‐government” in which crowdsourcing and co‐production contribute to policy‐making. The UK Government Communication Service (GCS), prominent in the employment of digital media in government communication, announced in its report on the future of public service communications that the “top down ‘broadcast’ mode of communications is over” (2015, p. 9). One of the GCS

298

Karen B. Sanders and Elena Gutiérrez‐García

report’s major conclusions was that “communication must be built around the citizen” (2015, p. 4), and in order to achieve this, public service communicators must seek to avoid the emergence of a gap between “online conversations and what happens in spaces less frequented by public policy professionals, both online and offline” (2015, p. 22). There is, however, a tension in the British GCS approach to dialogue. While emphasizing the need for more two‐way and collaborative communication with citizens, there is also a drive to apply the lessons of behavioral science and the insights of big data to identify and nudge audiences (2015, p. 2). The move to incorporate nudge theory into citizen communication would appear to run counter to an understanding of dialogue as “a process of mutual understanding that emerges when participants treat each other with equality, not coercion, and when they listen empathically to one another’s concerns in order to probe their fundamental assumptions and world views” (Roberts, 2002, p. 660). Indeed, at times, the term dialogue seems to be employed by public sector officials as a totemic word for communication activities that may be better described by other terminology. The European Commission, for example, initiated in 2012 its Citizens’ Dialogues about the future of the European public space. These events, organized in cities across the European Union, staged townhall‐style meetings in which EU citizens were encouraged to discuss the future of the European Union. It was unclear, however, whether the Citizens’ Dialogues produced any new understanding or any real‐world outcome.

Research and Practical Challenges for the Future The study of dialogue and its practical implementation in public sector communication is faced by a number of challenges. We highlight four: 1 The development of a commonly understood and defined conceptual framework. Notwithstanding the progress of scholarship particularly in the PR field, more clarification of the core features of dialogue is still required, as well as an understanding of how or whether these features play out differently in diverse organizational contexts. This will allow all types of organizations—public sector organizations, nonprofits, and not just corporates—to be explored, compared, and benchmarked. 2 Map the “dialogic reality” of public sector communication. Public sector communicators state that they aim to make their communication more citizen‐centric. Dialogue is an essential part of this aim. However, dialogue is not just about implementing engagement tools such as social media nor implementing research on item—scales in OPR studies conducted through surveys of diverse publics. It is also about how organizational leaders deal with dialogue inside and outside of their organizations and how they prioritize the training that public officials receive in understanding what dialogue involves. Public sector communicators could lead in mapping the dialogic reality of their organization’s communication architecture to identify capacity and training gaps. 3 Adopt standardized engagement/dialogue processes. Establishing effective dialogue is a complex challenge for management practice in the public sector. In the private sector, it has become a key topic for managers due to concerns about issues such as sustainability and human rights. Dialogic engagement with stakeholders is seen as a way of helping companies to deal with social and environmental challenges and expectations (see O’Riordan, 2017). One influential approach to operationalizing engagement—which implies dialogue—is the AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard (AccountAbility, 2015), which is intended to be applied to all types of organizations, public and private. Engagement is defined as “the process used by an organization to engage relevant stakeholders for a clear purpose to achieve agreed outcomes” (AccountAbility, 2015, p. 5). Organizations are expected to report on their commitment to dialogue and, in this regard, transparency and accountability become

Understanding the Role of Dialogue in Public Sector Communication

299

crucial. The Global Reporting Initiative standards require organizations to provide a list of stakeholders engaged and report on how they were identified and selected, the frequency of engagement by type of stakeholder group, the key topics and concerns that have been raised in the engagement process, and how the organization has responded to them. It is an approach the public sector could use to ensure greater accountability to citizens. 4 Evaluate dialogue’s outcomes for public goods. Some research shows that dialogic organizational practices have positive consequences for public goods such as social capital, publics’ trust in and awareness of public affairs, the ability of citizens and organizations to make informed decisions, and the legitimacy of the public sector for citizens (see Davidson, 2016; Kent & Taylor, 2016; O’Hair et al., 2011; Willis, 2015). More work is required to understand under what conditions dialogue contributes to public sector communication, which is more open, transparent, accountable, respectful, and responsive than would be the case in its absence.

References Aalberg, T., Esser, F., Reinemann, C., Strömbäck, J., & de Vreese, C. H. (Eds.) (2017). Populist political communication in Europe. London, UK: Routledge. AccountAbility. (2015). AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard. AccountAbility. Retrieved from https://www.accountability.org/wp‐content/uploads/2016/10/AA1000SES_2015.pdf Anderson, R., Baxter, L. A., & Cissna, K. N. (2004). Texts and contexts of dialogue. In R. Anderson, L. A. Baxter, & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Dialogue. Theorizing difference in communication studies (pp. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Avidar, R. (2013). The responsiveness pyramid: Embedding responsiveness and interactivity into public relations theory. Public Relations Review, 39(5), 440–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pubrev.2013.05.004 Blaschke, S., & Schoeneborn, D. (Eds.) (2017). Organization as communication: Perspectives in dialogue. New York, NY: Routledge. Bohm, D. (1996/2004). On dialogue. London, UK: Routledge. Bruning, S. D., Dials, M., & Shirka, A. (2008). Using dialogue to build organization–public relationships, engage publics, and positively affect organizational outcomes. Public Relations Review, 34(1), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.08.004 Bruning, S. D., & Galloway, T. (2003). Expanding the organization–public relationship scale: Exploring the role that structural and personal commitment play in organization–public relationships. Public Relations Review, 29(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363‐8111(03)00042‐0 Buber, M. (1923/2013). I and thou. London, UK: Bloomsbury. Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Chadwick, A., & Stromer‐Galley, J. (2016). Digital media, power, and democracy in parties and election campaigns: Party decline or party renewal? The International Journal of Press/Politics, 21(3), 283–293. Coombs, T. W., & Holladay, S. J. (2015). Public relations’ “relationship identity” in research: Enlightenment or illusion. Public Relations Review, 41(5), 689–695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.12.008 Cooren, F., Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (2006). Communication as organizing: Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic of text and conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dahlgren, P. (2005). The internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication, 22, 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600590933160 Davidson, S. (2016). Public relations theory: An agonistic critique of the turns to dialogue and symmetry. Public Relations Inquiry, 5(2), 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147X16649007 de Bussy, N. M. (2010). Dialogue as a basis for stakeholder engagement. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of public relations (Vol. 2, pp. 127–144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dekker, R., & Bekkers, V. (2015). The contingency of governments’ responsiveness to the virtual public sphere: A systematic literature review and meta‐synthesis. Government Information Quarterly, 32, 496–505.

300

Karen B. Sanders and Elena Gutiérrez‐García

Dixon, N. M. (1996). Perspective on dialogue: Making talk developmental for individuals and organizations. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. Fairhurst, G. T., & Putnam, L. L. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions. Communication Theory, 14, 5–26. Falkheimer, J. (2014). The power of strategic communication in organizational development. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 6(2/3), 124–133. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS‐01‐2014‐0007 Government Communication Service (July, 2015). The Government Communication Service. The Future of Public Service Communications. Report and Findings. https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/wp‐content/ uploads/2015/09/6.1048_Cabinet‐Office_comms‐future‐document_v2_print_web.pdf Grunig, J. E. (2000). Collectivism, collaboration, and societal corporatism as core professional values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1), 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S1532754XJPRR1201_3 Grunig, J. E. (2006). Furnishing the edifice: Ongoing research on public relations as a strategic management function. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(2), 151–176. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s1532754xjprr1802_5 Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organizations: A Study of Communication Management in Three Countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (2008). Excellence theory in public relations: Past, present, and future. In A. Zerfaß, O. Amsterdamska, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public relations research. European and international perspectives and innovations (pp. 327–347). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐531‐90918‐9_22 Gutiérrez‐García, E., & Recalde, M. (2016). Dialogue for strategic decision‐making processes: An IDEA model. In P. S. Bronn, S. Romenti, & A. Zerfass (Eds.), The management game of communication (pp. 245–263). London, UK: Emerald Group. Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere. Boston, MA: MIT Press. Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., van Ruler, B., Verčič, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2007). Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(1), 3–35. Hon, L., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: Institution for Public Relations. Huang, Y.‐H. C., & Zhang, Y. (2013). Revisiting organization–public relations research over the past decade: Theoretical concepts, measures, methodologies and challenges. Public Relations Review, 39(1), 85–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.10.001 Janssen, M., & van den Voort, H. (2016). Adaptive governance: Towards a stable, accountable and responsive government. Government Information Quarterly, 33, 1–5. Johnston, K. A. (2014). Public relations and engagement: Theoretical imperatives of a multidimensional concept. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 381–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1062726X.2014.959863 Kang, M. (2014). Understanding public engagement: Conceptualizing and measuring its influence on supportive behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 399–416. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/1062726X.2014.956107 Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37. Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2016). From homo economicus to homo dialogicus: Rethinking social media use in CSR communication. Public Relations Review, 42(1), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pubrev.2015.11.003 Ki, E.‐J., & Ye, L. (2017). An assessment of progress in research on global public relations from 2001 to 2014. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.12.005 Kim, Y. (2001). Searching for the organization‐public relationship: A valid and reliable instrument. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 799–815. Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532754 XJPRR1502_4 Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of organization–public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24, 55–65. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000a). A longitudinal study of organization‐public relationship dimensions: Defining the role of communication in practice of relationship management.

Understanding the Role of Dialogue in Public Sector Communication

301

In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 55–69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000b). Public relations as relationship management: a relational approach to the study and practice of public relations. LEA’s communication series. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Linders, D. (2012). From e‐government to we‐government: Defying a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003 Macnamara, J. (2016). Organisational listening. The missing essential in public communication. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Macnamara, J. (2018). Public relations and post‐communication: Addressing a paradox in public communication. Public Relations Journal, 11(3), 1–20. Retrieved from https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/ bitstream/10453/122293/1/PR and Post‐Communication.pdf Makki, M. (2012). Evaluating arctic dialogue: A case study of stakeholder relations for sustainable oil and gas development. Journal of Sustainable Development, 5(3), 34–45. Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Stakeholder communication strategies. In M. Morsing & S. C. Beckmann (Eds.), Strategic CSR communication (pp. 135–160). Copenhagen: DOJF Publishing. Murphy, A. G., & Eisenberg, E. M. (2011). Coaching to the craft: Understanding knowledge in health care organizations. In H. E. Canary & R. D. McPhee (Eds.), Communication and organizational knowledge: Contemporary issues for theory and practice (pp. 264–284). New York/London: Routledge. Mykkänen, M., & Vos, M. (2015). The contribution of public relations to organizational decision making: Insights from the literature. Public Relations Journal, 9(2). http://www.prsa.org/Intelligence/ PRJournal/Vol9/No2/ O’Hair, H. D., Kelley, K. M., & Williams, K. L. (2011). Managing community risks through a community‐ communication infrastructure approach. In H. E. Canary & R. D. McPhee (Eds.), Communication and organizational knowledge: Contemporary issues for theory and practice (pp. 223–243). New York/ London: Routledge. O’Riordan, L. (2017). Managing sustainable stakeholder relationships. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐319‐50240‐3 Paquette, M., Sommerfeldt, E. J., & Kent, M. L. (2015). Do the ends justify the means? Dialogue, development communication, and deontological ethics. Public Relations Review, 41(1), 30–39. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.10.008 Pearson, R. (1989a). Beyond ethical relativism in public relations: Coorientation, rules, and the idea of communication symmetry. Public Relations Research Annual, 1(1–4), 67–86. https://doi.org/10. 1207/s1532754xjprr0101‐4_3 Pearson, R. (1989b). Business ethics as communication ethics: Public relations practice and the idea of dialogue. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 111–131). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pieczka, M. (2011). Public relations as dialogic expertise? Journal of Communication Management, 15(2), 108–124. Putnam, L. L., & Nicotera, A. M. (2009). Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication. New York/London: Routledge. Roberts, N. C. (2002). Keeping public official accountable through dialogue; resolving the accountability paradox. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 658–669. Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (n.d.). 11 thoughts about citizens dialogue in local government. The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. Stockholm. https://skl.se/download/18. a827c16146db10f89a46c29/1404398802317/11‐Thoughts‐about‐citizen‐dialogue‐SALAR.pdf. Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384 398. Theunissen, P., & Wan Noordin, W. N. (2012). Revisiting the concept “dialogue” in public relations. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.09.006 Toth, E. L. (Ed.) (2006). The future of excellence in public relations and communication management: Challenges for the next generation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Vaccari, C., Chadwick, A., & O’Loughlin, B. (2015). Dual screening the political: Media events, social media, and citizen engagement. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 1041–1061. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12187

302

Karen B. Sanders and Elena Gutiérrez‐García

Van der Wal, Z. (2017). The 21st century public manager. Challenges, people and strategies. London, UK: Palgrave. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Willis, P. (2015). Preach wine and serve vinegar: Public relations, relationships and doublethink. Public Relations Review, 41(5), 681–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.02.004 Willis, P. (2016). From humble inquiry to humble intelligence: Confronting wicked problems and augmenting public relations. Public Relations Review, 42(2), 306–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pubrev.2015.05.007 Xenos, M., & Foot, K. (2005). Politics as usual, or politics unusual? Position taking and dialogue on campaign websites in the 2002 U.S. elections. Journal of Communication, 55(1), 169–185. Yang, S.‐U. (2007). An integrated model for organization—public relational outcomes, organizational reputation, and their antecedents. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 91–121. https://doi. org/10.1080/10627260701290612 Yang, S.‐U., Kang, M., & Cha, H. (2015). A study on dialogic communication, trust, and distrust: Testing a scale for measuring organization–public dialogic communication (OPDC). Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2015.1007998

20

Public Sector Communication and Citizen Expectations and Satisfaction Vilma Luoma‐aho, Laura Olkkonen, and María‐José Canel

Introduction Citizen expectations change as society changes. As technology enables increased interaction and politics emphasize citizen activity, the myth of the passive citizen is giving way to citizens who ideally are “an active part of a common solution to social problems, bringing experiential expertise and local knowledge” (Durose, Justice, & Skelcher, 2015, p. 139). Though not all citizens are active, they all have expectations and experiences that frame their interactions, attitudes, and behavior directed at public sector organizations (Morgeson, 2012). In fact, citizen experiences are formed when events are assessed against citizens’ expectations, a process that gives the tacit, subconscious cues that we call “expectations” a central role in shaping the way in which individual citizens perceive public organizations’ actions and communication (Castelo et  al., 2015; Dolan, Hallsworth, Halpern, King, & Vlaev, 2010). Expectations also contribute to citizens’ perceptions about public service quality, and thus expectations that are too high may actually backfire as citizens experience lower levels of satisfaction (Font & Navarro, 2013; Poister & Thomas, 2011) or a loss of trust, while the organization experiences a loss of reputational capital (Luoma‐aho, 2007). Currently, traditional forms of mediatization and bureaucratic organization (Fredriksson, Schillemans, & Pallas, 2015) are coming up against an emerging social media logic (Van Dijck & Poell, 2013) that shapes not only how individuals expect organizations to respond and communicate, but also what is desirable. There is an urgent call for public sector organizations to move from “an architecture of speaking” toward “an architecture of listening” (Macnamara, 2015, p. 6), which makes transparency increasingly important for public sector communication. This further emphasizes the importance of citizen expectations and citizen satisfaction, as they set the future tone for all public sector performance and planning (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2018). The preservation of an organization’s legitimacy depends on that organization’s ability to identify, comprehend, and respond to the demands of its diverse stakeholder groups (Gardberg & Fombrun, 2006). Both what is expected of the organization and what the organization is willing to deliver need to be constantly negotiated between organizations and their stakeholders (Luoma‐aho & Paloviita, 2010).

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

304

Vilma Luoma‐aho, Laura Olkkonen, and María‐José Canel

But why is exploring citizens’ expectations relevant for public sector organizations and their communication? While citizen satisfaction has long been an area of research, citizen expectations are newer on the agenda (Van Ryzin, 2004), despite the importance they have for public organizations’ development. There is consensus in the research literature that citizens’ expectations about public sector performance shape their overall satisfaction with the public sector and its services (James, 2009; Luoma‐aho, Olkkonen, & Lähteenmäki, 2013; Poister & Thomas, 2011; Roch & Poister, 2006; Van Ryzin, 2004, 2006). In fact, the level of satisfaction shapes not only the attitudes of citizens but also their behavior (James & John, 2007; Thijs & Staes, 2008). Citizens’ expectations of the public sector influence whether they remain loyal, cease to engage with a service, or voice their dissatisfaction (Hirschman, 1970), and hence managing expectations is of strategic value. If citizen satisfaction can be improved by managing what has been referred to as “normative expectations” (Summers & Granbois, 1977), it is less likely that citizens will vote against those in charge of public services or complain about services (Boyne, James, John, & Petrovsky, 2009; Dowding & John, 2008; James & John, 2007). Research suggests that positive expectations are negatively related to complaints about public services and voting against incumbents because positive expectations relate to the performance that citizens think they will experience if they use a service. Positive expectations are positively related to service use for the same reason, and citizens choose services that they have high positive expectations about in situations in which they can select from between available services (James, 2011, pp. 1421–1422). Thus, the topic of citizens’ expectations is one of great interest for public sector communication research and practice. This chapter is divided into two main sections: The first explores the notion of citizen expectations, providing definitions of different types of expectations. Since scholarly research has found an intrinsic connection between expectations and citizen satisfaction, this latter notion and its interplay with citizen expectations are examined. The disciplinary context, methods, frames, and models for citizen expectations research, as well as major research findings, are also set out. The second section explores what a more elaborate understanding of citizen expectations can add to communication management, describing both the theoretical relevance of the topic to public sector communication as well as the communication performance dimension in relation to prerequisites, constraints, and effects on organizational culture, with a consideration of practical implications for public managers. The chapter concludes with a brief look at major challenges, critiques, unanswered questions, and future research in this area.

Defining Citizen Expectations According to Luoma‐aho and Olkkonen (2016, p. 303), “Expectations are mental models that affect the formation of relationships that individuals and stakeholders have with each other, organizations and brands.” Expectations can refer to behaviors expected of the organization (Coye, 2004), and they act as reference points for future assessments (Creyer & Ross, 1997) guiding citizens’ perceptions of the organization or service (Luoma‐aho et al., 2013). Expectations can have diverse origins such as values, available information, previous experiences, or personal interests (Olkkonen & Luoma‐aho, 2015). As a result, they are a rich phenomenon.

Types of Citizen Expectations Research in organizational communication and public relations has linked meeting expectations to the ability to shape stakeholders’ attitudes, motivation, behavior, and satisfaction toward the organization, which explains why organizations perceive positive expectations as a valuable resource. Based on both planned and unplanned cues (Coye, 2004), expectations filter information about (a) whether events are desirable or undesirable from the citizen’s point of view and

Public Sector Communication and Citizen Expectations and Satisfaction

305

(b) how likely it is that the event will occur (James, 2009; Olkkonen & Luoma‐aho, 2014, 2015; Poister & Thomas, 2011; Van Ryzin, 2006). Thus, there are normative and predictive elements in expectations. The predictive element in expectations relates to likelihood, and it describes what will probably occur. Therefore, expectations as predictive constructions describe an estimation of what will happen (Summers & Granbois, 1977). In the case of the public sector, predictive expectations can concern issues that are related to, for example, public decision‐making processes or the variety of services provided. The normative element of expectations relates to what is considered as desirable or valued (what should or ought to be) by the stakeholders who are forming the expectations (Summers & Granbois, 1977). Normative expectations are more static than predictive expectations, and they can take different levels, relating to, for example, what is considered the least acceptable level (minimum expectations, Miller, 1977; or must expectations, Olkkonen & Luoma‐aho, 2014). These are the minimum requirements for public sector organizations to fulfill; examples of such obligations include maintaining stability in society and providing certain basic services such as health care. Normative expectations can also take place at a level that is considered possible with current resources (Summers & Granbois, 1977). For the public sector, these may relate to topics such as the electoral process or certain public sector services such as nuclear safety or education. Finally, normative expectations may relate to what is considered the ideal state of affairs (Miller, 1977) or to what the state of affairs could be (Olkkonen & Luoma‐ aho, 2014). These expectations take place on the highest level, representing wants and needs such as citizens’ good experiences of public service providers. When there is a gap between reality and expectations, the influence of the media on citizens’ perceptions increases (Park & Blenkinsopp, 2011). As seeking to renew positive emotions and avoiding repeats of negative ones are embedded in human behavior, stakeholders may attempt to prevent future disappointments by intentionally adjusting their (predictive) expectations to a lower level. In practice, intentionally lowered expectations can relate to problems with trust and transparency, such as when corruption is perceived to obstruct public processes (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2018; Nigro & Gonzales Cisaro, 2014; Park & Blenkinsopp, 2011). In fact, transparency as a value is “likely to change the relation between citizens and authorities” as citizens expect more from public sector communication (Holzner & Holtzner, 2006, p. 114).

Citizen Expectations and Citizen Satisfaction Citizen satisfaction can be understood as an intangible, multidimensional construct that includes citizen approval of public sector actions and the public sector’s fulfillment of citizens’ needs and its meeting of citizens’ expectations (Cappelli, Guglielmetti, Mattia, Merli, & Renzi, 2010; Nigro & Gonzales Cisaro, 2014). It is a measure of the level of pleasure that citizens feel and an emotional reaction to a specific transaction (Oludele, Emilie, & Mandisa, 2012). In light of expectations, satisfaction depends on how well the actual experiences meet the level that was expected, as is explained by Oliver (1980, p. 461). Satisfaction is generally examined on two levels: 1 The general level of satisfaction overall; 2 The more specific level of satisfaction in relation to individual services and products. Although these two levels often overlap, and although it may be difficult for individual citizens to distinguish them in practice, it is possible that on one level there is satisfaction while simultaneously on the other there is dissatisfaction. Such cases are often reported, for example, by citizens who are dissatisfied overall with the public sector or the political system at large but actually assess their personal experiences with certain public sector services as quite good (Thijs & Staes, 2008). Thus, citizen satisfaction is understood to be a “combination of general and subjective

306

Vilma Luoma‐aho, Laura Olkkonen, and María‐José Canel Citizen satisfaction

+

Citizen dissatisfaction

Personal or mediated citizen experiences with public sector organizations and public services

–

Citizen Expectations (conscious) +

– Citizen Expectations (unconscious)

Figure 20.1  The link between expectations and satisfaction.

assessments of the experiences people have with public services, which include not only feelings or opinions about ‘objective services’ but also judgmental evaluations” (Im & Lee, 2011, p. 2). Satisfaction consists of “different constituent elements identified by the various aspects of the service” (Cappelli et al., 2010, p. 270). The interplay of expectations and satisfaction is complex. In view of Oliver’s (1980, p. 460) assertion that “satisfaction increases as the performance/expectation ratio increases,” understanding citizen expectations is important for public sector organizations that hope to ensure that they have satisfied citizens. While not all citizens are even aware of their expectations before they are disappointed or gaps emerge (Sethi, 1979), research has shown a link between unmet expectations and citizens’ level of satisfaction with public sector services (Font & Navarro, 2013; James, 2009). Satisfaction is understood to be “a function of an initial standard and some perceived discrepancy from the initial reference point” (Oliver, 1980, p. 460), with that “initial reference point” often understood to be expectations. In fact, US‐based research suggests that citizens’ expectations play a larger role in determining satisfaction at the federal level than they do at the local level, and this may be explained partly by the priming effect of citizens’ intensive practical experiences (e.g., filing taxes) on directing their expectations toward more realistic levels (Morgeson, 2012). Consequently, citizens’ more realistic expectations are easily met. Figure 20.1 shows the positive and negative extremes and the interrelated nature of expectations and satisfaction. Dissatisfaction or satisfaction arise from experiences that are evaluated based on unconscious and conscious expectations. Reality often falls somewhere in between, and citizens may hold simultaneous and overlapping expectations of both positive and negative kinds, and experiences blend together both forms.

Disciplinary Context, Methods, and Models for Citizen Expectations Research Citizen expectations are relevant in democracies, where the system—ideally, at least—has been set up for the people by the people. Studies focused on citizen expectations and satisfaction draw on various disciplines, and research on them crosses the traditional boundaries of political science, marketing, interpersonal communication, public administration, corporate and organizational communication, public relations, and sociology. Outside the area of public sector communication, expectations, satisfaction, and their impact on relationships have been considered in interpersonal communication research (e.g., Thomlison, 2000) as well as in customer management and customer satisfaction studies, where the focus has been on how customers evaluate and judge satisfaction. The public relations literature examines the issue of expectations through the prism of relationship building, since meeting expectations is essential for the continuation of relationships between organizations and stakeholders (Olkkonen & Luoma‐aho, 2014).

Public Sector Communication and Citizen Expectations and Satisfaction

307

Regarding the research methods that have been deployed to examine citizen expectations and satisfaction, more measures have been developed for the latter than for the former. Most often, satisfaction is measured through survey tools developed for specific cases and contexts, and the results obtained are not generalizable. On the global level, there are cross‐national surveys covering satisfaction, such as the European Social Survey. Works on citizen satisfaction have become more prominent in the past 20 years as the total quality management paradigm has gained ground. Satisfaction is usually viewed as a measure ranging from satisfied to dissatisfied. Typical approaches to measuring citizen satisfaction include surveys that may involve (i) comparison and benchmarking; (ii) analysis of key drivers, or (iii) analysis of importance (Nigro & Gonzales Cisaro, 2014). As with all measurements of human subjects, surveys on citizen satisfaction and expectations may or may not measure reality and are subject to priming, framing, and other biases (Van de Walle & Van Ryzin, 2011). The combination of expectations and satisfaction has been tested through the expectancy disconfirmation model (EDM) (Van Ryzin, 2004), which combines four measures: (a) expectations about the overall quality of public services, (b) perception of overall quality, (c) confirmation or disconfirmation of prior expectations, and (d) overall citizen satisfaction (Morgeson, 2012). The measures chosen depend on the context of citizen satisfaction. Most studies of service quality or public sector service satisfaction take the approach of measuring satisfaction, lack of satisfaction, and dissatisfaction with some form of public service (Park & Blenkinsopp, 2011). Often, satisfaction is measured in comparison with the quality criteria set for the public sector organization or service in question (Thijs & Staes, 2008), but more tangible measures also exist and are used in cases such as measuring satisfaction with a specific locality or city (Zenker, Petersen, & Aholt, 2013). Individuals search for logical and causal explanations for events and the behavior of organizations and other individuals. Citizens aim to predict future events by comparing the likelihood that they will occur with their previous personal experiences. These experiences make for a form of internal frames, and these filter information and portray it in the context of a certain environment, helping citizens make sense of the events and the situation. Evaluations are made as to whether the behavior or event meets the broad general anticipation of societal and cultural norms and whether it matches the detailed case‐related individual experiences and previous knowledge (Luoma‐aho & Olkkonen, 2016). Trust is often a key variable when it comes to explaining or contributing to measures of citizen satisfaction (Park & Blenkinsopp, 2011), and it is also central to citizen expectations. Trust is based on the positive expectations that one has concerning the intentions or behavior of another person (Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998) and on the subjectively judged likelihood that this person will not act in a manner contrary to one’s expectations (Nooteboom, Berger, & Noorderhaven, 1997). Trust in government or public services (and, by association, expectations) is measured through citizens’ subjective judgments that are based on their experience of how the government is meeting their needs (Park & Blenkinsopp, 2011). The major method used is surveys such as the Edelman Trust Barometer, which goes beyond individual country case studies and provides data for comparative research. Trust and satisfaction are frequently found together; trust is seen to be generated when a relational partner meets expectations, with this in turn reinforcing future positive expectations and generating a feeling of satisfaction (Olkkonen & Luoma‐aho, 2014, p. 4). Another variable contributing to the measurement of citizen expectations and satisfaction is citizen assessment of governmental public policy performance. Formal systems of published performance assessment produced by auditors, inspectors, and other bodies generate data about outcomes, efficiency, and effectiveness that can affect people’s expectations. James and Moseley (2014) tested the effects of information provided by local authorities regarding public services on citizens’ expectations, satisfaction, and assessments, and their study highlights the importance of field experiments in understanding citizens.

308

Vilma Luoma‐aho, Laura Olkkonen, and María‐José Canel

A growing research area uses the EDM (Oliver, 1980), which combines expectations with actual assessments and satisfaction (Morgeson, 2012; Van Ryzin, 2004). The EDM combines pre‐ and postservice expectations with performance‐based confirmation or disconfirmation of the expectations, resulting in satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the experience (Morgeson, 2012). Within the research field of public relations, expectations are connected to areas such as issues management, risk perception, and reputation (Olkkonen & Luoma‐aho, 2014). As satisfaction is often related to a specific service, citizen satisfaction research has taken its lead from marketing approaches such as the total quality management model (Pollitt, Pollitt, Van Thiel, & Homburg, 2007). However, researchers do not agree as to whether these business‐oriented concepts and ideals are suited to the public sector (Wæraas & Maor, 2015). In fact, as expectations and satisfaction are intangible constructs, they are always context dependent, and as intangibles, the challenges include “inseparability between production and consumption, perishability and heterogeneity” (Carvalho, Brito, & Cabral, 2010).

Research Findings on Citizen Expectations A growing trend in citizen expectations research is to put the customer (Mickelsson, 2013) or citizen (Bourgon, 2009) at the center of the exchange or relationship, and as has been mentioned, a key issue here is the relation between expectations and satisfaction. Although there is a connection between the two, public service quality does not necessarily lead to satisfaction: there is a complex interplay between reality, perceptions, and expectations (Bouckaert, Kampen, Maddens, & Van de Walle, 2002; Carmeli & Tishler, 2005; van de Walle & Bouckaert, 2003, p. 892). Research usually finds gaps between what managers think their performance is and what citizens (their stakeholders) think it actually is (Sanders & Canel, 2015). Gaps are even found between citizens’ perceptions and perceptions of auditors and inspectors of services (James & Moseley, 2014). Extremely satisfied or dissatisfied citizens are more susceptible to the impact of expectations than are those in the middle range of satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The extremes, both positive and negative, seem to have a stronger association with positive expectations than mid‐range performance does (James, 2011). In fact, it appears to be the case that the higher the expectation, the higher the possibility of dissatisfaction (James, 2009). This dynamic highlights the need to maintain neutral levels of reputation in the public sector and means that excellence might not be the most appropriate goal (Luoma‐aho, 2007). Citizens’ expectations often stem from their experiences at the local level of public services and the prior performance of local government (James, 2011). Where expectations are met, the predicted probability of dissatisfaction is very low compared to the predicted probability of satisfaction. In fact, “declining trust will create an environment of deflated expectations that in turn may prove detrimental to citizen satisfaction” (Morgeson, 2012, p. 15). Although researchers agree that met expectations reduce citizens’ dissatisfaction, they do not necessarily increase citizen satisfaction. There is a difference between meeting expectations and exceeding them, as it has been argued that exceeding the expected quality has a more direct positive effect on citizen satisfaction (Van Ryzin, 2006). The role of public sector employees is yet another perspective that has been explored (Perry & Porter, 1982). These street‐level civil servants are believed to shape citizens’ experiences and expectations more than organizations do, as public sector employees often make the practical policy decisions that affect individual citizens and their lives the most (Lipsky, 2010). Employee research has found support for both similarities and differences between private and public sector settings when it comes to employee motivation for work and service (Goulet & Frank, 2002). The major difference appears to be that public sector employees, when compared to private sector employees, are less motivated by monetary rewards (Belle & Cantarelli, 2015), highlighting their high morale and motivation to serve citizens. This insight forms a good foundation for

Public Sector Communication and Citizen Expectations and Satisfaction

309

building a relationship characterized by realistic and positive expectations, as perceptions as to whether authorities are ethical and trustworthy have been linked with citizen expectations toward the organizations that the authorities represent (Luoma‐aho, 2005). There are mixed findings in relation to the question of whether expectations about participation shape citizen satisfaction for better or worse. As for participatory mechanisms (e.g., public hearings, citizen juries, and participatory budgeting), Font and Navarro (2013) note that direct experience of these processes led to a more negative evaluation of their performance relative to the higher expectations held by those who were unfamiliar with them. On the other hand, reports on citizen satisfaction tend to argue that citizens award better evaluations to and expect more from services that they have experienced personally (Thijs & Staes, 2008).

Citizen Expectations and Public Sector Communication How Do Citizen Expectations Shape the Relationship Between Citizens and Public Sector Organizations? Citizen expectations and satisfaction are understood to be formed mostly in the context of relationships or, rather, pseudorelationships (Gutek, 2000), in which citizens can identify a service or an organization but not necessarily the corresponding individual public servant or provider (Carvalho et al., 2010). A pseudorelationship between citizens and public sector organizations consists of successive encounters and episodes during which citizens’ experiences evolve (Gutek, 2000), with both satisfactory and unsatisfactory episodes often occurring (Carvalho et al., 2010). It is hence possible for citizens to be simultaneously satisfied and dissatisfied with public sector organizations and their services. Some have suggested that citizen satisfaction will be higher when individual services are mentioned than it will be when public services in general are the focus (Thijs & Staes, 2008), but recent research has noted the importance of question order and priming on reported satisfaction levels (Van de Walle & Van Ryzin, 2011). The context within which expectations and satisfaction form can be understood to consist of three parties: the citizen, the public sector organization, and society with its diverse stakeholders (Carvalho et al., 2010). In practice, several other aspects feed into the relationship, including the media, other citizens, situational factors, the societal setting, and the level of democracy, as well as priming and context (Nigro & Gonzales Cisaro, 2014; Olkkonen & Luoma‐aho, 2015; Thijs & Staes, 2008; Van de Walle & Van Ryzin, 2011).

Citizen Expectations and Their Theoretical Relevance to Public Sector Communication Communication is often listed as a source of dissatisfaction in relation to the public sector, despite its central function in enabling democracy in public services (Luoma‐aho & Canel, 2016). Some have even suggested that citizen dissatisfaction results from unmanaged or false expectations. There are findings that suggest that information provision on specific public services’ prior performance (such as number of citizens helped or complaints processed) influences citizens’ expectations (James, 2011). The level at which citizens expect public sector organizations to communicate shapes their satisfaction and their assessment of, for example, the organization’s reputation (Sanders & Canel, 2015). Early research on expectations and satisfaction lists communication as one of the three central factors in shaping individual experiences. Borrowing from adaptation phenomena, Oliver (1980, p. 461) argues that expectations are influenced by the product or service itself based on prior experience, connotations, symbols, and “the context including the content of communications from sales people and social referents,” as well as on other individual characteristics such as the individual’s susceptibility to persuasion.

310

Vilma Luoma‐aho, Laura Olkkonen, and María‐José Canel

There are often discrepancies between what public sector organizations and local governments think about their reputation on the one hand and what citizens think on the other, but the cause‐and‐effect relations are complex, as experiences are intangible and volatile. However, once citizens’ have established views on the public sector—for example, opinions on the reputation of specific sectors—these positions seem to remain quite stable over time (Luoma‐aho, 2008). Citizen expectations and satisfaction are crucial elements for public sector communication, as they either facilitate or prohibit public sector communication. In fact, communication plays a dual role in priming citizen expectations to a realistic level and ensuring satisfaction through sufficient disclosure and dialogue (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2018). Priming is important, as the content of information and the emotions associated with it shape citizen perceptions: satisfaction increases if citizens receive positive information about public services (James, 2011). If public sector organizations’ communication does not reflect citizen expectations, satisfaction decreases (Poister & Thomas, 2011). Expectations and biases establish the way in which citizens “hear” public sector organizations and their communication.

Communicating in the Public Sector by Taking Citizens’ Expectations into Account All communication requires interaction, and as long as public sector organizations control the communication process and merely issue their own messages instead of listening, citizen satisfaction may remain difficult to achieve (Macnamara, 2015). Existing human biases such as negativity bias (Dolan et  al., 2010) easily turn satisfaction levels negative, and this poses several challenges for public sector communicators (Olsen, 2015). Moreover, the news criteria for legacy media still hold negativity as central, and as the new media environment and social media context have made it easier for citizens to share their experience, public sector organizations face the challenge of keeping up with citizen expectations. But measures of citizen satisfaction and citizen expectations, as is the case with most measures, may threaten to become aims in themselves and drive public sector organizations to base their behavior solely on them. Ideal citizen satisfaction results from truly meeting citizen needs, but if these needs are established through communication, a new challenge emerges: How do we truly know whether expectations are being shaped and set by actual needs or by public sector communication?

Practical Implications for Public Sector Managers As the standards of what citizens are satisfied with or expect can change over time (Oliver, 1980) and vary between different stakeholder groups (Gardberg & Fombrun, 2006), citizens’ expectations should be continually monitored for changes. The study of citizen expectations contributes to a specific communication culture and can inspire four specific practices. First, governments can gain strategic advantages by using expectation management to strengthen communication management. An organization with good expectation management has a better chance of matching its behavior with its communication, thus avoiding the creation of unintended or misleading expectations (Olkkonen & Luoma‐aho, 2014). Research could provide governments with route maps for authorities to communicate to citizens what can be expected from specific public policies at certain times and in particular contexts. Second, monitoring different types of citizen expectations about public policies might help identify and calibrate gaps between what citizens expect and what they actually experience. Previous studies have suggested establishing a “fix or fit” matrix to help public managers distinguish what to do with mismatched expectations in practice. “Fix” refers to cases where the

Public Sector Communication and Citizen Expectations and Satisfaction

311

organization needs to calibrate its stakeholders’ expectations through improved communication to better match its actions, whereas “fit” refers to the organization changing itself to correspond more effectively to existing expectations (see, Luoma‐aho et al., 2013). Such a matrix would also help organizations respond to societal pressures and to the public’s concerns about organizations. One task in expectation management is to aid publics in expressing their expectations, since a known expectation can be responded to (Olkkonen & Luoma‐aho, 2014). Third, expectation research could also provide guidelines for careful interpretation of citizens’ assessment of government performance. As research has shown, low average satisfaction scores might be due not to low performance but to (mistakenly) high expectations. Similarly, high average satisfaction might be due not to high performance but to low expectations. Expectations need to be taken into account alongside more conventionally understood factors when using satisfaction surveys as a performance measure. Finally, expectations research might help to identify the ideal level of what citizens should be expecting from public services. The worldwide economic crisis of the past decade has made it more difficult for states’ public sectors to invest the resources needed to maintain an excellent reputation, and specific research is required about what attributes public institutions should aim to have (such as efficiency, efficacy, representativeness, impartiality, equity, trustworthiness, reliability, transparency, and accountability). Research could provide governments with guidelines about how to build realistic and adequate citizen expectations about policy areas and public policy outcomes: the more realistic the expectations, the more likely it is that citizen satisfaction will emerge. In the current communication environment, public or private organizations are likely to find it hard to control expectations, but they may benefit from expectation analysis that aims to decipher and understand their stakeholders’ expectations and the ways in which they are formed (Luoma‐aho & Olkkonen, 2016; Olkkonen & Luoma‐aho, 2014). In sum, expectation management implies monitoring publics in order to detect gaps between expectations and performance and assessing the reasons why they emerged, which may include, for example, overpromising or underdelivering. Ultimately, expectation management should make it possible to develop strategic responses that help in maintaining trust and legitimacy (Olkkonen & Luoma‐aho, 2014).

Critiques, Challenges, Unanswered Questions, and Future Research Lines Expectations and satisfaction are elements that will form with or without public sector organizations’ communication. As such, expectations related to and satisfaction felt about public sector services can be manipulated with priming and unethical expectation management efforts. Expectation management also raises ethical challenges related to manipulation in the worst sense of the word: If citizen expectations are artificially kept at a low level, it is easier to exceed them and temporarily raise satisfaction (Thijs & Staes, 2008). One central challenge remains regarding citizens’ experiences and their preexisting information about a topic (Olsen, 2015): Citizen surveys are best administered to citizens who have experience of using the service (Luoma‐aho, 2007). Some have argued that satisfaction is too related to marketing to suit the public sector (Wæraas & Byrkjeflot, 2012). As most satisfaction surveys consist of certain standard statements, the order of items and the framing of words also represent challenges (Van de Walle & Van Ryzin, 2011). It currently seems that the most solid consensus concerning citizen expectations has to do with their complexity and whether there are direct causal relationships between public organizations’ achievements, public policies’ results, communication performance, and citizens’ satisfaction and trust. The major disagreements are based on frequent mixed findings about what

312

Vilma Luoma‐aho, Laura Olkkonen, and María‐José Canel

exactly increases or decreases expectations and, in turn, citizen satisfaction and trust. Scholars also still disagree about exactly how citizen satisfaction can best be measured (Van de Walle & Van Ryzin, 2011) as well as about what creates expectations (James, 2011). From a theoretical perspective, there are many areas to explore. For example, the gap model of service quality (Zeithaml et al., 1993) has not attracted the interest of public sector communication scholars, though the model has been popular in customer satisfaction research, as it measures satisfaction in terms of the “zone of tolerance” between expectations and perceived service. From the interpersonal communication literature, expectancy violation theory may offer fruitful avenues, as it explains the process of how expectations and their fulfillment are assessed (Burgoon, 1993). Finally, as intangible assets, both expectations and satisfaction remain a mystery to some degree as they are individually formed and subject to change. In some cases, even an organization’s best efforts may fail to meet some citizen expectations and achieve full citizen satisfaction. Future research could look into identifying the ideal level of expectations and better utilize existing citizen feedback on end‐user experiences. Moreover, connections between trust and expectations are yet to be discovered, as is the role of expectations in legitimacy building.

References Belle, N., & Cantarelli, P. (2015). Monetary incentives, motivation, and job effort in the public sector: An experimental study with Italian government executives. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35(2), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X13520460 Bourgon, J. (2009). New directions in public administration: Serving beyond the predictable. Public Policy and Administration, 24(3), 309–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076709103813 Boyne, G. A., James, O., John, P., & Petrovsky, N. (2009). Democracy and government performance: Holding incumbents accountable in English local governments. The Journal of Politics, 71(04), 1273– 1284. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609990089 Burgoon, J. K. (1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 12(1–2), 30–48. Canel, M., & Luoma‐aho, V. (2018). Public sector communication. Closing gaps between public sector organizations and citizens. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley‐Blackwell. Cappelli, L., Guglielmetti, R., Mattia, G., Merli, R., & Renzi, M. (2010). Statistical techniques for continuous improvement: A citizen’s satisfaction survey. The TQM Journal, 22(3), 267–284. https://doi. org/10.1108/17542731011035514 Carmeli, A., & Tishler, A. (2005). Perceived organizational reputation and organizational performance: An empirical investigation of industrial enterprises. Corporate Reputation Review, 8(1), 13–30. Carvalho, C., Brito, C., & Cabral, J. (2010). Towards a conceptual model for assessing the quality of public services. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 7(1), 69–86. Castelo, N., Hardy, E., House, J., Mazar, N., Tsai, C., & Zhao, M. (2015). Moving citizens online: Salience and framing as motivators for behavioral change. Journal of Behavioral Science and Policy, 1(2), 57–68. Coye, R. W. (2004). Managing customer expectations in the service encounter. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 15(1), 54–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230410523330 Creyer, E., & Ross, W. T. (1997). The influence of firm behavior on purchase intention: Do consumers really care about business ethics? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(6), 421–432. Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., & Vlaev, I. (2010). MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy. London, UK: Institute for Government, Cabinet Office. Dowding, K., & John, P. (2008). The three exit, three voice and loyalty framework: A test with survey data on local services. Political Studies, 56(2), 288–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9248.2007.00688.x Durose, C., Justice, J., & Skelcher, C. (2015). Governing at an arm’s length: Eroding or enhancing democracy? Policy & Politics, 43(1), 137–153. Font, J., & Navarro, C. (2013). Personal experience and the evaluation of participatory instruments in Spanish cities. Public Administration, 91(3), 616–631. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9299.2012.02106.x Fredriksson, M., Schillemans, T., & Pallas, J. (2015). Determinants of organizational mediatization: An analysis of the adaptation of Swedish government agencies to news media. Public Administration, 93(4), 1049–1067. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12184

Public Sector Communication and Citizen Expectations and Satisfaction

313

Gardberg, N. A., & Fombrun, C. J. (2006). Corporate citizenship: Creating intangible assets across institutional environments. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 329–346. Goulet, L. R., & Frank, M. L. (2002). Organizational commitment across three sectors: Public, non‐profit, and for‐profit. Public Personnel Management, 31(2), 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 009102600203100206 Gutek, B. (2000). Service relationships, pseudo‐relationships, and encounters. In T. Swartz & D. Iacobucci (Eds.), Handbook of services marketing & management (pp. 371–380). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states (Vol. 25). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Holzner, B., & Holtzner, L. (2006). Transparency in global change: The vanguard of the open society. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Im, T., & Lee, S. J. (2011). Does management performance impact citizen satisfaction? The American Review of Public Administration, 42(4), 419–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074011408589 James, O. (2009). Evaluating the expectations disconfirmation and expectations anchoring approaches to citizen satisfaction with local public services. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum034 James, O. (2011). Managing citizens’ expectations of public service performance: Evidence from observation and experimentation in local government. Public Administration, 89(4), 1419–1435. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9299.2011.01962.x James, O., & John, P. (2007). Public management at the ballot box: Performance information and electoral support for incumbent English local governments. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(4), 567–580. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mul020 James, O., & Moseley, A. (2014). Does performance information about public services affect citizens’ perceptions, satisfaction and voice behaviour? Field experiments with absolute and relative performance information. Public Administration, 92(2), 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12066 Lipsky, M. (2010). Street‐level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Luoma‐aho, V. (2005). Faith‐holders as social capital of Finnish public organizations. Jyväskylä, Finland: University of Jyväskylä. Luoma‐aho, V. (2007). Neutral reputation and public sector organizations. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(2), 124–143. Luoma‐Aho, V. (2008). Sector reputation and public organizations. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(5), 446–467. Luoma‐aho, V., & Canel, M. J. (2016). Public sector reputation. In C. Carroll (Ed.), Sage encyclopedia of corporate reputation. Sage. Luoma‐aho, V., & Olkkonen, L. (2016). Expectation management. In C. Carroll (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of corporate reputation (pp. 597–600). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Luoma‐Aho, V., Olkkonen, L., & Lähteenmäki, M. (2013). Expectation management for public sector organizations. Public Relations Review, 39(3), 248–250. Luoma-aho, V., & Paloviita, A. (2010). Actor-networking stakeholder theory for today’s corporate communications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(1), 49–67. Macnamara, J. (2015). Creating an Architecture of listening’ in Organizations. (Research Report No. May). Sydney, NSW: University of Technology Sydney. Mickelsson, K. (2013). Customer activity in service. Journal of Service Management, 24(5), 534–552. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM‐04‐2013‐0095 Miller, J. A. (1977). Studying satisfaction, modifying models, eliciting expectations, posing problems, and making meaningful measurements. In H. K. Hunt (ed.), Conceptualization and Measurement of Consumer Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction, (pp. 72–91). Cambridge, MA Marketing Science Institute. Morgeson, F. V. (2012). Expectations, disconfirmation, and citizen satisfaction with the US federal government: Testing and expanding the model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus012 Nigro, H. O., & Gonzales Cisaro, S. E. (2014). Prediction of citizen satisfaction with local government based on perceptions of physical disorder. Journal of Place Management and Development, 7(2), 153– 175. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMD‐09‐2013‐0021 Nooteboom, B., Berger, H., & Noorderhaven, N. (1997). Effects of trust and governance on relational risk. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 308–338.

314

Vilma Luoma‐aho, Laura Olkkonen, and María‐José Canel

Oliver, R. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460–469. Olkkonen, L., & Luoma‐aho, V. (2014). Public relations as expectation management? Journal of Communication Management, 18(3), 222–239. Olkkonen, L., & Luoma‐Aho, V. L. (2015). Broadening the concept of expectations in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(1), 81–99. Olsen, A. L. (2015). Citizen (dis)satisfaction: An experimental equivalence framing study. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 469–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12337 Oludele, A. A., Emilie, C. K., & Mandisa, P. M. (2012). An analysis of citizen satisfaction with public service delivery in the Sedibeng district municipality of South Africa. International Journal of Social Economics, 39(3), 182–199. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068291211199350 Park, H., & Blenkinsopp, J. (2011). The roles of transparency and trust in the relationship between corruption and citizen satisfaction. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2), 254–274. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0020852311399230 Perry, J. L., & Porter, L. W. (1982). Factors affecting the context for motivation in public organizations. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1982.4285475 Poister, T. H., & Thomas, J. C. (2011). The effect of expectations and expectancy confirmation/disconfirmation on motorists’ satisfaction with state highways. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur004 Pollitt, C., Pollitt, C., Van Thiel, S., & Homburg, V. (2007). New public management in Europe: Adaptation and alternatives. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Roch, C. H., & Poister, T. H. (2006). Citizens, accountability, and service satisfaction: The influence of expectations. Urban Affairs Review, 41(3), 292–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087405281124 Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross‐discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 393–404. Sanders, K., & Canel, M. J. (2015). Mind the gap: Local government communication strategies and Spanish citizens’ perceptions of their cities. Public Relations Review, 41(5), 777–784. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.06.014 Sethi, S. P. (1979). A conceptual framework for environmental analysis of social issues and evaluation of business response patterns. Academy of Management Review, 4(1), 63–74. Summers, J. O., & Granbois, D. H. (1977). Predictive and normative expectations in consumer dissatisfaction and complaining behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 4(1), 155–158. Thijs, N., & Staes, P. (2008). European primer on customer satisfaction management. In 5th European Quality Conference (pp. 20–22). Paris: EUPAN. Thomlison, T. D. (2000). An interpersonal primer with implications for public relations. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 177–203). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Van de Walle, S., & Bouckaert, G. (2003). Public service performance and trust in government: the problem of causality. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(8–9), 891–913. Van de Walle, S., & Van Ryzin, G. (2011). The order of questions in a survey on citizen satisfaction with public services: Lessons from a split‐ballot experiment. Public Administration, 89(4), 1436–1450. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9299.2011.01922.x Van Dijck, J., & Poell, T. (2013). Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication, 1(1), 2–14. Van Ryzin, G. G. (2004). Expectations, performance, and citizen satisfaction with urban services. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(3), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20020 Van Ryzin, G. G. (2006). Testing the expectancy disconfirmation model of citizen satisfaction with local government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(4), 599–611. https://doi. org/10.1093/jopart/mui058 Wæraas, A., & Byrkjeflot, H. (2012). Public sector organizations and reputation management: Five problems. International Public Management Journal, 15(2), 186–206. Wæraas, A., & Maor, M. (Eds.) (2015). Organizational reputation in the public sector. London, United Kingdom: Routledge. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry L. L. & Parasuraman, A. (1993). The nature and determinants of customer expectations of service. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 21(1), 1–12. Zenker, S., Petersen, S., & Aholt, A. (2013). The citizen satisfaction index (CSI): Evidence for a four basic factor model in a German sample. Cities, 31, 156–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities. 2012.02.006

21

Public Sector Communication and Social Media: Opportunities and Limits of Current Policies, Activities, and Practices Alessandro Lovari and Chiara Valentini

Introduction This chapter deals with social media and how it influences the evolution of public sector communication in light of an increasing digitalization and modernization of organizational processes that the sector has been undergoing in late modern societies. Several scholars have noted that social media has brought a number of opportunities to public sector organizations (PSOs), including democratic participation, engagement, coproduction, and crowdsourcing (Bertot, Jaeger, & Hansen, 2012; Bonsón, Torres, Royo, & Flores, 2012). Social media can help PSOs in fostering participatory dialogue and providing a voice in discussions about policy development and implementation. It can be used to engage publics in developing government services through coproduction processes involving public servants and citizens. Coproduction happens when PSOs and citizens work together to create new public services or improve existing ones by offering suggestions through social media conversations. Finally, social media can be used as an online space for crowdsourcing, that is, a virtual environment where multiple actors, publics, public administrators etc. are invited to develop innovative solutions addressing public sectors’ activities by drawing from collective knowledge and experiences. Crowdsourcing represents a high‐involvement activity, since PSOs enable citizens to come up with their own solutions through an open, collaborative approach. In this latter usage, participation is facilitated when PSOs make public data and information available to publics so that they have the necessary knowledge to generate new ideas. Social media has modified public organizations’ services and processes, and it is also changing relationships between PSOs, citizens, and mass media. The impact is evident in administrative procedures, data storage and management, delivery of public services, and communication with strategic publics (Kavanaugh et al., 2012; Mergel, 2015b). Social media has also brought a number of challenges with it, for instance in the areas of privacy, access, security, e-participation, democratization, and engagement (Bertot et al., 2012). Paradoxically, the dialogical nature of social media, which allows PSOs to stimulate civic participation, creates important policy and communication challenges.

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

316

Alessandro Lovari and Chiara Valentini

This chapter offers a review of the major contributions in the area of PSOs and social media. Our aim is to discuss both the opportunities and limits of using social media for public sector communications. The first part of the chapter focuses on the main changes of global communications brought by social media, on the evolution of social media adoption and implementation in the framework of the public sector’s modernization, and on the domestication of these platforms in such organizations. It highlights how social media can be integrated into the public sector, its main uses, and the changes that it is bringing to communication flows. The last part of the chapter deals with critiques of and challenges in adopting social media for public sector communication, as well as with key future research questions.

PSOs in an Era of Social Media The Role of Social Media in Today’s Global Communications Diverse definitions of social media exist, though they have mostly been formulated based on a technological viewpoint and relate to the development of Web 2.0. Others adopt a social perspective to define social media emphasizing the social uses and digital practices enabled by these participatory sites (boyd & Ellison, 2007). In this chapter, social media is defined as internet‐ based applications that allow users to create, exchange, or simply consume user‐generated content—that is, content created, developed, and shared by individuals (Valentini, 2015). Thus, social media comprises several platforms that enable users to have an active role in producing and sharing content on the social Web (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). Examples of social media include, but are not limited to, collaborative projects (e.g., Wikipedia), weblogs (e.g., online diaries), microblogs (e.g., Twitter), video/photo sharing (e.g., YouTube, Instagram), social networking sites (e.g., Facebook), virtual game worlds (e.g., World of Warcraft), and virtual social worlds (e.g., SecondLife). Social media differs from traditional media and other types of digital media in that it is typically built on the idea of social connectivity and user‐generated content (Valentini, 2018). Social connectivity is the state of being connected, and it is the result of how people come together and interact. Today, social media has become a mainstream global phenomenon, and it is changing the way in which people interact and communicate (Valentini, 2018). In 2018, nearly 3.2 billion people around the world, the equivalent of 42% penetration, used social media at least once a month, with more than 95% of them connecting through mobiles and tablets. More than two‐thirds of the world’s population in 2018 used a smartphone to go online. The global number of people using social media grew by 13% between 2017 and 2018, with the fastest gains occurring in Central Asia (+99%) and Southern Asia (+33%) (Wearesocial, 2018). Facebook is the most widely used social media platform, leading the pack in 152 out of 167 countries, and therefore across 91% of the globe (Vincos, 2018). Facebook has only three direct competitors: VKontakte and Odnoklassniki in Russian territories, and QZone in China. Instagram is mostly used in Iran, as Facebook is banned there. Citizens are using social media not only as vehicles for interacting with friends but also as digital devices through which they seek out information on organizations, brands, governments, and institutions. Thus, a particular typology of digital publics, defined as “social digital publics”, has emerged. These are citizens who only use social media and not traditional media or other forms of digital media to become informed and to make their voices heard (Lovari, Kim, Vibber, & Kim, 2011). To respond to people’s increasing demand for information delivered via social media, more and more PSOs are now setting up a presence on the social Web. Indeed, the possibility of disintermediation in communication flows and the opportunity to connect directly with citizens and digital strategic publics (Sedereviciute & Valentini, 2011) are considered the most important reasons for PSOs’ adopting these online platforms.

Public Sector Communication and Social Media

317

Historical and Contextual Frameworks for Social Media Adoption in PSOs It is not possible to generalize about the process of deployment of social media in the public sector, because it is strongly linked to the political and managerial reforms that have occurred at varying speeds and stages in different parts of the world. The “one size fits all” strategy often propagated by gurus, especially for Web 2.0 technologies (Meijer & Thaens, 2010), does not consider structural, organizational, and legal differences between government organizations, and it underestimates the complex institutional and cultural settings in which technologies are integrated (Contini & Lanzara, 2009). It is important to keep these considerations in mind in order to understand the six main contextual factors that typically influence the types, speeds, and stages of social media adoption by PSOs around the world (see Figure 21.1). The form of political system and type of economy play an important role in social media adoption in different countries (cf. Abdelsalam, Reddick, Gamal, & Al‐shaar, 2013; Karyagin, 2016; Yi, Oh, & Kim, 2013; Zheng, 2013). For instance, in China some platforms (i.e., Facebook, Twitter) are blocked, and Chinese government agencies have adopted microblogging accounts on Sina Weibo or Tencent Weibo to inform citizens (Zheng, 2013). The presence of strong digital infrastructures has favored the spread of social media among citizens (Yi et al., 2013), who often need a certain level of economic means to have access to them, as well as specific digital competences to be able to use them. Hence, the existing gap between rich and poor may hinder the popularity of social media in regions of the world affected by a digital divide. Moreover, PSOs’ organizational culture and communication culture are important factors that influence social media adoption (Bonsón, Royo, & Ratkai, 2015). In this respect, it is noteworthy that a major driver for adopting social media in Western societies has been the promotion of a culture of transparency, accountability, and openness among PSOs. The promotion of such a culture and the development of new managerial and communication approaches have led to an increasing digitalization of PSOs’ activities and to subsequent social media adoption by PSOs. The digitalization phenomenon started to emerge during the 1990s, with the introduction of ICTs in PSOs as a way to achieve the public sector reforms envisaged by the new public management approach (Cordella & Bonina, 2012), which aims to make organizations more efficient, transparent, and customer oriented (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). At the beginning of the twenty‐ first century, a new wave of changes and public sector reforms stressed the importance of a “joined‐up approach,” which requires horizontal coordination not only within each organization but also between many different agencies at different levels. Communication became crucial for

Political system

Economic system

Digital infrastructure

Digital competences

Organizational culture

Social media adoption

Figure 21.1  Major factors influencing PSOs’ social media adoption.

Communication culture

318

Alessandro Lovari and Chiara Valentini

the efficient functioning and harmonization of the administration, as it supported the activities of decentralized units and departments, and it helped the coordination and creation of synergic actions. The use of websites and other digital technologies had a major impact not only on the processing and storing of information for decision making but also on the creation of a more open communication climate and the fostering of collaboration across organizational boundaries (Graber, 2003). From 2010 onwards, several socio‐technological changes have modified organizational structures, policies, and practices as well as relations with citizens and the media. Digitalization and the emergence of social media have profoundly transformed the contemporary mediascape, fostering the development of a hybrid media system (Chadwick, 2013) and stimulating the development of innovative digital practices for searching for and consuming news and information via social media (Pew Research Center, 2016). In particular, the rapid development of digital technologies has improved public access to public information and has also contributed to stimulating a culture of public participation in policy formulation and service developments and delivery (Mergel, 2012), though other studies show that public participation is still limited (Osimo, 2008). Within the framework of open government (Lathrop & Ruma, 2010), which is characterized by transparency, participation, and collaboration, social media are conceived as institutional devices that promote the creation of public value and social innovation. In this scenario, the Open Government Partnership plays a crucial role in that it offers actionable ideas to support the design and implementation of open government strategies and, at the same time, it underlines the strategic role that social media plays to foster an open and more citizen engaged government. Social media has become strategically important since it represents the connective tissue of a community of engaged individuals (Goldsmith & Crawford, 2014). It not only empowers citizens to speak up and contribute with new ideas but also empowers public sector employees. In fact, social media allows these civil servants to personalize PSOs’ communications on services, to find creative solutions through engaging with social media users, and to manage large volumes of digital information through a data‐driven approach (Goldsmith & Crawford, 2014). Communicatively, social media offers PSOs a new environment for informing directly and for being more transparent—within the limits of what it is possible to disclose—and more accountable to public opinion and the media. By doing so, social media plays an important role in redefining relationships, power dynamics, and communication strategies involving PSOs and digital publics.

Social Media’s Impact on PSOs’ Objectives PSOs that embrace social media in their communication mix can experience an impact on two levels: the macro level emphasizes the empowerment of citizens and the emerging development of digital practices that allow to get in touch and communicate with PSOs, and the meso level highlights the process of institutionalization of these platforms within PSOs (Mergel & Bretschneider, 2013). From a macroperspective, research indicates three major uses by the public of PSOs’ social media pages: (a) consuming, (b) participating, and (c) producing. Consuming is the most widespread use of public sector social media communications. Smith (2010) reports an increasing presence of “government social media users”—that is, citizens who are actively using digital tools to search for and obtain information from government agencies and PSOs. His study also reports the existence of “online government participators,” citizens who actively participate in digital debates about government policies or public issues. Within this participatory function, social media represents the platforms on which citizens can coordinate their actions, mobilize, and make their voices heard (Bennett & Segerberg, 2012). Yet citizens’ interactions and engagement in PSOs’ social media pages are limited and represent a niche of highly engaged citizens rather than a widespread phenomenon (Bonsón et al., 2015). In addition, citizens’ online mobilization tends to take place on non‐PSOs’ social media pages (Lovari & Parisi, 2015). A third

Public Sector Communication and Social Media

319

use of social media, namely producing online content of public utility, has been identified among certain types of digital publics and for specific purposes. For example, during environmental disasters, social media are used by citizens to report the status of critical situations and seek help (Bruns, Burgess, Crawford, & Shaw, 2012; Graham, Avery, & Park, 2015). Citizens can turn to active sources in the informational network, especially in local communities. At a meso level, social media has an impact on administrative practices. Specifically, it influences how different PSOs’ units and departments virtually share information, collaborate, and act on government decisions. Yet the type and level of influence on PSO’s practices and activities varies from place to place, as PSOs around the world are at different stages of social media adoption and institutionalization. Mergel and Bretschneider (2013) identified three different stages of social media implementation, which may not necessarily occur linearly or in every PSO. The first stage, called “intrapreneurship and experimentation,” is characterized by an informal opening of different accounts by specific employees who are particularly skilled in the personal use of social media. These social media connoisseurs establish a social media presence for their organizations, usually without any formal authorization (Mergel & Bretschneider, 2013). The second stage—“order from chaos”—entails organizations’ recognition of the importance of these innovations and the need to draft guidelines for an official social media presence. In the third stage, “institutionalization,” PSOs standardize the use of social media and allocate resources for the enforcement of protocols, thereby reducing the chances that these platforms might suffer from misuse (Mergel & Bretschneider, 2013). PSOs’ adoption of a social media is a complex process, since administrations still largely rely on bureaucratic structures that are based on a Weberian model of controlled and centralized information (Weber, 1974). This mentality clashes with the erosion of power and centralized control enabled by social media, and it generates, in some cases, real discomfort or even a major barrier in PSOs’ adopting these platforms (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2018; McNutt, 2014). Nonetheless, social media implementation seems to be accepted and inevitable in the public sector due to citizens’ evolving behaviors in the realms of digital skills and media consumption (Wearesocial, 2018) and due to the rapidity of technological improvements, which often constitutes a challenge for public sector managers (Mergel, 2015b).

PSOs’ Social Media Use Empirical studies on PSOs’ use of social media indicate that social media offers diverse opportunities to talk to, with, and on behalf of citizens and other publics. Social media is primarily ­conceived in these studies as channels that support the implementation of organizations’ communicative, legal, and institutional aims (see Figure 21.2). For instance, from an organizational point of view, social media offers a new instrument for improving internal communication. Typically, PSOs have hierarchical structures and are marked by a division of labor and routines. These hierarchical structures impact the way in which communication flows across units and departments. Social media has become useful in breaking the “silos of knowledge” that impede the proper circulation of communication within the different departments of an organization (Mergel, 2010). In doing so, social media can increase productivity among public sector employees (Chun & Luna‐Reyes, 2012), acting as a substitute for intranets or other types of internal communication tools. It can also offer significant knowledge management benefits (Agerdal‐ Hjermind & Valentini, 2015) by allowing knowledge to be created, transformed, retained, and reused in the workplace in an interactive manner. From a legal point of view, social media offers an opportunity to fulfill legal requirements such as the need of all PSOs to increase organizational transparency and be more accountable to citizens and other strategic publics (Bertot et al., 2012; Bonsón et al., 2012, 2015). In several countries, there are specific legislative documents, regulations, and policies that address questions such

320

Alessandro Lovari and Chiara Valentini

Transparency & accountability

Crisis management

Participation & public engagement

E-gov & citizens satisfaction

Social media

Internal communication

Branding

Listening

Media relations

Figure 21.2  PSOs’ uses of social media.

as openness and public access to documents, and PSOs need to comply with these. In this sense, social media platforms represent an extension of the PSO’s official website, creating a second “glass house” in which citizens can find services, events, and opportunities, while also allowing them to observe and scrutinize what the organization is doing (Zavattaro & Sementelli, 2014). Furthermore, social media can be used to make content available to publics who either have limited access to other public sector channels or who do not have the desire to search for government information in other ways (Mergel, 2012). From a communication point of view, social media supports external communication activities. For instance, it is used to enhance media‐relations practices (Lovari & Mazzei, 2016). Before the advent of social media, PSOs shared news and information online via dedicated pages on their websites. Today, this practice has moved to social media, with many organizations opening their own social media pages to provide relevant and rapidly published news content to journalists. To some extent, PSOs are also using these pages to interact with journalists, bloggers, and digital influencers. Another example of social media use in external communications is that of institution‐ and service‐based branding and image promotion. Creating organizational visibility and legitimacy and showing organizational relevance in the territory are important objectives for PSOs (DePaula, Dincelli, & Harrison, 2018). Social media channels can be used to promote institutional initiatives, events, and actions (Lovari & Parisi, 2012). They can also be used to brand a service, a product, or even a territory or locality, as in cases of municipalities that seek to attract investors to their local communities. Another increasingly important use of social media can be found in the context of crisis and emergency situations. Social media channels have become instrumental in managing victims’ informational needs during natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes (Bruns et al., 2012; Kavanaugh et al., 2012). These real‐time media channels allow PSOs to rapidly disseminate critical and sometimes life‐saving messages to the population during an emergency, to collect requests for rescue and assistance from citizens in crisis‐hit areas, to enhance public order during the disaster, and to raise civic support (Graham et al., 2015; Lovari & Bowen, 2019). The use of social media also allows these organizations to reach out to citizens in a user‐friendly environment and supply them with accurate and verified institutional information, thus avoiding situations in which rumors or misleading information are spread by nonofficial sources (Vraga & Bode, 2018). Social media can also be used by PSOs to enable new forms of participation and to promote civic engagement and democratic principles by supporting other public sector initiatives. Researchers have studied the ways in which social media can enhance public voices (Firmstone

Public Sector Communication and Social Media

321

& Coleman, 2015), rearticulate civic engagement (Dahlgren, 2009), and revitalize forms of democracy and participation (Kent, 2013). Social media can stimulate innovative practices for communicating with citizens, enable the cross‐pollination of ideas, and facilitate innovation (Luoma‐aho & Halonen, 2010); it can also build social capital and instill a sense of trust and confidence in governments and PSOs (Haro‐de‐Rosario, Sáez‐Martin, & Caba‐Pérez, 2018; Warren, Sulaiman, & Jaafar, 2014). Similarly, social media offers new opportunities to improve citizen services and customer satisfaction, not only in the context of a citizen relationship management approach but also when it comes to increasing citizens’ empowerment in coproducing services. The process of digitalization, combined with an increasing view of citizens as partners in the public sector’s service offerings, has made social media an interesting environment for actively involving citizens in discussion and sharing ideas about public services (Goldsmith & Crawford, 2014; Linders, 2012). Increased citizen participation in shaping PSOs’ offerings has some implications for citizens’ trust and sense of satisfaction (Porumbescu, 2016; Warren et al., 2014). In some instances, an increased level of satisfaction with PSOs is visible when PSOs offer citizens opportunities to cocreate new services or a new way of delivering public services (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2018). The satisfaction resulted from citizens’ involvement is probably related to the feeling of ownership that citizens may have when they coparticipate in developing or improving PSOs’ initiatives. Citizens’ direct involvement with public sector activities is not a new phenomenon. However, as Linders (2012) notes, “in the past [it] was constrained by the limited ability of government to effectively coordinate citizen actions and the difficulty of ordinary citizens to self‐organize” (p. 446). Today, social media has facilitated this process and enabled coproduction and cocreation to a remarkable degree (Linders, 2012). Part of the process of improving public services is also fulfilled when PSOs listen to their publics’ concerns and needs. The large quantity of data that is produced and shared on social media offers these organizations strategic opportunities for monitoring public opinion and general public sentiment regarding their activities, policies, and actions (MacNamara, 2016). To this end, PSOs use social media primarily as a listening device for collecting insights and monitoring the feelings of their followers.

How Social Media Shapes Public Sector Communication The literature on specific theoretical models for using social media in public sector communication is rather scarce. What has been written so far is either focused on the elaboration of general frameworks for public communication (Graber, 2003) or on microlevel intangible elements of public communications. Examples of general frameworks include Liu and Horsley’s (2007) government communication decision wheel, Gregory’s (2006) framework for government communicators’ competences, and Vos’s (2006) model to measure the efficiency of government communication. At a microlevel, scholars have mainly focused on individual intangible elements of public communication by investigating concepts such as citizen–public sector relationships and citizens’ levels of trust, satisfaction, and interactivity in relation to Internet and website usage in the public sector (Welch, Hinnant, & Moon, 2005). Beyond these areas, they have tried to integrate specific strategic and tactical insights about social media use into the context of public sector communication via models such as Nabatchi and Mergel’s (2010) social media engagement ladder and Mergel’s (2013) frameworks for measuring social media interactions in PSOs. The inclusion of social media in the communication mix to support organizational, legal, and communication objectives has brought three fundamental changes in the way in which public communication is shaped and delivered. First, the compression of time, the speed of communication flows, and an increased public expectation of high‐paced availability of information (Canel & Luoma‐aho, 2018; Tirkkonen & Luoma‐aho, 2014) require these organizations to be in a continuous communication mode and to provide fast and digestible chunks of news rather than

322

Alessandro Lovari and Chiara Valentini

complete and accurate informational reports that may take a long time to produce. Second, social media has brought radical changes to the language of public sector communication by making it simpler, less legal and bureaucratic, and more personal and direct. Third, social media has increased the scope and functions of public sector communication so that it now encompasses more personalized, interactive forms of communicating and engaging with citizens and stakeholders in addition to its former primary emphasis on informing the public. Citizens expect more dialogue and collaboration as a result of PSOs’ social media use (Lovari & Parisi, 2015; Tirkkonen & Luoma‐aho, 2014). These three changes substantially challenge the way in which public sector communication has typically been conceptualized and practiced. Public sector communication tends to follow communication principles that prescribe communication practices that are in contrast with the participative approach of social media communications, hence these principles can constrain opportunities for using social media to talk to, with, and on behalf of citizens. Pasquier and Villeneuve (2012) note that public sector communication must abide by several basic principles. There must be a legal framework that authorizes the organization to develop and implement communication activities. These communications should be nonpartisan and independent of political circumstances. Communications should be transparent in their intention and funding. They should be offered promptly in response to the informational needs of diverse publics. They should be objective and calibrated so as to enhance the comprehensibility of the communication regardless of publics’ intellectual, linguistic, and social abilities. Finally, they should be proportionate to PSOs’ communication objectives and publics’ needs. When deploying social media for public sector communications, aspects such as completeness, objectivity, and timely responses may become more difficult to fulfill given the greater speed of communication flows on the social Web. Furthermore, PSOs’ using social media may face problems of what content is for public or for private, only internal use, during their social media interactions with citizens. Tirkkonen and Luoma‐aho (2014) note that social media can intensify relationship tensions between authorities and citizens, especially when citizens expect full transparency whereas authorities can only share content that is considered to be in the public domain. PSOs can avoid these difficulties by establishing clear social media policies that describe what content is considered legally communicable, how it should be communicated, and who should handle conversations that take place on PSOs’ social media profiles (Lovari & Mazzei, 2016; Yi et al., 2013). Despite public debate’s frequent tendency to stress the importance of new roles such as social media strategists or social media managers, the solutions adopted by PSOs are highly variable and depend on several factors, including the presence of specific laws or regulations, strong or weak political leadership, and the organization’s communication culture and financial resources (Gálvez‐Rodríguez, Haro‐de‐Rosario, & Caba‐Pérez, 2018). In some cases, social media management is outsourced to communication firms, but most of this activity is embedded in the organizational structure in a variety of ways. Strategic use of social media for communication goals requires coordination with the other communication activities taking place in the organization. From an organizational point of view, communication quality depends on many factors, such as a strong commitment by government leaders and senior managers, the harmonization of digital and offline communication flows, a strategic approach to dealing with social media, and the adoption of tactics to optimize relations with digital publics. Finally, strategic goals related to social media should be clearly set along with key performance indicators to help public sector managers measure the results of online communication. It is necessary to evaluate and monitor social media activities in order to investigate engagement rates, quality of content, and virality of messages. These activities can be carried out using in‐ house tools or through research tools such as online surveys, social network analysis, in‐depth interviews, or digital ethnography. PSOs need to find the optimal level of information frequency that balances an encouragement of citizen engagement and interaction against the need to justify their investment in social media, especially in relation to digital advertising activities.

Public Sector Communication and Social Media

323

Critiques and Challenges We have reviewed the main uses of and opportunities created by social media in PSOs, but it is also important to highlight possible downsides related to its implementation in the public sector. Following the rise of a techno‐enthusiastic attitude typical of the first wave of the adoption of these platforms, some scholars started to emphasize possible threats presented by social media and misuses of it in relation to PSOs and their communications. These scholars criticize the impact of social media, highlighting issues such as ethics, data management, participation rates, and supplementary external labor that publics may provide at no cost for PSOs. The first critique is about the nature of social media. Scholars have suggested that optimism about Web 2.0 is an ideology that mostly serves corporate interests, since such interests have predominantly shaped the social Web (Fuchs, 2014; van Dijck, 2013). Social media is free because of the data management interests of these private providers, which sell users’ digital profiles to companies and advertising agencies to make profits (Lovink, 2012). Thus, social media algorithms are primarily designed to make user activity saleable and then meaningful only after that (van Dijck, 2013). At the same time, social media’s affordances and algorithms foster a polarization of public opinion and knowledge, sealing citizens in filter bubbles in which content that an individual is likely to agree with is more visible and thus more likely to be shared by that individual with his or her network of friends. This feature of social media raises ethical questions because it reduces citizens’ exposure to diverse ideas and makes citizens a manageable commodity for organizations. In recent years, political actors have taken advantage of this social media feature during election periods to influence public opinion and even spread misinformation and fake news. According to Nynah (2018 as cited in Sarlin, 2018), Fake news is not a problem of potential swing voters being misled. It reflects the potential for people on the extremes to be trapped in echo chambers that aren’t just reinforcing their opinions, but providing them with false and misleading factual claims that seem to reinforce those opinions.

In this perspective, social media can be strategically used to manipulate public opinion, fostering the spread of hate speech toward politicians and civil servants and intoxicating the Web with misleading information that can increase distrust in governments and PSOs. Furthermore, when PSOs use social media to monitor citizens’ opinions, questions about how accurately public concerns are represented emerge because public voices on social media may not be represent all of a local community’s voices. Additionally, digital sociologists have warned that the collaborative and participatory nature of social media, coupled with digital publics’ voluntary participation in it and cocreation of content, produces economic value for organizations without rendering any economic benefit to those who actually create such value (Fisher, 2015). Borrowing from Karl Marx’s thinking, Fuchs (2014) argues that social media promotes a new form of labor, “digital labor,” in which digital publics either consciously or unconsciously become instruments of economic power in the respect that they serve three diverse value‐chain moments: (a) consumption, (b) production, and (c) marketing. Essentially, asking citizens on social media to engage in their governments’ crowdsourcing and coproducing initiatives raises several moral questions related to the creation of the surplus‐value brought about for these organizations by such participation, to the very public nature of these organizations, and to their stances on labor exploitation. Paradoxically, increased transparency allows a greater opportunity for digital surveillance, which is one of the most critical arguments against using social media. Han (2015) affirms that although the production of communication enabled by Web 2.0 makes everything more transparent and controlled, such control is decentralized, and may produce a “digital panopticon” in

324

Alessandro Lovari and Chiara Valentini

which everyone can be observed and controlled everywhere and by anyone. Surveillance of ­digital publics and collection of data related to their activities are interconnected problems, and they represent a challenge for PSOs and a threat to citizens (Bertot et al., 2012; Zavattaro & Sementelli, 2014). Another issue is related to the role of social media as a supposedly participatory tool. Web 2.0 users are more passive users than they are active creators (Lovink, 2012; van Dijck, 2013). It is still the case that only a limited number of people really interact online with PSOs and contribute to services, policies, and decision‐making processes on social media. This problem is broadly connected to the gap between plausible and actual scenarios and the fact that social media channels are often used as transmitting tools and not as dialogical environments. However, there are still differences between actual social media use and the normative use suggested by scholars (Valentini, 2015). All across the globe, PSOs tend to favor broadcasting strategies despite the opportunity that digital platforms offer for communicating with citizens in a bidirectional way (Karyagin, 2016; Lovari & Parisi, 2012; Zheng, 2013). This use is contrary to what digital publics expect. Digital publics increasingly demand dialogical relationships, a less bureaucratic language, and symmetrical communication (Lovari & Parisi, 2015; Tirkkonen & Luoma‐aho, 2014). Thus, the public sector’s use of social media is often rudimentary, with social media seen merely as “additional channels for pushing information out to the public or to recycle content already disseminated through the organizations’ websites or other communication channels” (Mergel, 2015a, p. 462). Studies on econsultations show that participative democracy takes place only when dialogue with citizens and publics occurs in a timely way—that is, when PSOs seek dialogic communication with citizens prior to deliberation on specific initiatives (Brüggemann, 2010; Gelders & Ihlen, 2010) and when institutional mechanisms are in place to manage the variety and complexity of received inputs (Tomkova, 2010). However, these intended digital behaviors are more often reflected in mainstream media headlines than they are in practice. The result is merely a “rhetoric of technological innovation” that often disappoints citizens and reduces their trust in these organizations that are not able to change perspective and use these platforms dialogically (Zavattaro & Sementelli, 2014). Lastly, another challenge is related to social media access and digital competences, which vary a lot from country to country. Because of their mission, public organizations have to disseminate information and communicate with many different types of publics. They should not exclude sectors of the population such as seniors or non‐internet users by increasing the digital and cultural divides that exist within populations. In addition to enriching democratic engagement, PSOs must demonstrate that they inform and listen to all publics equally and give space to all voices, especially minority ones, in order not to exacerbate sociopolitical inequalities.

Conclusions and Future Research This chapter has presented and discussed how social media platforms have emerged as valuable channels for public sector communication and helped to modernize the way in which these organizations communicate and interact with publics and citizens. The proliferation of social media responds to demands for transparency and accountability, but at the same time it is also related to innovative forms of participation in which citizens can reconnect to PSOs and in so doing contribute to the creation of new services or the reshaping of existing ones. Social media can represent a laboratory of innovation for PSOs that aim to develop and test new practices related to communication and public engagement. There are managerial, organizational, and cultural challenges in implementing a truly participatory digital governance through social media. New forms of social media will continue to appear and increase opportunities for interactivity, flexibility, and collaboration while pushing PSOs to adopt new practices, policies, and approaches related to public communication.

Public Sector Communication and Social Media

325

Moreover, this chapter has highlighted the limited state of theoretical knowledge about the phenomenon of social media in public sector communication and thus the need for more work on this area. Future research should try to address both theoretical and practical questions that can have a significant impact on PSOs. Such questions might include the following: 1 To what extent has social media and the digital revolution experienced by PSOs changed public sector communicators’ roles and functions? Moreover, what are the implications of these changes for conceptualizing, managing, and evaluating the quality of public communication in the light of PSOs’ general objectives? 2 What institutional, managerial, political, cultural, and social factors impact public communication conducted via social media? Moreover, what relationships exist between these factors in different types of PSOs and in different countries? 3 What are the ethical challenges for social media managers/strategists in managing digital official channels in an authentic way to inform citizens and foster trust toward PSOs? 4 Taking into consideration issues such as privacy, data exploitation, and a plurality of voices, how can public sector communication foster a truly collaborative environment in which citizens and civil servants can coproduce and codeliver ideas and services? 5 How can PSOs listen to society and strategically integrate citizens’ perspectives when they are voiced on social media into public sector managers’ visions and objectives?

References Abdelsalam, H. M., Reddick, C. G., Gamal, S., & Al‐shaar, A. (2013). Social media in Egyptian government websites: Presence, usage, and effectiveness. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 406–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.020 Agerdal‐Hjermind, A., & Valentini, C. (2015). Blogging as a communication strategy for government agencies: A Danish case study. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 9(4), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2015.1025406 Bennett, L. W., & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 739–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661 Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Hansen, D. (2012). The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 30–40. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.04.004 Bonsón, E., Royo, S., & Ratkai, M. (2015). Citizens’ engagement on local governments’ Facebook sites. An empirical analysis: The impact of different media and content types in Western Europe. Government Information Quarterly, 32, 52–62. Bonsón, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., & Flores, F. (2012). Local e‐government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 123–132. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.10.001 boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history and scholarship. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. Brüggemann, M. (2010). PR between propaganda and the public sphere: The information policy of the European Commission. In C. Valentini & G. Nesti (Eds.), Public communication in the European Union. History, perspectives and challenges (pp. 67–90). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Bruns, Axel, Burgess, Jean, Crawford, Kate, and Frances Shaw. 2012. #qldfloods and @QPSMedia: Crisis Communication on Twitter in the 2011 South East Queensland Floods. Brisbane: Research Report. ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation. Canel, M., & Luoma‐aho, V. (2018). Public sector communication. Closing gaps between citizens and public organizations. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Chadwick, A. (2013). The hybrid media system. Politics and power. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Chun, S. A., & Luna‐Reyes, L. F. (2012). Social media in government. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 441–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.07.003 Contini, F., & Lanzara, G. F. (2009). ICT and innovation in the public sector. London, UK: Palgrave.

326

Alessandro Lovari and Chiara Valentini

Cordella, A., & Bonina, C. M. (2012). A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. giq.2012.03.004 Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and political engagement. Citizens, communication and democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Lathrop, D., & Ruma, L. (2010). Open government. Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media. DePaula, N., Dincelli, E., & Harrison, T. M. (2018). Toward a typology of government social media communication: Democratic goals, symbolic acts and self‐presentation. Government Information Quarterly, 35, 98–108. Firmstone, J., & Coleman, S. (2015). Public engagement in local government: The voice and influence of citizens in online communicative spaces. Information, Communication & Society, 18(6), 680–695. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.986180 Fisher, E. (2015). ‘You media’: Audiencing as marketing in social media. Media, Culture, & Society, 37(1), 50–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443714549088 Fuchs, C. (2014). Social media: A critical introduction. London, UK: Sage. Gálvez‐Rodríguez, M. d. M., Haro‐de‐Rosario, A., & Caba‐Pérez, C. (2018). Improving citizens’ online engagement via community managers: An explanatory study. Information, Communication & Society, 21(10), 1402–1418. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1315442 Gelders, D., & Ihlen, Ø. (2010). Government communication about potential policies: Public relations, propaganda or both? Public Relations Review, 36(1), 59–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.08.012 Goldsmith, S., & Crawford, S. (2014). The responsive city: Engaging communities through data‐smart governance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. Graber, D. A. (2003). The power of communication: Managing information in public organizations. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Graham, M. W., Avery, E. J., & Park, S. (2015). The role of social media in local government crisis communications. Public Relations Review, 41(3), 386–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.02.001 Gregory, A. (2006). A development framework for government communicators. Journal of Communication Management, 10(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632540610664742 Han, B.‐C. (2015). The transparency society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Haro‐de‐Rosario, A., Sáez‐Martin, A., & Caba‐Pérez, M. d. C. (2018). Using social media to enhance citizens engagement with local government: Twitter or Facebook? New Media & Society, 20(1), 29–49. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003 Karyagin, M. (2016). Russian large cities authorities’ pages in social media: A platform for expert communication? In A. Chugunov, R. Bolgov, Y. Kabanov, G. Kampis, & M. Wimmer (Eds.), Digital transformation and global society (pp. 14–21). New York, NY: Springer. Kavanaugh, A. L., Fox, E. A., Sheetz, S. D., Yang, S., Li, L. T., Shoemaker, D. J., … Xie, L. (2012). Social media use by government: From the routine to the critical. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 480–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.002 Kent, M. L. (2013). Using social media dialogically: Public relations in the reviving democracy. Public Relations Review, 39(4), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.07.024 Linders, D. (2012). From e‐government to we‐government: Defying a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003 Liu, B. F., & Horsley, S. J. (2007). The government communication decision wheel: Toward a public relations model for the public sector. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(4), 377–393. https://doi. org/10.1080/10627260701402473 Lovari, A., & Bowen, S. A. (2019). Social media in disaster communication: A case study of strategies, barriers, and ethical implications. Journal of Public Affairs, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1967 Lovari, A., Kim, S., Vibber, K., & Kim, J.‐N. (2011). Digitisation impact on publics: Public knowledge and civic conversation. PRism, 8(2), 1–20. Lovari, A., & Mazzei, A. (2016). When the press office goes social. The role of social media policies for media relations strategies in PSOs. In 22nd International Public Relations Research Symposium Conference Proceedings (pp. 90–97). Ljubljana, Slovenia: University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences. 3–4 July 2015

Public Sector Communication and Social Media

327

Lovari, A., & Parisi, L. (2012). Public administrations and citizens 2.0. Exploring digital public communication strategies and civic interaction within Italian municipality pages on Facebook. In F. Comunello (Ed.), Networked sociability and individualism (pp. 238–263). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Lovari, A., & Parisi, L. (2015). Listening to digital publics. Investigating citizens’ voices and engagement within Italian municipalities’ Facebook pages. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 205–213. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.013 Lovink, G. (2012). Networks without a cause: A critique to social media. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Luoma‐aho, V., & Halonen, S. (2010). Intangible and innovation: The role of communication in the innovation ecosystem. Innovation Journalism, 7(2), 3–19. http://www.innovationjournalism.org/archive/ injo‐7‐2.pdf MacNamara, J. (2016). Organizational listening. The missing essential in public communication. New York, NY: Peter Lang. McNutt, K. (2014). Public engagement in the Web 2.0 era: Social collaborative technologies in a public sector context. Canadian Public Administration, 57(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12058 Meijer, A., & Thaens, M. (2010). Alignment 2.0: Strategic use of new internet technologies in government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(2), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2009.12.001 Mergel, I. (2010). The use of social media to dissolve knowledge silos in government. In R. O’Leary, D. M. Van Slyke, & S. Kim (Eds.), The future of public administration, public management and public service around the world (pp. 177–187). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Mergel, I. (2012). Social media in the public sector: A guide to participation, collaboration, and transparency in the networked world. San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Mergel, I. (2013). A framework for interpreting social media interactions in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 327–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.015 Mergel, I. (2015a). Design social media strategies and policies. In J. L. Perry & R. K. Christensen (Eds.), Handbook of public administration (pp. 456–468). San Francisco, CA: Josey‐Bass. Mergel, I. (2015b). Social media institutionalization in the U.S. federal government. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 142–148. Mergel, I., & Bretschneider, S. I. (2013). A three‐stage adoption process for social media use in government. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 390–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12021 Nabatchi, T., & Mergel, I. (2010). Participation 2.0: Using internet and social media technologies to promote distributed democracy and create digital neighborhoods. In J. H. Svara & J. V. Denhardt (Eds.), Promoting citizen engagement and community building (pp. 80–87). Phoenix, AZ: Alliance for Innovation. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York, NY: Penguin Group. Osimo, David. 2008. Web 2.0 in government: Why and how? JRC European Commission, http://ftp.jrc. es/JRC45269.pdf. Pasquier, M., & Villeneuve, J.‐P. (2012). Marketing management and communications in the public sector. London, UK: Routledge. Pew Research Center. 2016. News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2016. Accessed on March 31. http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp‐content/uploads/sites/13/2016/05/PJ_2016.05.26_social‐ media‐and‐news_FINAL‐1.pdf. Porumbescu, G. A. (2016). Linking public sector social media and e‐government website use to trust in government. Government Information Quarterly, 33(2), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. giq.2016.04.006 Sarlin, Benjy. 2018. Did ‘fake news’ sway the elections? Euronews. World News (14 Jan.). Accessed on June 20, 2018. http://www.euronews.com/2018/01/14/fake‐news‐went‐viral‐2016‐expert‐studied‐ who‐clicked‐n836581. Sedereviciute, K., & Valentini, C. (2011). Towards a more holistic stakeholder analysis approach. Mapping known and undiscovered stakeholders from social media. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 5(4), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2011.592170 Smith, Aaron. 2010. Government Online: The Internet Gives Citizens New Paths to Government Services and Information. Pew Internet & American Life Project. Pew Research Center. Accessed on March 31, http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Government‐Online.aspx. Tirkkonen, P., & Luoma‐aho, V. (2014). Authority crisis communication vs. discussion forums: Swine flu. In M. DiStaso & D. Bortree (Eds.), Ethical practice of social media in public relations (pp. 192–204). New York, NY: Routledge.

328

Alessandro Lovari and Chiara Valentini

Tomkova, J. (2010). E‐consultations: New tools for civic engagement or smokescreens for politics as usual? In C. Valentini & G. Nesti (Eds.), Public communication in the European Union (pp. 269–292). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Valentini, C. (2015). Is using social media “good” for the public relations profession? A critical reflection. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 170–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.009 Valentini, C. (2018). Social media. In R. L. Heath & W. Johnsen (Eds.), International encyclopedia of strategic communication (pp. 1378–1390). Boston, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Vincos. (2018). World Map of Social Networks 2018. Accessed July 18, http://vincos.it/world‐ map‐of‐social‐networks. Vos, M. (2006). Setting the research agenda for governmental communication. Journal of Communication Management, 10(3), 250–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/13632540610681149 Vraga, E. K., & Bode, L. (2018). I do not believe you: How providing a source corrects health misperceptions across social media platforms. Information, Communication & Society, 21(10), 1337–1353. Warren, A. M., Sulaiman, A., & Jaafar, N. I. (2014). Social media effects on fostering online civic engagement and building citizen trust and trust in institutions. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.11.007 WeareSocial. (2018). Digital 2018: global overview. Accessed on June 19. https://wearesocial.com/ blog/2018/01/global‐digital‐report‐2018. Weber, M. (1974). The theory of social and economic organization. London, UK: Collier Macmillan Publisher. Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., & Moon, J. M. (2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with e‐government and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research & Theory, 15(3), 371–391. https:// doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui021 Yi, M., Oh, S. G., & Kim, S. (2013). Comparison of social media use for the U.S. and the Korean governments. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 310–317. Zavattaro, S. M., & Sementelli, A. J. (2014). A critical examination of social media adoption in government: Introducing omnipresence. Government Information Quarterly, 31, 257–264. Zheng, L. (2013). Social media in Chinese government: Drivers, challenges and capabilities. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 369–376.

22

Citizen Communication in the Public Sector: Learning from High‐Reliability Organizations Karen B. Sanders and María de la Viesca Espinosa de Los Monteros

Introduction In their study of public sector communication, Pandey and Garnett (2006, p. 37) identify ­“culture that supports communication” as key to effective internal, external and interpersonal communication and, therefore, organizational performance. This chapter takes that insight as the rationale for examining how principles of high‐reliability organizations (HROs) could be incorporated into the public sector in order to foster a communication culture for the benefit of citizens. We advance the hypothesis that practices that build reliability require more effective, ethical communication, enhancing the trust and engagement of stakeholders and citizens. Given the risk environment and complexity of public sector organizations (see van der Wal, 2017), the HRO leadership approach, which requires, among other things, active listening, is,  we will argue, particularly relevant for contributing to improved citizen communication. Active, responsive listening can contribute to a culture of transparency when errors occur and facilitate and foster simultaneously citizens’ trust (and healthy mistrust) of the public sector. Within the public sector, HR principles and techniques have been most intensively applied in the health sector (see below) and evidence shows that they also necessitate and contribute to greater employee engagement who mobilize to put patient safety at the heart of all they do (Hilliard et al., 2012). The quest for high reliability goes hand in hand with an approach to listening and responding to all stakeholders, including citizens, which enhances organizational performance when there is strong leadership. Given the critical importance of so much public sector activity for citizens’ well‐being and safety (think of the health and emergency services) or for their ability to access essential civic services (e.g., the benefits system, car licensing, and tax services), the drive for reliability can be seen both as a key requirement of and as a lever for a culture that enhances ­citizen communication. Relentless focus on seeking reliability will, by necessity, put stakeholder communication at the heart of the public sector.

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

330

Karen B. Sanders and María de la Viesca Espinosa de Los Monteros

In developing this account of high‐reliability principles and their relevance for public sector communication, we have reviewed key literature—books and seminal articles, literature reviews, and case studies—published in a wide range of disciplinary journals.1 As far as we can find, there are no HR‐related studies published in communication journals so we find ourselves opening new ground with all the accompanying interest and risk this supposes. We are conscious that this chapter may pose more questions than answers, but we consider that the interest of the issues raised and the research already carried out in the health s­ ector demonstrate the merit of studying how and why HR principles and techniques contribute to leveraging communication so that the citizen becomes the chief focus of public sector activity.

Defining High‐Reliability Organization Principles HROs have been defined as those organizations that “manage and sustain almost error‐free performance despite operating in hazardous conditions where the consequences of errors could be catastrophic” (Lekka, 2011, p. 1). These organizations achieve safe operations because they successfully manage risks through an emphasis on enhancing reliability in all aspects of the organization (see Rochlin, 1993). In the early days of HRO analysis, researchers sought to define these organizations according to their safety record, their interactive complexity or other specific descriptive characteristics (see, e.g., Roberts & Rousseau, 1989). According to this approach, typical HR sectors would include the aviation industry, the nuclear power sector or the space industry. However, Weick and Sufcliffe (2007) suggested that a more fruitful way of thinking about organizational high reliability is to identify those principles and practices that enhance reliability and examine how they might be applied in any organizational context. While acknowledging the distinctive characteristics of HROs, these authors suggest that the principles they embody can enrich any organizational culture, producing positive outcomes for performance. Indeed, in a world of growing complex interactivity and wicked problems, which “defy efforts to delineate their boundaries and to identify their causes” (Rittel & Webber, 1973, p. 167), it can be argued that HRO principles and processes are becoming ever more necessary for all organizations and, as we shall discuss below, this is already occurring in parts of the public sector, especially in the health industry, which is seeking to understand how to apply high‐­reliability principles in order to foster and support safe and effective practice. McFadden’s work (2009), for example, highlights the key importance of open discussion with stakeholders and, most importantly, patients when errors occur. One possible objection to the application of HR principles to the enhancement of citizen communication in the public sector is the necessary tradeoff between speed of service and the time taken to address failure. However, experience from the health sector suggests that this is a false dichotomy. Listening to complaints, studying them in a systematic way, and prioritizing issues in relation to their frequency and seriousness leads to a greater engagement of patients with beneficial results for them and the health care system. Being concerned with failure means that potentially fatal and expensive mistakes are avoided and patient engagement is enhanced (see McFadden, 2009). Weick and Sutcliffe (2015) refer to five high‐reliability organizing principles: preoccupation with failure; reluctance to simplify; sensitivity to operations; commitment to resilience; and deference to experience. These principles can only be put to work effectively, state Weick and Sutcliffe, in the context of “mindful” leadership. Mindfulness is bringing to bear one’s  As well as reviewing the principal public relations journals, we also consulted the Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, the Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, the Administrative Science Quarterly, the Engineering Management Journal, the Journal of Organizational Behaviour and the International Journal of Emergency Management.

1

Citizen Communication in the Public Sector

331

powers of attention, understanding, and interpretation to the particularities of the present situation, refining assumptions, expectations, and beliefs as necessary (see Mellor, Wilday, Lunt, & Holroyd, 2015). Mindful leadership (see below) cultivates throughout the organization a sensitivity and active response to “weak signals” (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015, p. 18). Anomalous events, errors, and surprises are considered to be resources for understanding how reliability and, therefore, excellent performance can be maintained and improved. Leadership approaches to monitoring and responding to citizen complaints is an example of how public sector communication services could apply this HRO principle to improving citizen communication. Drawing on HRO research, Roberts and Bea (2001) point to three reliability‐enhancing characteristics: 1 HROs seek to know what they do not know through extensive staff training, root analysis of errors, and identification of necessary redundancies. 2 They balance efficiency with security. 3 They have effective channels to communicate to everyone in the organization so that in ordinary and emergency situations decision‐making processes are clearly laid‐out, decisions are migrated downstream if necessary and information flows easily across the organization. In her review of the literature, Lekka (2011) identified five key areas in which HROs offer a distinctive approach to organizational culture and behavior, namely mindful leadership, effective problem anticipation, just culture, learning culture, and containment of unexpected events (see Figure 22.1). We will examine next how these are understood in the HRO literature.

Mindful Leadership HROs require a particular leadership culture that has been described as “mindful” (see Lekka, 2011). The term has become a popular buzzword to denote a therapeutic method that encourages consciousness of the present moment and a calm acceptance of one’s thoughts, feelings,

Mindful leadership

Just culture

High-reliability Organisations

Containment of unexpected events

Problem anticipation

Figure 22.1  Organizing principles of high‐reliability organizations. Source: Adapted from Lekka (2011).

332

Karen B. Sanders and María de la Viesca Espinosa de Los Monteros

and sensations. However, in the HR literature, it refers to the intensified awareness and capacity for action (the opposite of being on automatic pilot) that results from the relentless focus at the leadership level on core concerns, such as the reluctance to oversimplify or sensitivity to operations. Mindful leadership challenges unthinking adherence to past routines and ways of understanding and doing things in the organization. A mindful leader seeks out bad news, proactively commissioning audits to diagnose weaknesses, and engages with front‐line staff through walk‐ arounds and face‐to‐face meetings. Active listening inside and outside the organization is the default position for HROs, which have to negotiate high levels of risk. Given the risk environment of public sector organizations, the HRO leadership approach, which requires, among other things, active listening, is particularly relevant.

Effective Problem Anticipation This involves a collective and individual consciousness of risk and failure so that everyone, both individually and together, is acutely aware that even small failures in any process can lead to adverse outcomes for finances or reputation. Mistakes and errors are taken as early warning indicators of possible future systemic failures and are investigated exhaustively, seeking to avoid explanations that oversimplify reality. In this scenario, “no news is good news” does not hold. As Weick and Sutcliffe (2015, p. 60) put it: “All news is good news, because it means that the system is responding. (…) The good system talks incessantly. When it goes silent, that’s unexpected, that’s trouble, and that’s bad news.” HROs have in place mechanisms to ensure that information flows easily, and they seek to know what they do not know. Information that reports failure is particularly welcomed, as it allows organizations to detect weaknesses before they escalate into full‐blown crises. Failure is seen as a window on the health of the organization, and emphasizing success is considered as a recipe for complacency (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015). Looking for failure implies acknowledgment that we have incomplete information. It also requires the clear articulation of expectations that act as sense‐making tools, setting the frame of reference for what is expected and therefore what is unexpected. Effective problem anticipation avoids oversimplification regarding the causes of errors or near misses. On the contrary, managers seek out the root causes of adverse incidents or near misses in order to ensure that real solutions are provided. Effective problem anticipation is also supported by the cultivation of situational awareness, where sensitivity to operations is paramount, and the fostering of deference to the experience of front‐line staff. Sensitivity to operations is about being aware of what we are actually doing and how it impacts on ourselves, on others and on the context. All of this requires continuous, daily communication so that organizations operate reliably and safely. Communication is so intrinsic to the way an HRO functions that it too must be informed by the same HRO principles: sensitivity to risk, transparency, active listening to professionals, and deference to those who have front‐line experience (technicians, administrative staff, etc). Gawande’s The Checklist (2011) examines the power of structured communication within the context of seeking safe and reliable operations. In one example, he describes how the Johns Hopkins Hospital surgical checklist requires each member of the surgical team to introduce him or herself before the operation commences. Very often, not every team member knows the names of all the others, but, as Gawande notes (2011, p. 108): “Giving people a chance to say something at the start seemed to activate their sense of participation and responsibility and their willingness to speak up.” To cultivate situational awareness, HROs encourage all workers to speak up and to see how their work links up with others. Deference to expertise, wherever this expertise is found, involves ensuring that decision‐making and sense‐making, particularly in times of crisis, are carried out by those who have specific knowledge of the event or issue. Perspectives widen out as expertise is understood as an emergent property. Weick and Sutcliffe report an example from their research into how firefighters work. Interviewed by Weick, the fire chief states:

Citizen Communication in the Public Sector

333

The next fire I walk into, I won’t know anything … When I arrive on scene with that mind‐set, I draw more disparate perspectives from others, I affirm uncertainty, and I get more people to own what they see and to communicate it. None of us has ever been on this fire. (2015, p. 119)

This approach implies knowing where expertise lies and ensuring that there is a sufficiently agile organizational structure to permit sense‐making and decision‐making to occur where it should.

Just Culture The preoccupation with failure favors the development of a just culture. This approach requires a clear understanding of what failure means for an organization as well as reporting systems that allow failure to be reported, identified, and acted upon in a substantive way. Many organizations seek to explain error in ways that provide quick fixes but not long‐term solutions: companies may allege that an error has been caused by “a few bad apples” or through the incompetence of one person (ad hominem explanations); an adverse outcome (increase in crime) may be erroneously attributed to one cause (a reduction in police numbers) simply because the latter occurred before the former (a logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc‐after this, therefore because of this). Organizations that cultivate just culture differentiate between three patterns of behavior (Page, 2007): 1 Human error that involves inadvertent actions or mistakes such as misreading a name. 2 At‐risk behavior where risk is increased either because it is not recognized or ignored out of a mistaken justification such as not wanting to interrupt a senior manager in a meeting to give them bad news. 3 There is reckless behavior in which actions take place were substantial and unjustifiable risks are deliberately ignored, such as alcohol consumption by a working airline pilot. Reckless behavior also includes willful ignorance, gross misconduct, or conscious disregard of risk (also known as Nelsonian knowledge where a person intentionally puts themselves in a situation where they will be unaware of facts that would make them liable). A “just culture” is based first on the principle that errors are inevitable and that organizations should monitor and adapt their policies and processes to accommodate these errors; and second, that staff are accountable for at‐risk and reckless behaviors. The development of just culture requires open reporting systems, which encourage staff to speak up about errors in order to identify their root causes and remove them, recognizing that mistakes often have multiple causes, including inadequate training or time and poor equipment or systems design. Staff are not blamed for these inadvertent errors but rather organizations and staff use them as learning opportunities to improve organizational knowledge and understanding. It is an environment in which managers know what is happening because the workforce tells them. Mistakes are not viewed as an unwanted disturbance caused by human error but are welcomed as a valuable source of information about the system. In organizations where just culture prevails, frontline personnel are encouraged to feel comfortable about disclosing errors, including their own, thus encouraging an environment of individual responsibility and accountability (see Provera, Montefusco, & Canato, 2008).

Learning Culture A just culture promotes a learning culture. The analysis of errors and near misses promotes systematic organizational learning (see Gawande, 2011). A preoccupation with failure, reluctance to oversimplify, and deference to front‐line experience all underscore the importance of data collection, analysis, and interpretation, producing organizational learning that avoids easily

334

Karen B. Sanders and María de la Viesca Espinosa de Los Monteros

available explanations. However, HROs do not have the luxury of using the method of learning through trial and error as their default system since one error could lead to their destruction. In HROs, learning is encouraged through ensuring adequate levels of information richness, which relies “on face‐to‐face encounters, feedback arenas, and activities in a practice‐based setting to build organizational knowledge” (Aase & Tjensvoll, 2003). Just culture creates a climate of transparency and accountability that impacts directly on those who use a service and on the work environment. Errors are used to redesign more robust systems and processes. In addition, employees feel supported by an organization that seeks not to penalize individuals but rather to increase its reliability and safety. Just culture relies on an open, honest communicational culture.

Containment of Unexpected Events HROs establish a high degree of redundancy including back‐up and cross‐checking systems and, when unexpected events occur, deference is shown to expertise wherever this is to be found in the organization. Processes are put in place for unforeseen events and organizations commit to resilience understood as “the ability of systems to survive and return to normal operation despite challenges” (Nemeth & Cook, 2007, p. 623). There is a fundamental understanding that complexity begets unpredictability so that it must be assumed that systems are at risk of failure and organizations should plan accordingly. For the public sector, this implies developing robust communication systems that are embedded in ordinary organizational operations and prepared for the extraordinary times that will inevitably arise.

Research in High‐Reliability Organizations HRO research was chiefly developed within the discipline of organization studies, although its early scholars had backgrounds in disciplines such as organizational psychology, political science, and public administration (see La Porte & Consolini, 1991; La Porte & Rochlin, 1994; Weick, 2011; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 1999). Many HR scholars are located in business schools and until recently have been typically based in North America. Cognate areas of research include crisis and contingencies management, safety studies, and accident management. As far as we have been able to discover, there is no communication research examining the interest or relevance of HR principles for communication theory or practice. In terms, however, of the public sector application of HROs, there is now a considerable body of work examining their relevance to health organizations.

Research Traditions and Methods Interest in HROs began in the 1980s as organizational theorists questioned the assumption that HROs were similar to other kinds of organizations (see Roberts, 1990). Roberts (1990, pp. 160–161); others argued that organizational scholars had developed “theories for trial and error (incrementalism), failure tolerant, low reliability organizations,” which did not take into account the characteristics of HROs. The dominant research focus was on understanding organizational effectiveness in relation to a number of outcomes among which performance reliability was rarely included. Crisis and accident management studies focused on reasons for organizational failure whereas the reasons why organizations did not fail were not explored. Published after the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear power station accident, Perrow’s (1984) Normal accidents: Living with high risk technologies argued that accidents were inevitable in organizations characterized by structural and technological complexity and tight coupling where components of a system are highly interdependent. He was pessimistic about the possibility of

Citizen Communication in the Public Sector

335

managing high risk, complex organizations successfully. This assumption (encapsulated in the Normal Accident Theory) was challenged by work carried out in the 1980s by a University of California–Berkeley‐based research team who carried out the first systematic study of HROs to understand their error‐free performance. They undertook research into Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s nuclear power plant, the US Navy’s nuclear aircraft carriers and the Federal Aviation Administration’s air traffic control system (Roberts, 1990; Roberts & Rousseau, 1989). Roberts (1989) asked two key questions: “(1) Are there high‐risk organizations that have operated nearly ‘error free’ over long periods of time; and (2) If so, what do these organizations do to reduce the probabilities of serious error?” (p. 112). Their focus was on understanding what were the distinguishing characteristics of these highly reliably performing organizations. They also sought to understand how high‐risk, hazardous, largely error‐free organizations were managed and designed. Roberts and fellow researchers Rachlin and Laporte (see La Porte, Roberts, & Rochlin, 1987) identified organizational complexity and tight coupling as key features of HROs, which contributed to the hazardous nature of organizational operations and the drive to develop strategies to ensure performance reliability. Much of this work was more descriptive than theoretical. There was some criticism that research did not adequately define the meaning of the concept of reliability and that there was an overly simplistic division of organizations into being either reliable or not (Weick et al., 1999). The first studies used a multi‐methods design including interviews, surveys, and observation (Roberts, 1990; Roberts & Rousseau, 1989). Case studies and participant observation of hazardous yet reliable organizations (Roberts, 1990) have continued to be the leading approach to HR studies since they commenced in the 1980s, providing rich descriptions of processes and principles. A survey approach was adopted by Koch (1993), who developed a 27‐item qualitative measurement scale to survey characteristics of reliability‐seeking organizations. The items included accountability/responsibility, openness/cooperation, training/socialization, interaction/communication (whether knowledge of events flow upward in the organization) and adaptiveness/responsiveness (the extent to which organizations are able to adapt or recover from unexpected events and the ability to change to quick decision‐making in emergencies). They reflect the issues thought to be important in high reliability industries and were developed ­initially from responses to focus groups conducted with aircraft carrier personnel.

HRO Research in the Health Sector Over the last 20 years, the HR principles and practices identified have been examined in relation to other industries in which systemic and human safety are also key objectives. The health care sector has been a particular area of interest, forming “the single largest group of HRO practitioners publishing in scholarly journals” (Tolk, Cantu, & Beruvides, 2015, p. 221). This interest in HROs was prompted in part by the publication of the US Institute of Medicine’s ground‐breaking report To err is human: Building a safer health system (Kohn L, Corrigan J., & Donaldson, 1999), which put patient safety squarely center stage. It stated that between 44,000 and 98,000 people die each year due to preventable medical errors, that is, 2–4% of all US deaths. The report placed the spotlight on the culture, structures, and processes of health organizations and what could be done to change them to ensure that patient safety was at the forefront of health professionals’ and managers’ concerns. The principles of HROs were seen as a possible route to achieving this goal. Haavik, Antonsen, Rosness, and Hale (2016) provide a useful account of scholarship in this area. They have identified two waves of research. The first wave concentrated on organizational design and structure (see, e.g., Tamuz & Harrison, 2006), examining issues such as “distribution of knowledge and capacity for spontaneous reconfiguration of the organisational structure” (Haavik et al., 2016, p. 5). Researchers relied heavily on the Berkeley group’s work to u ­ nderstand

336

Karen B. Sanders and María de la Viesca Espinosa de Los Monteros

how health organizations can be more similar to HROs by putting the central focus on patient safety. They also pointed to the greater challenges faced by health organizations as compared to the type of organization examined in early HRO studies in terms chiefly of resources (see Madsen et al., 2006). The second, more recent HRO research in the health sector examines the culture of organizations (see, e.g., Vogus, Sutcliffe, & Weick, 2010). Authors in this tradition frequently refer to the notion of “organisational mindfulness” (Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015). Haavik et al. (2016, p. 6) argue that there is a drive in this research to discover “what works” and that this imperative “is both an inheritance from the HRO tradition, but is also an approach with strong roots within evidence‐based medicine.” This research approach has favored the use of more quantitative methods than were used in the early days of HRO research and seeks to identify how organizational culture and structures can contribute to patient safety. The impact of the publication of To err is human and the resulting focus on applying HRO principles to health organizations led to the 2009 launch by the US‐based Joint Commission, a nonprofit international health accreditation agency, of the Joint Commission Center for Transforming Health Care, specifically founded to transform health care into a high reliability industry. This may have contributed to an increase in the kind of research that Tolk et al. (2015) advocate. They state, “Directed research into transformation and measurement of successful HRO implementation is needed” (2015, p. 221), noting the lack of empirical research examining whether interventions to change organizational culture along HR lines really do make a difference.

HRO Principles and Public Sector Communication Learning from HROs Initial HRO scholarship (see Roberts, 1990) suggested that mainstream organizational theory could not encompass the peculiarities of HROs, which are marked out as distinctive kinds of organizations. For example, the fact that any error could have catastrophic consequences means that HROs must embed expensive levels of redundancy, which are not necessary in lower‐risk organizations. According to this view, operational conditions generate a very different kind of organizational culture to that present in more run‐of‐the‐mill organizations. Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld (1999, p. 81) explained that “due partly to their seeming exoticness and partly to uncertainty about how they might generalize to organizations that operate under less trying conditions,” HROs were considered by many scholars to provide few lessons to other types of organizations. There was debate, for example, about whether HRO principles and processes can be easily transferred to more market‐driven organizations (see Boin & Schulman, 2008). It has also been argued (see Waller & Roberts, 2003) that the appropriateness and application of HRO principles may well be context‐dependent. Vogus and Welbourne (2003), on the other hand, developed the notion of “reliability seeking” organizations. They argue that when ordinary organizations “find themselves in complex, rapidly changing, and tightly coupled organization‐environment relations” (2003, p. 878), they must find ways to achieve reliable performance. Their research examines organizations operating in high‐velocity environments defined as those where there is “rapid and discontinuous change in demand, competitors, technology and/or regulation” (Bourgeois & Eisenhardt, 1988, p. 816). Other scholars have argued that all organizations can learn valuable lessons from HROs about managing complexity and reducing errors. Weick et  al. (1999), for example, stated, “Even though HROs may be unique in their pursuit of mindfulness, there is nothing unique about how they pursue it. Processes by which HROs pursue mindfulness are processes that can be adopted by any‐one” (p. 23). Weick and Sutcliffe (2015) claim, e.g., that HROs and non‐HROs

Citizen Communication in the Public Sector

337

are more similar than they appear to be. Non‐HROs, in the same way as HROs, function in climates of risk, incomplete knowledge and uncertainty. Complexity is now an operating feature of most modern organizations. In his discussion of the safety of surgical operations, Gawande (2011, p. 13) points out that, despite the notable accumulation of know how in contemporary societies, knowhow is often unmanageable. Avoidable errors are common and persistent—across many fields, from medicine to finance, business, to government. And the reason is increasingly evident: the volume and complexity of what we know has exceeded our individual ability to deliver its benefits correctly, safely or reliably. Complex environments, organizations, and systems differ from simple or complicated ones in that precise outcomes cannot be predicted from a specific initial event. In complex organizations events and decisions interact to produce unintended, unpredicted, and unexpected outcomes (see Axelrod & Cohen, 2000), increasing the possibility of error. HRO principles are focused on the management of the unexpected and the mitigation of risk, error and failure and are therefore, argue Weick and Sutcliffe (2015), relevant to any complex organization or to any organization working in a complex environment. Error and failure can be catastrophic for HROs but they can also be disastrous for other types of organization where they may lead to loss of reputation or credibility. To put it simply, “HROs are important because they provide a window on a distinctive set of processes that foster effectiveness under trying conditions” (Weick et al. 1999, p. 81).

The Relevance of High‐Reliability Principles for Public Sector Communication We know that HRO principles are oriented toward fostering prolonged periods of safe and reliable operations. Reliability has been defined as the “unusual capacity to produce collective outcomes of a certain minimum quality repeatedly” (Hannan & Freeman, 1984, p. 153). Repeatability became a core element of the definition of reliability but it also became associated with lack of adaptive capacity. However, reliable systems must also be able to cope with changing, unpredictable conditions as occur in HROs. Therefore, it has been argued, the conflation of reliability and invariance of performance is too narrow an understanding of what reliability means for organizations. Schulman, for example, argues (1993, p. 369): “Reliability is not the outcome of organizational invariance, but, quite the contrary, results from a continuous management of fluctuations both in job performance and in overall department interaction.” Others (see Busby & Iszatt‐White, 2014) have pointed to the inherently relational character of reliability: there is a relied upon entity and a relying subject. Pursuing reliable performance requires, then, what we might term a highly rich communication culture and environment that privileges communication within and without the organization. We identify next a number of areas in which the implementation of HR principles has clear practical implications for public sector communication.

Preoccupation with Failure and Risk This principle requires organizations to articulate their understanding of failure and actively to seek out bad news. Public sector organizations can examine how they capture failure, however small, in their performance and, most importantly, what happens to stakeholder reports of failure. Macnamara (2015) pointed out that most customer relations are about strategic listening and complaints are mostly dealt with in a placatory rather than substantial way. The same appears to apply to the public sector. Public sector complaint services and handling are not well‐ researched areas and global, comparative data are thin on the ground. The evidence that does exist suggests that complaint handling is a major area for improvement in the public sector. The UK Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman reported that 34% of upheld citizen complaints were about complaint handling and concluded, “There is more public organizations need to do to improve people’s experience of making a complaint” (Parliamentary and Health Service

338

Karen B. Sanders and María de la Viesca Espinosa de Los Monteros

Ombudsman 2015–2016, p. 2). Its 2016–2017 report noted initiatives from a number of UK government departments aimed at having early warning systems in place to detect emerging issues, using multiple feedback sources including online surveys and social media (Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, 2017, p. 16). The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office also reported work undertaken to identify drivers of citizen satisfaction or dissatisfaction, which could then be fed back to front‐line workers (Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, 2017, p. 17). Preoccupation with error and risk leverages serious analysis of and response to complaints. This, in turn, provides a rich learning opportunity for public sector organizations, allowing them to identify emerging trends and improve public services for citizens.

Refusal to Simplify Refusing to simplify issues and events has important implications for careful listening. Organizations that seek not to oversimplify when attempting to understand their environment do not dismiss views that do not fit into the most easily available explanations. In this culture, people are encouraged to express diverse opinions and to question the status quo without being labeled as mavericks. Healthy skepticism is welcomed as enriching the information context. For public sector communication, this implies careful and respectful listening to all stakeholders, especially those who challenge the status quo.

Deference to Expertise Complexity of all kinds means that organizations do not always have all the answers available where they think they should be, aligned to the appropriate hierarchical rank or position. HROs prioritize front‐line engagement with workers, using active listening by leaders. Leaders do walk‐arounds and spend time with front‐line workers and actively seek their input, asking open questions, seeking out new ideas, and exploring whether workers’ activity is aligned with key goals. When something unexpected occurs, the right expertise is sought at whatever level and wherever it is to be found. This permits boundary spanning, where boundaries are crossed to ensure free‐flowing information and to encourage cooperation and collaboration, building, and maintaining teams. Embedded in the organization, these practices, which derive from HR principles, have the potential to impact directly on all areas of organizational performance but we wish to point to one area of particular significance for public sector organizations, namely, crisis communication and management. HR research suggests that the application of HR principles contributes to increased resilience. A culture of learning from past experience and errors allows HROs both to have prolonged periods of safe operations but also to bounce back more readily from unexpected events and crises. The anticipation of error and awareness of risk become part of the company’s DNA and can contribute to a reliability, which generates trust. If we examine the literature about crisis communication and management, we find a heavy focus on management and communication strategies for preparing for and dealing with crisis: studies abound in how organizations should prepare for pre‐ and postcrisis communication (see, e.g., Benoit, 1997; Coombs, 2012) or how to act when a crisis strikes (see, e.g., Claeys & Cauberghe, 2012). However, despite Heath’s acknowledgement that: “the best‐managed crisis is the one that does not occur” (Claeys & Cauberghe, 2012, p. 9), research as to how communication can contribute to more resilient organizations is not a well‐researched area of communication studies. Olaniran and Williams (2001, 2008) outlined what they describe as the “anticipatory model of crisis management” where crisis prevention is the priority. They argue: “Key to the model are efforts to put in place programs that foster error, disaster, and crisis prevention while also creating plans to handle any crisis” (Olaniran & Williams, 2008, p. 58). Their

339

Citizen Communication in the Public Sector Table 22.1  The Characteristics of High‐ and Low‐Reliability Communication. High‐reliability communication

Low‐reliability communication

Organizing principles Description

Organizing principles

Mindful leadership Situational awareness Commitment to resilience

Collective and individual consciousness of risk and failure Just culture Deference to experience Resistance to oversimplification

Focus. Listening and responsive. Sensitivity to citizen service. Awareness of the big picture. Reaction and recovery capacity. Prepared for crisis communication, catastrophes. Honesty, authenticity, and candor about mistakes

Errors are learning opportunities. Communication migrates to those with expertise and avoid rigid hierarchies. Deep analysis of incidents and errors. Effective learning.

Description

Superman leadership Narrow focus on economic results. Complacency

Remote; Noncommunicative. Narrow focus on efficiency and little attention to citizen satisfaction. Reject or excuse early warning signs of problems.

Lack of appropriate transparency.

Absence of culture and protocols to capture and respond to errors.

Blame culture

Punitive environment. Errors are punished. Underdeveloped cognitive infrastructure.

Information/ communication silos Oversimplification

Ineffective learning

proposal for the former is to advocate the relational perspective (Bruning & Ledingham, 2000), which “emphasizes the need for organizations to establish positive relations with their operational environment and public” (2008, p. 58). However, there are few specific indications about how these positive relations can be achieved. A 2014 survey of European communication professionals indicates the importance of thinking about how crises are dealt with by organizations in general and in particular by communication professionals (Zerfass, Tench, Verčič, Verhoeven, & Moreno, 2014). The survey found that in 2013, just over 70% of communication professionals had encountered at least one institutional crisis, and almost 50% had to deal with several crises, with almost 70% of these being in government organizations. The study authors concluded (2014, p. 109): “European communication professionals often encounter an ‘unpredictable event’ (Coombs, 2012) in their organization that potentially generates negative outcomes for stakeholders and the performance of the organization.” HROs seek to eliminate crises and optimize resilience: communication is central to both endeavors. Their practices can offer insight into how communication professionals can implant processes that build organizational resilience, as we set out in Table 22.1.

Challenges for Research and Practice In this chapter, we have explained HRO principles and their relationship to the development of an organizational culture, which results in high‐performance outcomes in relation to reliable and safe operations. We also saw that these outcomes can only be achieved because communication is woven into the fabric of the organization.

340

Karen B. Sanders and María de la Viesca Espinosa de Los Monteros

On this basis, we have argued that the application of HR principles can contribute to enhanced public sector communication, which benefits citizens. An impetus to seek reliable performance engenders practice, we have argued, that improves organizations’ capacity both to engage with stakeholders, and potentially gain their trust, and to minimize the occurrence and impact of crises. In turn, communication departments, by incorporating HR principles into the way they “do” communication, will drive a communication culture in their organization, which listens and learns. We recognize, however, that there are two weaknesses in this argument. First, there is, as yet, no substantial evidence base for our argument. Research into HROs or reliability‐­ seeking organizations in the public sector is limited to the health sector and is principally focused on how the quest for reliable practice can improve patient safety. Second, there is no significant empirical research to sustain our claims about the relationship of trust to reliability. The remedy, we suggest, is a project of systematic research that would look at a number of key questions and, in conclusion, we would like to set out the following five research challenges, all of which have practical implications for public sector communication.

Explore the Relationship of Trust to Reliability We can speculate that practices that build reliability will also contribute to greater levels of trust and we know that high levels of social trust contribute to greater social capital and in organizations greater employee engagement (see Chapter  18 and Stuckey, 2014). We know too that there is a crisis of trust in twenty first century industrial democracies, which poses challenges to many different kinds of organizations, not just public sector ones. There is a changing media and political landscape in which it seems increasingly difficult to know what the truth is (D’Ancona, 2016). However, we do not yet have clear evidence that emphasizing reliability or pursuing reliability‐enhancing processes and practices can contribute to the generation of greater trust. There is some prima facie evidence from a global leadership survey of 1,000 leaders and employees (Forum Corporation, 2013), which showed that three of the five drivers of leadership that builds trust coincide with the characteristics of HROs: open and frequent communication; honesty, authenticity, and candor about mistakes (preoccupation with failure); an emotionally “safe” environment (just culture); modeling; and support for continuous learning (learning environment) and consistency in words and actions. Work could be done on each of these areas to understand whether these practices are effective in establishing trustful stakeholder relationships.

Understand What Is Meant by Reliability As we noted earlier, reliability is a relational concept. Basic research could explore what is meant and understood by organizational reliability in public sector contexts by different stakeholder groups. This would involve an analysis of how (un)reliable service and performance are understood. Are there shared or diverse understandings of those relying on and those relied upon? What role can communication have in aligning these understandings so that expectations on all sides are realistic?

Examine How and Where Communication Is Organized in the Public Sector in Relation to HR Principles Applying HR principles to public sector organizations underscores the need to take a holistic approach to communication. Typically, responsibility for interpersonal, internal, and external communication is fragmented in organizations. A mapping analysis of where responsibility lies for training in interpersonal communication, error and complaints handling, crisis communication and stakeholder listening, and response would provide a useful first step in understanding

Citizen Communication in the Public Sector

341

where gaps and silos exist as barriers to developing the communicational fabric that supports reliable performance. Making links across these areas and promoting shared understandings of how they should connect up to drive performance could be explored as part of how communicators can act as guardians of organizational character.

Prepare and Train for Resilience and Crisis Communication Organizational resilience and the management of crisis communication would benefit particularly from the input of HR principles related to communication practice. Resilience is about reacting and recovering with agility to the unexpected. Research could examine if and how an organization focuses on developing cooperative relationships through which information flows easily, considered key to resilience and crisis communication. This could involve examining, for example, the accuracy and speed of feedback mechanisms within and without the organization.

Promote Mindful Leadership as a Driver for Stakeholder Communication One of the key findings of HR organizational research is the central role played by the organization’s leadership in implanting a culture that fosters reliable performance. In HROs, leaders concentrate on sense‐making—a dynamic, open, listening approach rooted in communicational, attitudinal, and cognitive skills and knowledge—prior to decision‐making. Sense‐making, mindful leadership promotes sustained movement toward achieving organizational goals in a context where constant updating and respectful interaction are features of the organization’s culture (see Weick & Sutcliffe, 2015). Further research could examine whether these are characteristics of public sector organizations and their leadership and, if they are not, how they could be fostered so that reliable citizen service becomes the hallmark of public sector organizations, which will then, necessarily, transform them into truly communicative organizations.

References Aase, K., & Tjensvoll, T. (2003). Learning in emergency organisations: Trial without error. International Journal of Emergency Management, 1(4), 410–422. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEM.2003.004361 Axelrod, R., & Cohen, M. (2000). Harnessing complexity. New York: Free Press. Benoit, W. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23(2), 177–186. Boin, A., & Schulman, P. (2008). Assessing NASA’s safety culture: The limits and possibilities of high‐­ reliability theory. Public Administration Review, 68(6), 1050–1062. Bourgeois, L. J., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1988). Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments: Four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management Science, 34(7), 805–920. Bruning, S., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Perceptions of relationships and evaluations of satisfaction: An exploration of interaction. Public Relations Review, 26(1), 85–95. Busby, J., & Iszatt‐White, M. (2014). The relational aspect to high reliability organization. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 22(2), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468‐5973.12045 Claeys, A. S., & Cauberghe, V. (2012). Crisis response and crisis timing strategies, two sides of the same coin. Public Relations Review, 38, 83–88. Coombs, W. T. (2012). Ongoing crisis communication. Planning, managing, and responding (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. D’Ancona, M. (2016). Post‐truth: The new war on truth and how to fight back. London: Penguin. Forum Corporation (2013) Driving business results by building trust: Findings from the 2013 Forum global leadership pulse survey. https://www.achieveforum.com/docs/Research_‐Driving‐Business‐Results‐ by‐Building‐Trust.pdf. Gawande, A. (2011). The checklist manifesto. How to get things right. London: Profile Books.

342

Karen B. Sanders and María de la Viesca Espinosa de Los Monteros

Haavik, T. K., Antonsen, S., Rosness, R., & Hale, A. (2016). HRO and RE: A pragmatic perspective. Safety Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.08.010 Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49, 149–164. Heath, R. L. (2012). Introduction to Crisis Communication: Defining the Beast and de‐marginalizing Key Publics. In T. W. Coombs & S. Holladay (Eds.), The handbook of crisis communication (pp. 1–13). London, UK: Wiley. Hilliard, M. A., Sczudlo, R., Scafidi, L., Cady, R., Alissa Villard, A., & Shah, R. (2012). Our journey to zero: Reducing serious safety events by over 70% through high‐reliability techniques and workforce engagement. Journal of Health Care Risk Management, 32(2), 4–18. Koch, B. A. (1993). Differentiating reliability seeking organization from other organizations: Development and validation of an assessment device. In K. Roberts (Ed.), New challenges to understanding organizations. New York: Macmillan Publishing. Kohn, L., Corrigan, J., & Donaldson, M. (1999). (Eds). To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine. La Porte, T. R., & Consolini, P. M. (1991). Working in practice but not in theory: Theoretical challenges of high reliability organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1, 19–47. La Porte, T. R., Roberts, K. and Rochlin, G. I. (1987). The research challenge. Institute of Governmental studies, Working Paper. La Porte, T. R., & Rochlin, G. (1994). A rejoinder to Perrow. J. Contingencies Crisis Management., 2, 221–227. Lekka, C. (2011). High reliability organisations. A review of the literature. Health and Safety Executive. Report Review, 899. Macnamara, J. (2015). Organisational listening: The missing essential in public communication. Peter Lang. McFadden, K. (2009). The patient safety chain: Transformational leadership’s effect on patient safety culture, initiatives, and outcomes. Journal Operations Management, 27(5), 390–404. Madsen, P., Desai, V., Roberts, K., & Wong, D. (2006). Mitigating hazards through continuing design: the birth and evolution of a pediatric intensive care unit. Organizational Science., 17, 239–248. Mellor, N., Wilday, J., Lunt, J., & Holroyd, J. (2015). High reliability organisations and mindful leadership. Hazards, 25. https://www.icheme.org/~/media/Documents/Subject%20Groups/Safety_ Loss_Prevention/Hazards%20Archive/XXV/XXV‐Paper‐32.pdf Nemeth, C., & Cook, R. (2007). Reliability versus resilience: What does healthcare need? Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting., 51(11), 621–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 154193120705101104 Olaniran, B. A., & Williams, D. E. (2001). Anticipatory model of crisis management: A vigilant response to technological crises. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 487–500). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Olaniran, B. A., & Williams, D. E. (2008). Applying anticipatory and relational perspectives to the Nigerian delta region oil crisis. Public Relations Review, 34, 57–59. Page, A. H. (2007). Making just culture a reality: One organization’s approach. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. http://webmm.ahrq.gov/perspective.aspx?perspectiveID=50 Pandey, S., & Garnett, J. (2006). Exploring public sector communication performance: Testing a model and drawing implications. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 37–51. Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (2016). Complaints about UK government departments and agencies, and some UK public organisations 2016–17. https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/ publications/complaints‐about‐uk‐government‐departments‐and‐agencies‐and‐some‐uk‐public‐1. Perrow, C. (1984). Normal accidents: Living with high‐risk technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Provera, B., Montefusco, A., & Canato, A. (2008). A ‘No Blame’ approach to organizational learning. British Journal of Management, 21(4), 1057–1074. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169. Roberts, K. H. (1989). New challenges in organizational research: High reliability organizations. Organization and Environment, 3(2), 111–125. Roberts, K. H. (1990). Some characteristics of one type of high reliability organization. Organization Science, 1(2), 160–176.

Citizen Communication in the Public Sector

343

Roberts, K. H., & Bea, R. (2001). Must accidents happen? Lessons from high‐reliability organisations. Academy of Management Executive, 15(3), 70–79. Roberts, K. H., & Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Research in nearly failure‐free, high‐reliability organizations: Having the bubble. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 36(2), 132–139. Rochlin, G. I. (1993). Defining “High Reliability” organizations in practice: A taxonomic prologue. In K. H. Roberts (Ed.), New challenges to understanding organizations (pp. 11–32). New York: Macmillan. Schulman, P. R. (1993). The analysis of high reliability organizations: A comparative framework. In K. Roberts (Ed.), New challenges to understanding organizations (pp. 33–54). New York, NY: MacMillan. Stuckey, C. (2014). The power of trust in leadership. Human Resources, (March), 18–21. Tamuz, M., & Harrison, M. I. (2006). Improving safety in hospitals: Contributions of high reliability theory and normal accident theory. Health Research and Educational Trust, 41(4), 1654–1673. Tolk, J. N., Cantu, J., & Beruvides, M. (2015). High reliability organization research: A literature review for health care. Engineering Management Journal, 27(4), 218–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247. 2015.1105087 Van der Wal, Z. (2017). The 21st century public manager. Red Globe Press. Vogus, T. J., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Weick, K. E. (2010). Doing no harm: Enabling, enacting, and elaborating a culture of safety in health care. Academic Management Perspective, 24, 60–77. Vogus, T. J., & Welbourne, T. M. (2003). Structuring for high‐reliability: HR practices and mindful processes in reliability‐seeking organisations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 877–903. Waller, M. J., & Roberts, K. H. (2003). High reliability and organizational behavior: Finally the twain must meet. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 813–814. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.224 Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Managing the Unexpected: Resilient Performance in an Age of Uncertainty (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2015). Managing the unexpected: Sustained performance in a complex world. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (1999). Organizing for high reliability: Processes of collective mindfulness. In R. S. Sutton & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 81–123). Stanford: Jai Press. Zerfass, A., Tench, R., Verčič, D., Verhoeven, P. and Moreno, A. (2014). European Communication Monitor 2014. Excellence in Strategic Communication‐Key Issues, Leadership, Gender and Mobile Media. Results of a Survey in 42 Countries.

23

Public Sector Communicators as Global Citizens: Toward Diversity and Inclusion Marianne D. Sison

Introduction In a globalized world where the absence or presence of borders has become critical to the flow of information and people, public sector organizations increasingly have to respond and communicate with diverse, mobile, and multicultural stakeholders. Public sector organizations have traditionally focused on “local” constituents within their national borders. However, world events have contributed to migrant flows, which have changed national demographics, making the issue of how public sector communication addresses diversity and inclusion within increasingly multicultural societies ever more salient. Diversity is defined as being of a “different kind” (Australian Oxford Concise Dictionary, 2004, p. 407). Diversity can refer to people within organizations, or perspectives held by individuals. Together with inclusion, diversity has generated much attention in the global media as it relates to gender equality and increasingly multicultural societies. This increased attention has reverberated in organizations across the private, public, and third sectors. As such, many organizations often articulate “diversity and inclusion” as part of their values statements. Factors that contribute to organizations’ focus on diversity and inclusion include globalization, technological advancements, and escalating migration and mobility that demand more international, and intercultural engagement. The United Nations (2016) reported over 244 million international migrants in 2015, 20 million of whom were refugees. A total of 4.7 million immigrated to one of the EU‐28 member states in 2015, while at least 2.8 million emigrated (Eurostat, 2017). Of the 4.7 million immigrants, almost half (2.4 million) were citizens of non‐EU member countries. Although it may seem that most international migrants end up in Western developed nations, Asia housed an additional 26 million migrants between 2000 and 2015 (United Nations, 2016). In 2015, Europe hosted 76 million and Asia hosted 75 million international migrants. North American hosted 54 million, Africa, 21 million, Latin America and Caribbean, 9 million, and Oceania hosted 8 million international migrants (United Nations, 2016). In addition to refugee migration, more affordable transport and transnational employment have increased cross‐border mobility. These increased movements across borders have resulted

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

346

Marianne D. Sison

in more multicultural societies. As the 2016, UN report indicated, many migrants are staying within their own geographical region: Asian migrants tend to migrate to another Asian country and Africans to African countries. They reported that in 2010–2015, migration by Asians to Asia accounted for the largest movements at 1.6 million a year, while migrants to North America and Oceania tend to come from outside these regions. As a result of migration and mobility, countries around the world are increasingly becoming multicultural. For instance, the 2018 OECD International Migration Outlook (OECD, 2018) reports that at least 20% of the populations in the following countries were foreign born: Canada (20.5); Israel (22.2); New Zealand (25.1); Australia (28.1); Switzerland (29.3); and Luxembourg (46.9). Undoubtedly, increased mobility and multiculturalism have direct implications for public policy and generate new challenges for public sector communication practitioners. In 2011, then US President Barack Obama signed Executive Order (EO) 13583: Establishing a Coordinated Government‐wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal Workforce (Elias, 2013). As Elias (2013) indicated, promoting diverse representation in public organizations demonstrates an intrinsic good if the bureaucracy reflects the society it serves (p. 332). Her study, which employed a critical discourse analysis of federal policy relating to previous executive orders including EO 13583 and the Government‐wide Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan, highlighted the need to consider the “way we think and talk about diverse representation” which affects how federal agencies enact and implement policies. She found that while the more recent EO presented a stronger position on a “collective and unified bureaucracy,” the discourse was still dominated by a “business case” approach (Elias, 2013, p. 355). Examining public sector discourses on diversity also goes beyond the need to ensure representation across local constituencies. Public sector communicators’ audiences now extend to the “global community” and its “global citizens.” For instance, public health is an area that has shifted from being merely a local or regional concern to something global that crosses borders. The World Health Organization (WHO), for example, has transitioned from being an “international” to a “global” organization (Brown, Cueto, & Fee, 2006). To illustrate, WHO would have been previously interested in receiving reports of local incidences of avian flu in China, Dengue fever, and the Zika virus in Asia and Africa. However, the transmission of these diseases across transnational borders generated worldwide concern that required information to be shared with public health practitioners across different countries. Information on the causes, treatments, and prevention of mosquito‐borne diseases had to be shared as what was once a local problem went global. Globalization and the rapid pace of technology have provided opportunities, and challenges, for public sector communicators. On the one hand, they can become “global citizens” and contribute to global issues beyond their own geographical boundaries. On the other hand, globalizing their communication through developing “universal” statements may be construed as “colonialist,” inappropriate or culturally insensitive to people in different communities. Globalized communication contexts require public sector communication practitioners to develop a high sense of cultural awareness to ensure that “other voices” are considered, represented, and heard. Underpinning this call to listen and hear “other voices” is a suggestion that while globalization has expanded markets, it has also resulted in increased social inequality. As the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 2013) suggests, “Economic growth will not reduce poverty, improve equality, and produce jobs unless it is inclusive.” As globalization intensifies and multiethnic communities become more common, questions about how public sector communication recognizes and embraces diversity through inclusive communication becomes more critical. This chapter attempts to respond to the question: How do notions of global citizenship and diversity enable inclusive and meaningful participation for public sector communicators? Public

Public Sector Communicators as Global Citizens

347

sector organizations are established to serve all the nation state’s constituencies and, as such, there are expectations that governments are for all citizens regardless of their demographic characteristics or their nationalities. The chapter will explore how public sector communication can advocate for and embed inclusive communication in its content, processes, and infrastructure so that stakeholder engagement is not simply dictated by demographic characteristics, or “influencers” but also enables the marginalized, with limited or no voice, to be listened to and participate in the public square.

Advocating for Global Citizenship The blurring of geographical boundaries brought about by technological advancements, migration, and mobility affect public sector communication practice. The rapid pace of technological change, the fragmentation of audiences, the volatility of economic and political environments, and pervasiveness of social issues pose major challenges for the public sector communication practitioner. Simply focusing on one’s own locality or nation state without considering or contributing to the global context is not sufficient in the current environment. It is within this context that the author suggests the adoption of a global citizenship mindset that can engender the values of diversity and inclusion. Before developing this argument, concepts of global citizenship, diversity, and inclusion are defined; then the contexts where these concepts have been applied are presented.

The Communication Practitioner as Global Citizen As globalization has progressed, notions of global citizenship have emerged (Stokes, 2008; Tully, 2014), particularly within the international education discipline (Parmenter, 2011; Tarozzi & Torres, 2008). But what does “global citizenship” mean? Current notions of ­citizenship refer to a legal means of identifying where an individual was born. Citizenship is often narrowly defined based on what passport or national identification one has and where one pays taxes, and has rights and duties. But migration and mobility have reconfigured national citizenship to enable individuals who have migrated to possess dual, and even multiple, ­ ­citizenship. Global citizenship, however, goes beyond one’s legal “membership in a polity” as a citizen of a nation state (Mason, 2014, p. 236). Reysen and Katzarska‐Miller (2013, pp. 859–860) defined global citizenship as “awareness, caring, and embracing cultural diversity while promoting social justice and sustainability, coupled with a sense of responsibility to act.” Drawing on their earlier work, they tested the antecedents and outcomes of global citizenship and concluded that an individual’s normative environment and global awareness predicted one’s identification as a global citizen. They found that global citizenship identification positively associated with prosocial values such as valuing diversity, environmental sustainability, intergroup empathy, intergroup helping, social justice, and felt responsibility to act to improve the lives of others (Reysen & Katzarska‐Miller, 2013, p. 866). A mindset and commitment to advocating for a just world seem to characterize what it means to be a global citizen. Studies of global citizenship within the international education context reveal that the “global citizen” is a “fluid concept underpinned by moral and transformative cosmopolitanism and liberal values” (Lilley, Barker, & Harris, 2017, p. 18). According to the authors, being a global citizen is a mindset, a process of thinking differently, “that foster[s] ethical, critical and interconnected thinking” (Lilley et al., 2017). An interest in carrying out duties that address global issues within a social justice framework reflects the focus of a global citizen (see Tarozzi & Torres, 2016). Awareness of the “other” underpins an individual who identifies as a global citizen, with particular empathy for both “in‐group” and “out‐group” members. Snider, Reysen, and Katzarska‐Miller (2013) found, however, that

348

Marianne D. Sison

when globalization is negatively framed, ingroup members tend to reject out‐groups and are less likely to identify as global citizens. This finding implies that engendering global citizenship requires framing globalization messages positively toward pro‐social values such as diversity and social justice. In this regard, it is the task of public sector communication practitioners to frame global citizenship as a critical element in developing public discourse. Embracing a global citizenship mindset is helpful for public sector communicators whose constituencies are becoming increasingly diverse. Although tensions exist particularly on controversial issues such as immigration, public sector communicators need to understand the various perspectives of their diverse stakeholders. As national populations comprise people from different ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds, and different levels of ability and literacy, public sector communicators require deep understanding and knowledge of their constituents, which lead to a need to understand the concepts of diversity and inclusion. Given the prevailing populist, and, in some instances, extremist, views across the world, enacting a global citizenship mindset becomes really challenging. Public sector communicators, however, can play a part in engendering global citizenship by promoting stories of multicultural success, and highlighting the positive contributions to the nation of their citizens regardless of their cultural identities.

Integrating Diversity and Inclusion in Communication Practice Diversity and inclusion are critical concepts in public sector communication, especially for our increasingly global, mobile, and multicultural societies. Societal notions of difference are constructed by discourses, often created and disseminated by communication practitioners in both private and public sectors. Identifying difference stems from one’s ideological beliefs and this is where the power and responsibility of influential communicators needs to be considered. To gain a better understanding of these concepts, let us examine each of them first, then discuss how these two concepts work together within the context of public sector communication.

Diversity The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary (2004, p. 407) defines diversity as “being diverse,” “variety,” and as “a different kind.” Diversity has been examined from various disciplines and contexts including social psychology (Lott, 2009), early education (Tayler & Price, 2016), higher education (Hughes, 2017), health (Simms, 2013), workplace diversity and diversity management (Gotsis & Kortezi, 2015; Otten, van der Zee, & Brewer, 2015), multiculturalism (Orr, 2016) and political science (Shames & Wise, 2017). In organizational communication, diversity draws from the concept of “requisite variety.” Developed by W. Roland Ashby and applied in organizational studies by Karl Weick (1995), the notion of requisite variety suggests that organizations will be better prepared to withstand the effects of change if they comprise members with different points of view. An organization’s adaptability to change, especially within a complex and turbulent environment, is its key to survival. Otten et al. (2015) highlight two dominant perspectives about diversity. The first is that diversity adds value to the organization, and that different perspectives foster new ideas and lead to innovation. The other perspective is that diversity can impede workplace coordination as cultural groupings can either foster discrimination or feelings of threats by the dominant cultural group. More organizations however are aligning with the first perspective as they attempt to address gender equality issues and capitalize on their employees’ cultural diversity as a source of innovation (Hewlett, Marshall, & Sherbin, 2013). A diverse workforce generates particular benefits such as: (a) increasing the talent pool; (b) strengthening customer/client orientation; (c) increasing employee satisfaction; (d) improved decision‐making; and (e) enhancing organizational reputation (Hunt, Layton, & Prince, 2015).

Public Sector Communicators as Global Citizens

349

Moreover, management consultancy McKinsey found that organizations with a more diverse leadership tend to record better financial performance (Hunt et  al., 2015). While the report focused largely on gender and ethnicity, they acknowledged the need to include other dimensions. Despite the proclaimed benefits of diversity, public relations, and public sector communication practitioners in the United States and United Kingdom have not advanced on their espousal of diversity. Drawing from a UK‐based Public Relations Consultancies Association report Maximising opportunities: Broadening access in the public relations industry, Stimson (2013) reported that the sector is predominantly white and middle class with only 8% of practitioners identifying as non‐white. Similar calls for diversity have been echoed by the Public Relations Society of America and the Public Relations Institute of Australia, although again limited to gender and race. While there are signs of integrating other dimensions of diversity, workplace diversity is often discussed in terms of gender and race. In many cases, race is conflated with ethnicity and culture when these three concepts mean different things. Race is often referred as a “system of biological taxonomy developed to classify plants and animals. When applied to humans, it represents an assumption of shared genetic heritage to external physical characteristics such as facial features, skin color and hair texture” (Murry et al., 2004, p. 82). However, this categorization became problematic; hence, social scientists introduced a more inclusive concept of ethnicity. Ethnicity is a socially constructed term that refers to one’s language, beliefs, norms, behaviors, and institutions shared by a group’s members (Murry et al., 2004). Culture, on the other hand, “encompasses macrolevel processes and deals specifically with the values and norms that govern and organize a group of people, defining characteristics and behaviors that are deemed appropriate or inappropriate by an organized group” (Murry et al., 2004, p. 83). The authors also argue that ethnicity is part of culture and that ethnicity enables the “transmission of culture.” While organizations celebrate diversity often for their “added value” and benefits to the organization, some scholars caution against these instrumentalist approaches. Embedding diversity and inclusion strategies based on instrumentalist and business rationales are deemed less sustainable than moral motivations (Mensi‐Klarbach & Leixnering, 2017). They warn that if organizations integrate diversity and socially responsible activities to improve their legitimacy and increase performance, and instrumental objectives outweigh moral objectives such as gender equality, organizations could bring risks and disrupt business operations. These risks can manifest in gaps between the values that organizations espouse and those they enact. Moreover, while cultural diversity is an important starting point, discourses on diversity must go beyond race and ethnicity. Braedel‐Kühner and Müller (2016) argue that diversity is a social construction constituted within communicative action. They lament the fact that public and scientific discourses reduce people to predetermined, often unquestioned, categories. They suggest that diversity is a “continuous socio‐discursive process of the constitution of social systems” and identities are constructed based on a “process of performative repetition of continuous instability” (Braedel‐Kühner & Müller, 2016, p. 8). From a stakeholder communication and engagement perspective, acknowledging diversity among the public sector organization’s internal and external stakeholders is a critical component of its communication strategies. Regardless of how stakeholders identify their diversity—culture, race, ethnicity, gender orientation, age, ability—public sector communicators need to be sensitive of the power dimensions that are embedded among stakeholder groups. For instance, during community consultations, certain stakeholder groups from particular cultural backgrounds may be less vocal than others, thus skewing the input from “the general community.” As a construct, diversity also reflects a power dynamic because how it is framed and prioritized will largely depend on who is initiating the policy. For instance, gender and sexual diversity policies may take precedence over cultural or ethnic diversity, or physical and mental abilities. When one “form” of diversity is privileged over another, then there is the risk of being exclusionary. As

350

Marianne D. Sison

producers of public and organizational discourse, communicators are well positioned to engender inclusive approaches in their stakeholder engagement.

Inclusion Inclusion, or social inclusion, emerged from disability studies and from an acknowledgement of inequalities in society. According to the World Bank, these inequalities—in terms of poverty, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, place of residence, disability, HIV/AIDS status, sexual orientation—often confer disadvantages that exclude people from societal processes and opportunities. The World Bank defines social inclusion as the “process of improving the terms for individuals and group to take part in society” explaining that: Social inclusion aims to empower poor and marginalized people to take advantage of burgeoning global opportunities. It ensures that people have a voice in decisions which affect their lives and that they enjoy equal access to markets, services and political, social and physical spaces. (The World Bank, 2017)

Social inclusion has been integrated in social policy in Anglo‐speaking countries such as the UK, Canada, Australia, and the US (Mansouri & Lobo, 2011). While scholars (Mansouri & Lobo, 2011, p. 1) admit that social inclusion is a utopian idea of the “fundamental and unconditional exercise of the right to belong for all people regardless of ethnic, identity and religious affiliation or formal status as citizens or non‐citizens,” they believe that it is necessary for transformative change as cities experience “super diversity” and everyday multiculturalism. Gidley, Hampson, Wheeler, and Bereded‐Samuel (2010) suggest that the discourse on social inclusion is underpinned by particular ideologies. They posit that proponents of neoliberalist thought would use terms such as work first, economic growth, skills shortage, and social capital. Social justice approaches, that employ critical pedagogy, partnership, and feminist theories, will likely use the terms social responsibility, participation, engagement, and capability. Human potential advocates, through the theories of empowerment, pedagogies of hope and postcolonialism, are likely to use the phrases potential, social transformation, cultural diversity, and lifelong learning. In the latter approach, social inclusion is interpreted as “empowerment” which is underpinned by “models of possibility instead of models of deficiency” (Gidley et al., 2010, p. 4). Inclusive approaches may be assumed to be part and parcel of a public sector communicator’s toolkit, given that they are expected to address and in some ways represent concerns of their local constituencies. However, these assumptions may need to be unpacked as some of the tools regarding audience segmentation may not be sufficient in the current environment. For instance, to what extent are communication materials translated into different languages or enabled for the visually and hearing impaired? Moreover, to what extent do we assume that our stakeholders have access to and literacy of information and communication technologies (ICTs) employed in our strategies? In this regard, two additional concepts need to be considered by public sector communicators that relate to diversity and inclusion. One is the notion of cultural identity and the other is intersectionality. While culture is often negotiated, cultural identity is dynamic and resonates with the view that it is sensitive to environmental influences (Leung, Bhagat, Buchan, Erez, & Gibson, 2005). Sha and Ford (2007) suggest that communication practitioners integrate two dimensions of cultural identity—ascribed (how others perceive us) and avowed (how we see ourselves)—in the stakeholder analysis. Intersectionality proposes that identities are constructed based on how the following dimensions are related: race, class, gender, sexuality, age, ability, nation, ethnicity, and religion (Collins, 2015). Multiple identities map onto each other and produce identities distinct to their component parts. Considering intersectionality in the context of audiences and stakeholder segmentation is critical for public sector communicators. When resources and time are limited, communicators

Public Sector Communicators as Global Citizens

351

tend to privilege “known,” distinct groupings (e.g., urban youth with mobile phones). Or conversely, processes of “othering” may occur, such as when “poor” or “marginalized,” or “migrant” communities are targeted for specific communication campaigns (Vardeman‐Winter, 2010). Within the public relations discipline, Vardeman‐Winter, Tindall, and Jiang (2013, p. 297) suggest that scholars and practitioners consider intersectionality in communication planning and decision‐making and to enact roles as advocates and power agents instead of claiming to be “equals with or representative of publics.” As the previous discussion indicates, public sector communicators have a distinct role to play in engendering diversity and inclusion within their organizations particularly because they are expected to serve the citizens who they represent. Public sector communication practitioners, as are all public sector employees, are employed by taxpayers and are therefore required to ensure the inclusion and representation of all its constituents in their communication practices.

Enabling Global Citizenship: Inclusive and Participatory Communication Because public service and the public interest are at the heart of public sector communication, enabling understanding and participation by all constituents is often a goal of practitioners in this field. Aside from the limited resources allocated for public sector communication, bureaucratic structures, party politics, ideological differences, plus the short cycles of government terms hinder the inclusion of every constituent. These limitations tend to constrain the availability of certain information or services to particular groups of people. Practitioners are often faced with competing priorities of achieving strategic priorities and implementing inclusive engagement. Strategic communication principles suggest that the focus must be placed on specific groups, now often termed the “influencers,” to generate traction for the organization’s message. But this can lead to the neglect of marginalized members of the community, the noninfluencers who are often invisible, and who may not provide “market advantage” but who, nevertheless, need to be communicated with as a citizen.

Participatory Communication One possible solution to this conundrum is found in the scholarship of those in the international/community development and development communication fields who have advocated participatory communication approaches based on the works of Paolo Freire and Arturo Escobar. Participatory communication “stresses the importance of cultural identity of local communities, of democratization and participation at all levels—international, national, local and individual” (Servaes, 2008, p. 21). According to Servaes (2008, p. 21) the participatory communication model needs to (a) see people as controlling actors or participants for development, local culture is respected; (b) see people as nucleus of development, educating, and stimulating people to be active; (c) emphasize the local community rather than the nation state; and (d) involves the redistribution of power. Servaes (2008) proposes a continuum where conventional, mechanistic (and behaviorist) communication models are at one end, and organic, participatory, and spiritually oriented models are at the other end (pp. 216–217). He calls for a model that includes both grassroots collective actions and large‐scale processes where participants collaborate in the planning and research process and the planner/researcher facilitates. Participation has also been classified into four types: passive participation, participation by consultation, participation by collaboration, and empowerment participation (Tufte & Mefalopulos, 2009). According to the authors, each type of participation is defined by the stakeholder’s input in the decision‐making process, with passive participation as the least participatory and empowerment

352

Marianne D. Sison

participation implying ownership and control of process belonging to the primary stakeholders. They further propose that participatory communication is guided by four principles: dialogue, voice, a liberating pedagogy, and action‐reflection‐action. Drawing from Freire’s definition, they emphasize that dialogue is about “naming the world” particularly for those who have been excluded. In practical terms, it refers to marginalized people, not just the experts, having a voice and being able to define the problem as they see it. Moreover, they posit that dialogic communication is underpinned by a consciousness of power in all human relations. In this analysis, enabling marginalized groups to have a voice to define their problems, formulate their solutions, and enact them is essential to shifting power or at least gaining some equity. Community media platforms are considered to provide these opportunities. These authors argue that a liberating pedagogy is underpinned by love, humility (absence of arrogance), faith, and hope, which the authors argue lead to mutual trust. Participatory communication, however, must not end at dialogue and reflection but must be action‐oriented. They suggest that while awareness is a good starting point for communication activities, it is often not enough and communication should continue to behavior change (Tufte & Mefalopulos, 2009). They also propose that communication strategies encompass various modalities that include not only traditional media but also folk, community media, and events such as theaters and concerts. As an example, street theater was used to increase awareness on women’s health and gender issues in rural Pakistan and India. In addition to the performances that focused on socio‐political concerns and human rights issues, workshops with an accompanying medical team were also conducted (Rashid, 2015). Public sector communicators may wonder whether participation should be viewed as a means or an end. When the focus is on teaching skills, meeting objectives and producing media products, participatory communication is used as a “means” (Huesca, 2008). This functionalist approach manifests itself when participation is used to achieve “buy‐in” to a project and can be construed as manipulative and inauthentic participation (Jacobson, 2003). On the other hand, participation is viewed as an “end” when communication is “aimed at organizing movements, transforming social relations and empowering individuals” (Huesca, 2008, p. 188). However participatory communication can be viewed as a continuum, rather than binary opposites. To illustrate this, the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) developed a Public Participation Spectrum with five goals: inform, consult, involve, collaborate, and empower. They define public participation as a process that involves those who may not be stakeholders in solving problems and making decisions (Table 23.1).

Dialogue and Listening As seen in Chapter 19, dialogue is considered to be a critical component in building organization–public relationships by many public relations and communication scholars. It is, as previously mentioned, a critical element in participatory communication and is now examined in relation to enabling diversity and inclusion. Kent and Taylor (2002) propose that communication practitioners develop a dialogic orientation that includes the following principles: mutuality, propinquity, empathy, risk, and commitment. According to the authors, mutuality involves a spirit of “inclusion or collaborative orientation” and equality particularly in the context of globalization. They argue for broader communication frameworks that account for culture and ideology (Kent & Taylor, 2002, p. 25). Propinquity is related to a sense of closeness, a relational attribute that enables interpersonal communication. Empathy, a critical principle in diversity and inclusion programs, refers to the ability to “walk in the other’s shoes” creates trust and an understanding of the “other.” True dialogue is also considered to be risky for participants because it involves sharing of personal information and individual beliefs that could expose vulnerability. Unrehearsed and spontaneous dialogue can result in “unanticipated consequences” that may prove to be either positive or

353

Public Sector Communicators as Global Citizens Table 23.1  IAP2’s Public Participation Spectrum.

IAP2’S PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SPECTRUM The IAP2 Federation has developed the Spectrum to help groups define the public’s role in any public participation process. The IAP2 Spectrum is quickly becoming an international standard.

PROMISE TO THE PUBLIC

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GOAL

INCREASING IMPACT ON THE DECISION

INFORM

CONSULT

INVOLVE

COLLABORATE

EMPOWER

To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions.

To obtain public feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or decisions.

To work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered.

To partner with the public in each aspect of the decision including the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution.

To place final decision making in the hands of the public.

We will keep you informed.

We will keep you informed, listen to and acknowledge concerns and aspirations, and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision. We will seek your feedback on drafts and proposals.

We will work with you to ensure that your concerns and aspirations are directly reflected in the alternatives developed and provide feedback on how public input influenced the decision.

We will work together with you to formulate solutions and incorporate your advice and recommendations into the decisions to the maximum extent possible.

We will implement what you decide.

© IAP2 International Federation 2014. All rights reserved.

Source: Printed with permission by International Association for Public Participation (International Association for Public Participation, n.d.).

negative. As dialogue is a process, participants need to commit to honesty, continued conversations and to agree on its intersubjectivity. Dialogues are not meant to bring about consensus necessarily. Other scholars have mentioned “dissensus” (Holtzhausen & Voto, 2002) and “agonistic pluralism” (Mouffe, 1999) as alternative goals in dialogic communication. Engaging in continuing dialogue that aims to present conflict, rather than containing the issue, enables nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and activists and other marginalized stakeholders to pressure and influence for responsible business and government practices (Sison, 2017). Like their counterparts in the private sector, public sector communicators promote and engender dialogic processes as part of their strategic communication efforts toward diversity and inclusion, among others. However, these efforts tend to focus on “speaking” and not on “listening.” In his study of organizational communication, Macnamara (2015) found that most organizations allocate 80% of their resources to “speaking” activities such as production and distribution of content. This slew of activities aimed at creating stories and messages, identifying appropriate channels, and developing communicative strategies are referred to as organization’s penchant for an “architecture of speaking” (Macnamara, 2015). However, it can be argued that formative research, such as audience identification, customer research, media monitoring, including data analytics and consultation may be construed as “listening,” these activities are used for instrumentalist gains by host organizations. Many practitioners tend to depend on social media and online technologies as indicators of audience reach and engagement. While these analytics provide some semblance of “listening” by

354

Marianne D. Sison

monitoring what people post, like, click on, read, and respond to, they represent only a part of what Macnamara (2015) refers to as the “architecture of listening.” Macnamara (2015) suggests that organizations must have the following eight elements: (a) a culture of listening; (b) policies for listening; (c) addressing the politics of listening; (d) structures and processes for listening; (e) technologies for listening; (f) resources for listening; (g) skills for listening; and (h) articulation of listening decision‐making and policy‐making. He suggests that these elements are designed into organizations and “deployed in a coherent complementary way” (Macnamara, 2015, p. 8). Enabling listening within diverse cultures is extremely valuable in developing inclusive public sector communication and engendering global citizenship. In addition to organizational benefits of listening, Macnamara (2015) highlights that listening contributes to social equity particularly with reference to marginalized groups such as the poor, indigenous communities, non‐English speaking communities, disabled communities, and LGBTQI groups. It must also be noted that some practitioners in fields such as social work, medicine, and community development may have been trained in listening, but communication educators have been remiss in including this important component in university curricula. At the same time, communication practitioners must also listen to themselves and practice self‐reflexivity. How do we know what we know? How do we consider and integrate the “other” and the “silent” when developing our priorities in our communication and media mix? How do we enable meaningful participation opportunities to those people who do not belong to “hot” groups often targeted by strategists? Are we able to employ our communication skills to represent and advocate for those who are “voiceless?” Advocating for diversity and inclusive communication is a small step to enabling global citizenship and meaningful participatory communication. Communicating with stakeholders across cultural and geographical contexts includes examining our own communication with our indigenous communities. Co‐creating spaces that enable us to listen to, and learn from, previously absent voices are useful approaches toward inclusive communication. While balancing ideals of global citizenship with the pragmatics of limited resources remains a challenge, communication practitioners may discover opportunities to develop innovative and creative solutions by working with others. Assuming a position of learning and having a sense of cultural curiosity is a good starting point. Addressing social inequalities are major opportunities for communication practitioners and scholars to effect and contribute to meaningful social change. Public sector communicators are well placed to achieve this.

Balancing Ideals with Realities The challenge to public sector communicators committed to diversity and inclusion is the balance between sustaining their advocacy and global citizenship with the pragmatics of resource allocation, politics, and governance. While calls for diversity and inclusion often reflect aspirational goals across public sector and private sector organizations, enactment of these ideals continues to be a challenge. For instance, the study of the US government’s discourse highlighted that various interpretations, and “ambiguous articulations” of diversity and “representative bureaucracy” continue to “pose challenges for management and governance” (Elias, 2013, p. 333). Another case study that explored how the Kenya Bureau of National Statistics manages its aging workforce found “discriminatory workplace practices in the public sector… left out vulnerable groups (young people, women, and ethnic minority groups) from the workplace in numbers incommentsurate with their respective proportions in the population” (Madichie & Nyakang’o, 2016, p. 876).

Public Sector Communicators as Global Citizens

355

Various authors and practitioners have written about a range of participatory and engagement approaches. Some have argued that public participation has now been superseded by community engagement but the use of terminology depends on the country (Butteriss, 2014). Community engagement as a term is also contested based on the discipline or professional field—urban planners, community development, communication and marketing, and agricultural extension education all use the term differently if at all (Butteriss, 2016). Current community engagement strategies need to be revisited and reframed to transfer the locus of decision‐making processes to the community or local citizens, rather than the organization that, in certain cases, can be the local council, state government department, or a national federal agency. Townhall meetings and consultations have not always been effective for several reasons, including (a) skepticism about the genuineness of process; (b) small vocal groups that are not representative of the community, which diminish the intent of the consultation; and (c) very technical presentations that do not allow for genuine dialogue. Drawing from the work of scholars and practitioners in community development (Rashid, 2015), participatory communication, and communication for development (Servaes, 2008; Tufte & Mefalopulos, 2009), public sector communication practitioners are encouraged to promote diversity and inclusion by engendering global citizenship and meaningful community engagement in their practice. These practices may include, but are not exclusive to, consciously inviting stakeholders who represent various dimensions of diversity to actively participate; co‐ creating spaces and mechanisms for enabling variances in communicative and linguistic abilities (e.g., embedding translations for visual and/or hearing impaired stakeholders); encouraging diversity of perspectives through recognition of “new” and “radical” ideas; and celebrating achievements by marginalized internal and external stakeholders. The above recommendations reflect a position of learning and cultural curiosity that is underpinned by values of trust and respect, not totally new concepts in interpersonal communication. Public sector communication practice nevertheless need to be constantly revisited with the ever changing media and political landscape around the world. Undoubtedly, these recommendations may take additional resources in terms of time and skilled talent that are already constrained within public sector organizations. However, public sector organizations need to embrace a level of agility despite their bureaucratic structures and cultures.

Aligning Diversity Rhetoric with Practice As previously discussed, the areas of diversity, inclusion, and intersectionality provide opportunities for further research in public sector communication. As communities become mobile and multicultural, and social media become pervasive, understanding the multiple perspectives of our audiences and stakeholders becomes integral to our work. The complexity of the media and communication ecology requires nuanced and sophisticated mechanisms beyond the computer algorithms that claim to target multiple personal data points of individuals around the world. One area of future research could examine the gaps between how public sector organizations espouse and enact diversity and inclusion with their internal and external stakeholders. Identifying how organizations are mapping against the public participation and engagement spectrum would also provide insights into the state of public sector communication engagement. Extending these to comparative studies across cultures and countries would inform how political, economic, social, technological, and legal differences inform public sector communication practices. Understanding diversity and inclusion requires empathy, respect, and an acknowledgment of difference and humanity. Public sector communication practitioners espousing and enacting these values would be well positioned to be global citizens and continue their commitment to be agents for social change.

356

Marianne D. Sison

Case Study 23.1  City of Moreland and Its CALD COM Project: Storytelling Through Pictures The City of Moreland is one of the suburbs in metropolitan Melbourne in Australia and is considered one of the most culturally diverse communities in the country. Located north of Melbourne, the municipality covers 50.9 km2 and is home to more than 160,000 people. In addition to many Aboriginal indigenous people residing in Moreland, more than 30% of its residents are born overseas and more than 40% speak a language other than English at home. Aside from English, the top five languages spoken at Moreland homes are Italian, Arabic, Greek, Urdu, and Mandarin. While the 2016 Australian census indicated more than 30% of the population reported no religion, Moreland residents indicated their religion as Catholic (27%), Islam (9.8%), Eastern Orthodox (6.4%). Given the linguistic and cultural diversity of the community, the Moreland City Council realized that communicating vital messages was a challenge, especially when combined with varying levels of literacy. While the council’s website offered translation in nine languages (Arabic, Cantonese, Greek, Hindi, Italian, Mandarin, Punjabi, Turkish, and Vietnamese), they believed that effective communication goes beyond translation. As such, the Council realized that more creative approaches were needed to engage their diverse constituencies. The website reveals a section titled “Multicultural services and citizenship” aimed at Moreland residents born overseas who speak a language other than English that include new citizens, asylum seekers, and international students. Specific information that may be relevant to the three groups is included, especially services references for international students. One of the most interesting initiatives is the CALD COM project (culturally and linguistically diverse communication), which was launched in May 2009. While the Council offered translations in nine languages, they are aware that those who speak one of the 124 languages might not be reached and might feel marginalized. So the Council resorted to developing storyboards to convey messages and stories about services, civic life, and life in Australia. The content of more than 50 storyboards ranges from care services for senior citizens, to food hygiene, how to vote, and how to use an auto toilet. The storyboards and accompanying handbooks may be downloaded for free from the Council website. In addition to colorful illustrations, or “pictorial cells” that portray people of various races, downloadable animated videos were also produced. The content generated content similar to cartoon strips that told a story. While the online documents do not reveal the source of the initiative, the process reflects a form of participative communication. Oral storytelling traditions are intrinsic to Aboriginal and other cultures, and storytelling is now an accepted tactic among professional communication practitioners. The process of developing the project however involved various community representatives. The Council drew from its multicultural community groups to identify ideas and themes for the CALD community. Issues such as aging, community, and local governance were prioritized and CALD focus groups tested these themes along with different storyboard styles. Up to 12 participants from one language group comprised the focused group along with a translator and a Migrant Resource Center project officer. Storyboard styles include cartoon‐based characters, pictures, and photographs. Some of the feedback from the focus group indicated misinterpretation of the message and lack of representation of the CALD audience. These insights were integrated in the revised and succeeding content. Given the prohibitive costs of photographs, a Victorian graphic artist joined the project and developed characters that depicted Moreland’s diverse cultural mix.

Public Sector Communicators as Global Citizens

357

The first series were developed into pictorial cells and each storyboard was tested with each cultural group. These “focus group” conversations enabled participants to open up and share their own experiences. For new arrivals, having their stories heard and acknowledged was important in becoming comfortable in their new environment. During the testing phase where participants engaged with the images regularly, the need for translations became less important. The project group found that the images were strong enough to stand alone and carry the meaning of the message. The group also identified key learnings from the testing: 1 Transferability. Other cultures view the world differently. 2 Sensitivity. People from other backgrounds have different life experiences. 3 Challenge. As well as strong endorsement from their community, there was an opportunity to send a message to their own community, challenging existing norms. 4 Symbolism. Despite other languages, there is a universal need for symbols that are easy to recognize. 5 Simplicity. Images need to be as simple as possible (CALD COM Handbook, p. 5). The process as described in the handbook highlighted how participants “felt honored” to be part of the process and that they benefited from having their views recognized. The participants were reported to also have felt “empowered when they understood the extent of their rights and responsibilities in Australia” (CALD COM Handbook, p. 6). The communication team’s approach to the project reflected what I earlier referred to as coming from a “position of learning” and what Freire referred to as “humility” where knowledge and wisdom exists in the community, not the “outside expert.” The CALD COM project, which ran over 4 years, has been so successful that the Council has offered other councils and communities the storyboards to use and personalize for their own needs. The Council felt that the project not only increased community awareness of the local government and its services but also connected displaced groups to the wider community. For more information on the City of Moreland and its various initiatives in the multicultural space, please visit: http://moreland.vic.gov.au/community‐care/multicultural‐services.

References Braedel‐Kühner, C., & Müller, A. P. (2016). Introduction: Re‐thinking diversity from a cultural science perspective. In C. Braedel‐Kühner & A. P. Müller (Eds.), Re‐thinking diversity: Management, culture, interpretation. Wiesbaden: Springer. Brown, T. M., Cueto, M., & Fee, E. (2006). The World Health Organization and the transition from “International” to “Global” public health. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 62–72. Butteriss, C. (2014). Community engagement versus civic engagement versus publiciInvolvement. Accessed 20 August 2017. http://www.bangthetable.com/community‐engagement‐vs‐civic‐engagement ‐vs‐public‐involvement) Butteriss, C. (2016). What is community engagement, exactly? Bang the table: All about engagement. Accessed 20 August 2017. http://www.bangthetable.com/what‐is‐community‐engagement. Collins, P. (2015). Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 1–20. Elias, N. M. R. (2013). Shifting diversity perspectives and new avenues for representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Quarterly, 37(3), 331–373. Eurostat (2017). Migration and migrant population statistics. Accessed 15 August 2017. http://ec.europa. eu/eurostat/statistics‐explained/index.php/Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics

358

Marianne D. Sison

Gidley, J., Hampson, G., Wheeler, L., & Bereded‐Samuel, E. (2010). Social inclusion: Context, theory and practice. The Australasian Journal of University‐Community Engagement, 5, 6–36. Gotsis, G., & Kortezi, Z. (2015). Critical studies in diversity management literature: A review and synthesis. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. Hewlett, S., Marshall, M., & Sherbin, L. (2013). How diversity can drive innovation. Harvard Business Review, 91, 30. Holtzhausen, D. A., & Voto, R. (2002). Towards a postmodern research agenda for public relations. Public Relations Review, 28, 251–264. Huesca, R. (2008). Tracing the history of participatory communication approaches to development: A critical appraisal. In J. Servaes (Ed.), Communication for development and social change. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Hughes, K. (2017). Encouraging diversity in higher education: Supporting student success. Oxford: Routledge. Hunt, V., Layton, D., & Prince, S. (2015). Diversity Matters. Retrieved from MyKinsey‐DIVERSITY_ MATTERS_2014_‐_print_version_‐_McKinsey_Report.pdf International Association of Public Participation Australasia. (n.d.). IAP2’s Public Participation Spectrum. Retrieved from www.iap2.org.au/About‐Us/About‐IAP2‐Australasia‐/Spectrum. Jacobson, T. L. (2003). Participatory Communication for Social Change. Communication Yearbook, 27, 87–123. Kent, M., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28, 21–37. Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buchan, N. R., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. (2005). Culture and international business: Recent advances and their implications for future research. Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 357–378. Lilley, K., Barker, M., & Harris, N. (2017). The global citizen conceptualized: Accommodating ambiguity. Journal of Studies in International Education, 21, 6–21. Lott, B. (2009). Multiculturalism and diversity: A social psychological perspective. West Sussex: Wiley. Macnamara, J. (2015). Creating an ‘architecture of listening’ in organizations: The basis of engagement, trust, healthy democracy, social equity and business sustainability. Retrieved from Sydney, NSW: www. uts.edu.au/sites/default/files/fass‐organizational‐listening‐report.pdf Madichie, N. O., & Nyakang’o, M. (2016). An exploratory insight into workplace demographic challenges in the public sector: A Kenyan perspective. Employee Relations, 38(6), 859–885. Mansouri, F., & Lobo, M. (Eds.) (2011). Migration, citizenship and intercultural relations: Looking through the lens of social inclusion. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Mason, A. (2014). Modern versus diverse citizenship: Historical and ideal theory perspectives. In J. Tully (Ed.), On global citizenship: James Tully in dialogue (pp. 229–246). London: Bloomsbury Academic. Mensi‐Klarbach, H., & Leixnering, S. (2017). Uncovering the myth of the rational good: Diversity management and corporate social responsibility in Austria. In K. Hansen & C. Seierstad (Eds.), Corporate social responsibility and diversity management: Theoretical approaches and best practices (pp. 93–106). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–758. Murry, V., Kotchick, M., Wallace, B., Ketchen, A., Eddings, S., Heller, B., & Collier, K. (2004). Race, culture and ethnicity: Implications for a community intervention. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13, 81–99. OECD. (2018). International Migration Outlook. http://www.oecd.org/migration/international‐ migration‐outlook‐1999124x.htm Orr, Z. (2016). Managing cultural diversity through multiculturalism in NGOs for social change: An Israeli case study. In C. Braedel‐Kühner & A. P. Müller (Eds.), Re‐thinking diversity: Management, culture, interpretation (pp. 193–215). Wiesbaden: Springer. Otten, S., van der Zee, K., & Brewer, M. B. (Eds.) (2015). Towards inclusive organizations: Determinants of successful diversity management at work. New York: Psychology Press. Parmenter, L. (2011). Power and place in the discourse of global citizenship education. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 9, 367–380. Rashid, T. (2015). Theatre for community development: Street theatre as an agent of change in Punjab (Pakistan). India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, 71, 335–347. Reysen, S., & Katzarska‐Miller, I. (2013). A model of global citizenship: Antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 858–870.

Public Sector Communicators as Global Citizens

359

Servaes, J. (Ed.) (2008). Communication for development and social change. New Delhi: Sage Publications. Sha, B.‐L., & Ford, R. (2007). Redefining ‘requisite variety’: The challenge of multiple diversities for the future of public relations excellence. In E. Toth (Ed.), Future of excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 381–398). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Shames, S. L., & Wise, T. (2017). Gender, diversity and methods in political science: A theory of selection and survival biases. Political Science and Politics, 50, 811–823. Simms, C. (2013). Voice: The importance of diversity in healthcare. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 67, 394–396. Sison, M. D. (2017). Communicating development: Towards strategic, inclusive and creative approaches. In P. Battersby & R. K. Roy (Eds.), International development: A global perspective on theory and practice (pp. 213–229). London, UK: Sage Publications Limited. Snider, J. S., Reysen, S., & Katzarska‐Miller, I. (2013). How we frame the message of globalization matters. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 1599–1607. Stimson, S. (2013). ’Why the PR industry lacks diversity’, The Guardian. Stokes, G. (2008). Global citizenship: Theory and practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Tarozzi, M., & Torres, C. A. (2016). Global citizenship education and the crisis of multiculturalism: Comparative perspectives. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. Tayler, K., & Price, D. (2016). Gender diversity and inclusion in early years education. London, UK: Routledge. The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary (2004). South Melbourne. Victoria, AU: Oxford University Press. The World Bank. (2017). Social inclusion. Accessed 5 May 2016. http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/ socialdevelopment/brief/social‐inclusion. Tufte, T., & Mefalopulos, P. (2009). Participatory communication: A practical guide. Retrieved from Washington, D.C.: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTDEVCOMMENG/Resources/ Participatorycommunication.pdf Tully, J. (2014). On global citizenship: James Tully in dialogue. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic. UNDP (2013). Fast facts United Nations development programme: Poverty reduction and UNDP. United Nations Development Programme. Accessed 12 August 2017. http://www.undp.org/content/dam/ undp/library/corporate/fast‐facts/english/FF‐Poverty‐Reduction.pdf United Nations (2016). 244 million international migrants living abroad worldwide, new UN statistics reveal. Accessed 15 August 2017. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2016/01/ 244‐million‐international‐migrants‐living‐abroad‐worldwide‐new‐un‐statistics‐reveal Vardeman-Winter, J. (2010). Using the cultural studies approach to understand health decision-making among a teen public. Public Relations Review, 36, 383–385. Vardeman‐Winter, J., Tindall, N., & Jiang, H. (2013). Intersectionality and publics: How exploring publics’ multiple identities questions basic public relations concepts. Public Relations Inquiry, 2, 279–304. Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Part V

Public Sector Communication Measurement and Evaluation Jim Macnamara

Introduction In the past two decades, governments in a number of countries and states have sought to expand public access to information and participation in policy making through “open government” (OGP, 2015), “Government 2.0” (Tanner, 2009), “government to citizens” (G2C) projects (Garson & Khosrow‐Pour, 2008), and other e‐democracy initiatives (Carpentier, 2011; Dahlgren, 2009), along with traditional public communication through media and public consultation. This has resulted in substantial commitments to public communication, as noted in previous sections of this handbook. Equally, governments are applying increased focus on governance, transparency, and accountability in relation to public sector expenditure. Continuing budget pressures in the wake of the global financial crisis that began in 2008, the effects of globalization on trade and investment, technological change, recent massive immigration influxes in a number of countries, and other economic, political, and social factors, mean that public sector communication must be shown to be necessary, cost‐efficient, and effective. Despite this pressure on public sector organizations, UK communication evaluation scholars Anne Gregory and Tom Watson (2008) have reported a “stasis” in measurement and evaluation. In the US, David Michaelson and Don Stacks have observed that “public relations practitioners have consistently failed to achieve consensus on what the basic evaluative measures are or how to conduct the underlying research for evaluating and measuring public relations performance” (2011, p. 1). In Europe, the 2012 European Communication Monitor, based on a survey of 2,200 communication practitioners in 42 European countries, reported that 75% identified inability “to prove the impact of communication activities on organizational goals” as a “major barrier to further professionalization and growth” (Zerfass, Verčič, Verhoeven, Moreno, & Tench, 2012, p. 36). The 2015 European Communication Monitor reported that communication practitioners in government organizations had the highest awareness of the need for transparency and governance, but lag public and private companies and nonprofit organizations in reporting and explaining the value of public communication to management (Zerfass, Verčič, Verhoeven, Moreno, & Tench, 2015). The first‐ever Asia Pacific Communication Monitor, which surveyed 1,200

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

362

Jim Macnamara

c­ ommunication practitioners in 23 countries, 12% of whom work in the public sector, reported a slightly more positive picture. It found that practitioners believe that government organizations are better than public and private companies in evaluating the success of communication activities and explaining the value of communication to top executives—but only by a small margin. Furthermore, practitioners in both public and private sector organizations rated themselves as only slightly better than average in evaluation based on a five‐point scale (Macnamara, Lwin, Adi, & Zerfass, 2015). In his historical analysis of evaluation of public relations, Tom Watson (2012) noted that the first press clipping agencies were established more than 120 years ago in the late 1800s, and the use of a social science research‐based approach to measurement and evaluation or PR was proposed by Edward Bernays in the early twentieth century. Likely and Watson (2013) report that opinion research was also advocated by Arthur Page, and that measurement and evaluation has been the subject of intensive debate since the 1970s. Similarly, evaluation of advertising and specialist fields such as health communication has long been a focus of attention. Nevertheless, practice continues to lag theory. Leading scholars point out that, despite decades of public health campaigns, evaluation has been poorly undertaken in the health communication and health promotion field (e.g., Noblet & LaMontagne, 2009; Nutbeam, 1998). Despite more than US$500 billion a year being spent on advertising worldwide (PWC, 2014), independent marketing analyst Jerry Thomas says, “The advertising industry, as a whole, has the poorest quality‐assurance systems and turns out the most inconsistent product … of any industry in the world” (Thomas, 2008, para. 1). So why does this stasis in evaluation continue? A number of barriers and obstacles to rigorous measurement and evaluation of communication have been proffered as explanations, including: • • • •

Lack of budget (Wright, Gaunt, Leggetter, Daniels, & Zerfass, 2009) Lack of demand (Baskin, Hahn, Seaman, & Reines, 2010) Lack of standards (Wright et al., 2009; Michaelson & Stacks, 2011, p. 4) A search by practitioners for a silver bullet—a single simple solution (Gregory & White, 2008; Likely & Watson, 2013, p. 156) • Lack of knowledge (Cutler, 2004; Watson & Noble, 2014, Baskin et al., 2010) However, all but one of these so‐called barriers has been refuted by researchers or substantially addressed. For instance, at the beginning of the millennium Walter Lindenmann (2001) presented a list of low‐cost tools for evaluation to supplement advanced social science research methods—an argument supported in the Pyramid Model of Evaluation Research (Macnamara, 2002, 2012). Demand by employer organizations is evident in that many governments have legislated or made it policy to require evaluation of communication activities, including the EU (O’Neil, 2013), the UK (Government Communication Service, 2015), and some states of Australia (e.g., NSW DPC, 2015). Standards, which have been lacking in the past (Macnamara, 2014), have been substantially developed, as discussed in Chapter  24, and researchers have debunked the myth of a “silver bullet” (e.g., Watson & Noble, 2014). The one barrier that continues to limit measurement and evaluation is knowledge, and this section is devoted to addressing this issue. In this section, a number of leading authors, including several of those who have studied this field of practice for many decades, summarize the theoretical foundations of measurement and evaluation and provide models, methods, and case studies that inform the evaluation of communication in the public sector. As noted in the introduction, public sector communication incorporates practices referred to as government communication, public affairs, strategic communication, public relations, and administrative communication within public administration. The authors in this section draw from all of these fields, discussing evaluation for the public sector communication.

Introduction to Public Sector Communication Measurement and Evaluation

363

First, in Chapter 24, Anne Gregory, Professor of Corporate Communications at the University of Huddersfield in the United Kingdom, recaps and summarizes the fundamentals of measurement and evaluation including key concepts, theoretical frameworks, and the most widely used models for quantitative and qualitative evaluation. Gregory draws on several decades of experience as an academic and as a communication practitioner and adviser to government on evaluation of communication. In Chapter 25, Stefania Romenti, associate professor in strategic communication and PR at IULM University, Milan, and Grazia Murtarelli from IULM discuss measurement and evaluation of communication through traditional and social media. This is an important chapter, as media in ever‐expanding forms remain central to public communication. Romenti examines both quantitative and qualitative aspects of media content analysis, looking beyond clippings to the latest measures of target audience reach, tone, and messages, as well as new metrics such as likes, follows, shares, and other indicators of reception and engagement. Chapter 26 explores a vitally important aspect of measurement and evaluation—the effect on audience awareness, attitudes, and audience response following communication. This chapter comes to the heart of evaluation in terms outcomes and impact. Glenn O’Neil, assistant professor of Communications at the International University in Geneva and a consultant on evaluation to a number of public sector organizations in Europe, discusses methods for identifying changes in awareness, attitude, perceptions, and behavior including surveys, focus groups, in‐depth interviews, and ethnography (close observation), as well as data analytics based on databases and public records. He usefully incorporates insights from public sector case studies to demonstrate the application of evaluation. This focus on outcomes and impact leads to the important question that has plagued communication practitioners for decades—how to show the contribution of communication outcomes to organizational outcomes—and, in some cases, societal outcomes. Who better to discuss this important issue than Ansgar Zerfass, professor and chair in Strategic Communication at the University of Leipzig, who leads the European Communication Monitor research project that identified this as a major challenge confronting practitioners. Zerfass and Sophia‐Charlotte Volk, also from the University of Leipzig and a member of the Task Force on standards for measurement and evaluation of PR and corporate communication, discuss management aspects of public communication drawing on international multi‐country studies and a case study of public sector communication. This section concludes with a review and discussion of the latest developments in best practice measurement and evaluation, including emerging standards and new approaches and models that have been developed recently. Chapter 28 by this author provides readers with the latest thinking about evaluation of public sector communication, including recommendations from organizations such as the International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC), examples of public sector best practice such as the Evaluation Framework of the Government Communication Service (GCS) in the UK Cabinet Office, and models and methods adopted by governments such as that implemented by the Department of Premier and Cabinet in Australia’s largest state. Together, the chapters in this section set out essential knowledge about measurement and evaluation of communication for the public sector from fundamentals to latest models and approaches used by public sector leaders around the world.

References Baskin, O., Hahn, J., Seaman, S., & Reines, D. (2010). Perceived effectiveness and implementation of public relations measurement and evaluation tools among European providers and consumers of PR services. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 105–111. Carpentier, N. (2011). Media and participation: A site of ideological democratic struggle. Chicago, IL: Intellect.

364

Jim Macnamara

Cutler, A. (2004). Methodical failure: The use of case study method by public relations researchers. Public Relations Review, 30(3), 365–375. Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and political engagement: Citizens, communication and democracy. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Garson, G., & Khosrow‐Pour, M. (Eds.) (2008). Handbook of research on public information technology. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Government Communication Service (2015). Evaluation framework. Whitehall, United Kingdom: Cabinet Office. Retrieved from https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/guidance/evaluation/tools‐and‐resources Gregory, A., & Watson, T. (2008). Defining the gap between research and practice in public relations programme evaluation: Towards a new research agenda. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24(5), 337–350. Gregory, A., & White, T. (2008). Introducing the Chartered Institute of Public Relations initiative. In B. van Ruler, A. Verčič, & D. Verčič (Eds.), Public relations metrics: Research and evaluation (pp. 307– 317). New York, NY: Routledge. Likely, F., & Watson, T. (2013). Measuring the edifice: Public relations measurement and evaluation practice over the course of 40 years. In K. Sriramesh, A. Zerfass, & J. Kim (Eds.), Public relations and communication management: Current trends and emerging topics (pp. 143–162). New York, NY: Routledge. Lindenmann, W. (2001). Research doesn’t have to put you in the poorhouse. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/research‐savings Macnamara, J. (2002). Research and evaluation. In C. Tymson & P. Lazar (Eds.), The New Australian and New Zealand public relations manual (pp. 100–134). Sydney, Australia: Tymson Communications. Macnamara, J. (2012). Public relations theories, practices, critiques. Sydney, Australia: Pearson. Macnamara, J. (2014). Emerging international standards for measurement and evaluation of public relations: A critical analysis. Public Relations Inquiry, 3(1), 7–28. Macnamara, J., Lwin, M. O., Adi, A., & Zerfass, A. (2015). Asia‐Pacific communication monitor 2015/16: The state of strategic communication and public relations in a region of rapid growth. Survey results from 23 countries. Hong Kong: Asia Pacific Association of Communication Directors. Michaelson, D., & Stacks, D. (2011). Standardization in public relations measurement and evaluation. Public Relations Journal, 5(2), 1–22. Noblet, A., & LaMontagne, A. (2009). The challenges of developing, implementing, and evaluating interventions. In S. Cartwright & C. Cooper (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational well‐being (pp. 466–496). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. NSW DPC [New South Wales Department of Premier and Cabinet]. (2015). NSW Government Advertising Handbook. Retrieved from http://www.advertising.nsw.gov.au/advertising/advertising‐handbook. Nutbeam, D. (1998). Evaluating health promotion: Progress, problems and solutions. Health Promotion International, 13(1), 27–44. OGP. (2015). Open government partnership. Retrieved from www.opengovpartnership.org. O’Neil, G. (2013). Evaluation of international and non‐governmental organizations’ communication activities: A 15 year systematic review. Public Relations Review, 39, 572–574. PWC [PriceWaterhouseCoopers]. (2014). Global entertainment and media outlook 2014–2018: Internet advertising. Retrieved from http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/global‐entertainment‐media‐outlook/ segment‐insights/internet‐advertising.jhtml. Tanner, L. (2009). Launch of the Government 2.0 Taskforce. Speech to Government 2.0 Public Sphere conference, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT. Retrieved from http://gov2.net.au/blog/2009/06/22/ speech‐launch‐of‐the‐government‐2‐0‐taskforce/index.html Thomas, J. (2008). Advertising effectiveness. Decision Analyst [Web site]. Retrieved from http://www. decisionanalyst.com/publ_art/adeffectiveness.dai Watson, T. (2012). The evolution of public relations measurement and evaluation. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 390–398. Watson, T., & Noble, P. (2014). Evaluating public relations: A best practice guide to public relations planning, research and evaluation (3rd ed.). London, United Kingdom: Kogan Page. Wright, D., Gaunt, R., Leggetter, B., Daniels, M., & Zerfass, A. (2009). Global survey of communications measurement 2009  –  final report. London, United Kingdom: Association for Measurement and

Introduction to Public Sector Communication Measurement and Evaluation

365

Evaluation of Communication. Retrieved from http://amecorg.com/wp‐content/uploads/2011/08/ Global‐Survey‐Communications_Measurement‐20091.pdf Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., Verhoeven, P., Moreno, A., & Tench, R. (2012). European communication monitor 2012: Challenges and competencies for strategic communication. Brussels, Belgium: European Association of Communication Directors (EACD), European Public Relations Education and Research Association (EUPRERA), and Helios Media. Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., Verhoeven, P., Moreno, A., & Tench, R. (2015). European communication monitor 2015. Creating communication value through listening, messaging and measurement. Results of a Survey in 41 Countries. Brussels, Belgium: European Association of Communication Directors (EACD), European Public Relations Education and Research Association (EUPRERA), and Helios Media.

24

The Fundamentals of Measurement and Evaluation of Communication Anne Gregory

Introduction Debates about how the contribution and worth of communication can be measured and evaluated have been raging in the academic and practitioner fields for several decades (Gregory & Watson, 2008; Likely & Watson, 2013; Macnamara, 2015; McCoy, 2016; Watson, 2012). Indeed, as Gregory and White reflect, at times it appears that these debates: Seem like a car, stuck in mud or snow, trying to move forwards. The engine revs, the wheels spin, exhaust fumes and friction smoke clouds the scene, but – in the end – the car remains stuck. So, too, the evaluation debate: a great deal of discussion, but no forward movement. (2008, p. 307)

However, just as with the car, so with measurement and evaluation; shifts in context can facilitate traction. The mud dries, someone comes along to give it a push and the car makes headway. In the measurement and evaluation arena and especially in the public sector, the increasing demand that communication demonstrates the efficiency and effectiveness of its contribution (Macnamara, 2015; McCoy, 2016; Panday & Garnett, 2006), along with a number of industry and academic initiatives seem to be accelerating progress. The public sector has much to be proud of; in fact, it is at the forefront, both in insisting on rigorous evaluation (e.g., since 2014 the UK Government Communication Service [GCS] has mandated that all government and associated agency communication programs be evaluated), and in driving forward thinking on evaluation. This is an endeavor worth pursuing, because as numerous academics have noted, evaluation appears to be the “holy grail” for public relations (L’Etang, 2008; Noble, 2011; Watson & Noble, 2014). The history of measurement and evaluation stretches back to the nineteenth century (Lamme & Russell, 2010; Likely & Watson, 2013; Watson, 2012), but it is since the 1970s and 1980s that it has come to the fore. This is for two main reasons, first it is a subject defined by practitioners as a principal area for research (Watson, 2008; White & Blamphin, 1994) and second, because a variety of models and initiatives have moved evaluation into the main‐stream. Some of these models will be summarized later in this chapter.

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

368

Anne Gregory

A review of the public sector and public administration journals using public relations, communication, measurement, and evaluation as search terms individually and in all combinations reveals very little on the topic. Of the four articles identified which have any relevance (Kiss, 2014; Melkers & Willoughby, 2005; Panday & Garnett, 2006; Robinson, 1990) and which included contributions from Canada, the UK and the US, none offered anything but a cursory reference to measurement or evaluation. This is despite two (Melkers & Willoughby, 2005; Panday & Garnett, 2006) explicitly stating their papers were about communication performance. There are several books and book chapters on public sector communication which include monitoring and evaluation and which indicate many examples of good practice in the public sector in, for example South Africa (Skinner, von Essen, & Mersham, 2016) and Australia (Harrison, 2011). The book by Brown, Gaudin, and Moran (2013) titled PR and Communication in local Government and public service embeds measurement and evaluation solidly within the planning and citizen interaction process. However, it is the public relations and communication academy and practice that has driven most of the initiatives that will be outlined below. At the outset it has to be recognized that the evaluation of communication activities is a complex matter. The quest for a single, “silver bullet” measure long desired by many practitioners (Gregory & White, 2008; Likely & Watson, 2013; Skelley & Ziviani, 2012) is futile, especially so if the measure is purely financial. Communication is concerned primarily with the formation of, interaction with and handling the results of perceptions, attitudes, opinions, and behaviors. Sometimes these behaviors may have financial outcomes in the public sector, such as communication aimed at informing people about how they can purchase passports or tackling recalcitrant tax payers, but much communication operates around the complex area of relationships and how they are initiated, built, sustained, put at risk or fractured either over the short, medium or long‐ term. These are not amenable to simple financial or quantitative measures alone (Gregory & Willis, 2013; Macnamara, 2015). Relationships require not only to be quantified (e.g., how many and where) but to have their quality measured (Hon & Grunig, 1999). The quality of relationships in the public sphere is ultimately measured by how well communities and societies “work.” Good communication brings communities together, aids collaboration and cooperation, and constitutes the “glue” that holds society together. Of course, public sector communication on its own is not totally responsible for all those things, but done well, they set the communicative context and can help make them possible. Communication can and should be evaluated at several levels. Grunig, Grunig, and Dozier (2002) propose five levels: individual publication or message, program, departmental, organizational, and societal. Commenting on this, scholars generally agree that most work has been done at the program level (Likely & Watson, 2013; Macnamara, 2015) although there is an increasing contribution from the critical field on the effects of communication especially at the societal level (Edwards & Hodges, 2011). Unfortunately, this work has not yet produced practical evaluation measures. In addition, there are more attempts to link the cumulative effects of communication programs to overall organizational performance, with both the European Commission (EC, 2014) and the UK government (GCS, 2016a) showing leadership in this area with their respective evaluation frameworks. It is on program and organizational contribution that this chapter will focus. Finally, in this introduction it is important to define what is meant by measurement and evaluation since there is considerable confusion over terms (Gregory & Watson, 2008; Macnamara, 2015; Watson & Noble, 2014). The various measurements or metrics applied to an individual tactic or activity, campaign (short‐term, planned activities aimed at addressing a specific, time‐ limited issue or opportunity) or program (long‐term planned activities aimed at addressing difficult and/or complex issues and opportunities), refers to data collection techniques and their analysis. Evaluation is measured judgment that considers all the factors that affect whether the activity, campaign, or program has added value (Macnamara, 2015). This requires more than looking at measurements, but also entails understanding a range of other factors such as the

The Fundamentals of Measurement and Evaluation of Communication

369

immediate and broader context, the difficulty of the communication task, the maturity of stakeholder relationships, whether communication is direct or mediated, etc. Evaluation is also the term often applied to the process of looking at initial results in order to adjust an activity, campaign or program or to come to a first judgment of its success. It is essentially backward looking and is used to review progress. In this chapter it will be called monitoring. This chapter notes the foundational principles of measurement and evaluation and outlines the conceptual and theoretical platform for the following chapters in this section. Subsequent chapters will reiterate the basic concept that evaluation is an ongoing and iterative process, not something that is done once at the end of a program of activity (Broom & Dozier, 1990; Gregory, 2015; Macnamara, 2015; Watson & Noble, 2014).

The Communication Planning Cycle Measurement and evaluation has to be seen in the context of the broader cycle that constitutes good strategic planning. Effective measurement and evaluation is an embedded part of the process and it starts right at the beginning. It is impossible to judge success if there is no understanding of the starting point of the journey. Strategic plans follow the same logic whether they are used for business planning in general, or specifically for communication. The basic format has five steps: 1 2 3 4 5

Define aims or goals. Set measures and targets. Devise strategies and activities to achieve those goals. Implement the plan. Review the results.

Part of the fifth step is to abstract learning from those results so that improvements can be made both for future programs and for the organization as a whole. Cutlip, Center, and Broom (1985) applied this basic logic to one of the first published public relations strategic planning models: situation analysis (what’s happening now?), strategy (what should we do and say and why?), implementation (how and when do we do and say it?); assessment (how did we do?). It is notable that they do not take this forwards to include future program or organizational learning. The UK government’s strategic planning model OASIS (GCS, 2016b) follows a similar pattern (see Figure 24.1). A key question arises in debates on measurement and evaluation: where does the process start and finish? There is general agreement in the academy that evaluative research takes place at three points in the planning cycle (Broom & Dozier, 1990; Fairchild, 1997; Gregory, 2001, 2015; Macnamara, 2015; Watson & Noble, 2014). These three stages are as follows: 1 Formative research establishes two important points. First, the context in which the ­communication activity, campaign or program takes place, and second, the benchmarks or baselines for the communication that determines its starting point and from which objectives can be set. 2 Process or monitoring research takes place as the activity, campaign, or program is proceeding and is used to determine progress. At this stage, preset measures or metrics are examined regularly and judgments are made about whether program adjustments are needed to ensure greater effectiveness and efficiency. 3 Summative research examines the success or otherwise of the activity, campaign, or program overall and requires not only the examination of measures but also the application of judgment, as indicated in the introduction to this chapter.

370

Anne Gregory

Objectives

Audience Insight Review and refresh the approach after each phase of the campaign

Strategy/Idea

Implementation Use realtime feedback to optimize implementation

Scoring/Evaluation

Figure 24.1  The GCS Strategic Campaign Planning Model: OASIS (GCS, 2016a).

Setting SMART Objectives Apart from the vital understanding of context, which has to be taken into account at the ­summative stage too, formative evaluation establishes the point from which the communication input starts and therefore from which its effect will be measured. From this starting point ­campaign/program goals (what is meant to be achieved in broad terms) and objectives (the specific, measurable steps taken to achieve the goals) can be set. The Barcelona Principles first introduced by Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC) in 2010 and revised in 2015 are often regarded as the point at which thinking on evaluation and measurement began to coalesce (see Chapter 28, Table 28.1 for the full set of Barcelona Principles in 2010 and 2015). These basic principles stress the importance of goal setting and measurement stating: Measurement and evaluation against defined goals and SMART (i.e. specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time‐bound) objectives are fundamental to good communication and PR programs. They are critical to any communication program, whether it be a single campaign or an on‐going effort where the results are incremental over time. (AMEC 2015, p. 2)

Starting with goals and SMART objectives is also fully supported in the public sector with the European Commission (Henningsen et  al., 2014) stating this as “a baseline for best practice communication measurement and evaluation” (p. 1). Chapter 27 in this book explores how communication goals and objectives should be linked to organizational goals and objectives, so suffice to say here that if organizational impact is a desired result, then clear alignment with organizational goals and objectives is necessary. A brief example illustrates the point. If an organizational objective for a specialist scientific government department is that it wishes to be an employer of choice for scarce science graduates, then the communication department will align its activities to support the recruitment, retention, and maximum engagement of those scientists. The European Commission (EC, 2014) advises that for public sector communication, there are three types of objectives:

The Fundamentals of Measurement and Evaluation of Communication

371

1 Generic objectives. To achieve a level (often unspecified) of informed, consulted, and engaged citizens and stakeholders that facilitates a level (often unspecified) of knowledgeable interaction between them and the institutions of government, thereby supporting the democratic ideal through enhancing (to an often unspecified level) trust in the institutions of democratic government and engagement with its political processes. 2 Institutional corporate objectives. To maximize the efficiency and efficacy of institutional decisions and actions through communication‐achieved support (both general and specific) gained among those affected or who may affect them. These objectives are related to the ability of an institution to be (more than it would otherwise be) effective because of its achieving a positive reputation and a level of trust. 3 Institutional business objectives. To contribute (as may be possible taking into account a variety of factors, e.g., budget) to the successful achievement of the specific objectives of identified items (e.g., policies, programs, services) of government business. Within this area, most government communication seeks to encourage or enable people to act in one or more of the following ways: to start or adopt a new behavior; to stop doing something damaging; to prevent the adoption of a negative or harmful behavior; and/or to change or modify an existing behavior. They may also include recruiting (e.g., for the armed forces, police, nursing) and there can be internal (civil service) communication objectives as well as externally facing ones (p. 16). Objective setting is complex for a variety of reasons (Watson & Noble, 2014), but especially so in the public sector. Communication exists within a dynamic context and sits alongside other activities that may shape attitudes or behavior over time, for example, shifts in public opinion, changes in policy, new regulations or legislation, all of which may also stimulate action from opposing or supporting activist groups. Setting communication objectives in this environment is difficult, nonetheless, unless some attempt is made to set SMART objectives, it will be virtually impossible to measure progress or evaluate the eventual outcome. It is generally accepted (Gregory, 2015; Institute for Public Relations (IPR), 1997, 2003; Macey & Schneider, 2008; Stacks & Bowen, 2013; Watson & Noble, 2014) that objectives and outcomes of communication are formulated at three levels: 1 Cognitive operate at the level of creating awareness and understanding. 2 Affective are to do with feelings and motivations. 3 Conative are concerned with changes in behavior. The choice of level is determined both by the effect that is desired by those initiating the communication and the starting point of the group who are in receipt of the communication. Behavior change is generally more difficult to achieve than creating awareness because of the level of personal investment that is required. This is apparent when considering some of the campaigns undertaken by the public sector that require behavior change such as encouraging recycling, changing eating habits, and smoking cessation initiatives. The three levels mentioned above are usually regarded as hierarchical (Noble, 2011), with behavior change not being possible without a degree of awareness and motivation. Recent advances in behavioral economics (Nesterak, 2014; Thaler & Sunstein, 2008) have been taken up readily by governments in the UK, Australia, and the US (see Chapter 28) who have been using social psychological techniques to accelerate the time needed to achieve behavior change. An example of a SMART, yet challenging objective is that for the “GREAT Britain” campaign (GCS, 2016c), which seeks to promote the UK overseas. It states: Deliver increased levels of trade, investment, tourism and high‐quality students coming to the UK, leading to a measurable economic impact of at least £1 billion over 3–5 years and creating over 10,000 direct jobs for UK economy.

372

Anne Gregory

Having established objectives as the starting point for evaluation, it is important to see how process and summative evaluations build on that foundation. Introducing the more well‐known evaluation models at this stage is helpful.

Evaluation Models Program logic models are used extensively in public administration and project management and form the basis of most evaluation models presented in the corporate communication and public relations literature (Macnamara, 2016a, 2016b). They identify a number of stages, most commonly inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impact (Kellogg Foundation, 2004, 2010; Taylor‐Power & Henert, 2008). This approach has been widely applied in the public sector in Africa, Australasia, Europe, US, and South America (Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC), 2016; EC, 2014; GCS, 2016a). The European Commission model referred to above is typical and comprises inputs, outputs, outtakes, intermediate outcomes, and outcomes. It stops at evaluating program results. The UK government model goes beyond that to take the organizational level into account and comprises inputs, outputs, outtakes, outcomes, and organizational impact. There are numerous permutations of these program logic models with variations on the number of stages (usually five or six), how each stage is defined and what is embraced with each stage. This debate is further explored in Chapter  28. However, Gregory’s (2015) approach encompasses the public sector examples given above and she provides a useful definition of each stage, which in summary are as follows: • Inputs. What the communication professionals “put in” to their “communication products.” For example, writing, visual content, organization of an event. Inputs can be evaluated by assessing elements such as the quality of research to underpin these inputs, understandability and accessibility of content, and efficiency of arrangements. • Outputs. How effectively “products” are distributed and used. Evaluation of outputs often includes quantitative measures such as reach of publications, number of website hits, and number of people exposed to social media content. • Outtakes. What an individual or group might extract from the communication, but excludes what they might do with that information. Evaluations include level of message retention, interest, and attendance at an open day. • Outcomes. What the person or group does as a result of the communication. Valid evaluation of outcomes requires matching the level at which the objective was set: thus, cognitive objectives require evaluation of cognitions, conative objectives are evaluated by measuring changes in behavior. • Outflow (sometimes called impact). The long‐term impact of the communication, often taken in conjunction with other communication activities, campaigns, or programs and which have a cumulative effect over time. These can be both at organizational and societal levels. Evaluations include reputational impact, financial contribution, and societal change. For example, the cumulative effect of numerous government smoking cessation campaigns and programs over several years has not only led to a decrease in smoking that leads to better health for individuals and saves money for public health organizations, but to societal change where smoking as a whole has become less acceptable. One of the major traps in evaluation is “level substitution” (Gregory, 2015; Noble, 2014; Watson & Noble, 2014), which occurs when a measure taken at one stage is used to claim success in a stage further up the hierarchy. For example, typically media cuttings (an output) are used as an indicator that awareness will have been raised (an outcome). This is an invalid assumption:

The Fundamentals of Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (a) Lindenmann (1993) Output: Level 1—Measuring Media placements Impressions Target audiences Intermediate: Level 2—Measuring Reception Awareness Comprehension Retention Advanced:Level 3—Measuring Opinion change Attitude change Behavior change

373

(b) Cutlip, Center, and Broom (1985) Preparation Adequacy of information for program design Appropriateness of message and activity Quality of message and activity presentation Implementation Number of messages sent to media and activities designed Number of messages placed and activities implemented Number who receive messages and activities Number who attend to messages and activities Impact Number who learn message content Number who change opinions Number who change attitudes Number who behave as desired Number who repeat behavior Social and cultural change

Figure 24.2  Two models that use permutations on the program logic approach. (a) The PR effectiveness yardstick (Lindenmann, 1993); (b) the planning, implementation, impact (PII) model (Cutlip et al., 1985).

awareness has to be tested at the output level and with the target audience for the assertion to be made with any validity. Macnamara’s (2016a, 2016b) comprehensive taxonomy of the steps, milestones, metrics, and methods that apply to these key stages is provided in Chapter 28. This underlying logic is expressed in most of the more well‐known communication evaluation models. Figure 24.2a,b provides a comparison of the models devised by American academics Cutlip et  al. (1985) and Walter Lindenmann (1993), a senior vice president and director of research at Ketchum Public Relations. It is important to note that Cutlip, Center, and Broom point out that following all the steps in their model does not guarantee success—there are other factors at play that can derail the best‐laid and implemented plans. A sudden change in government may mean a public communication program is stopped before it is able to produce the planned results, even though it was perfectly implemented and initial indicators were promising. Lindenmann’s model is not as comprehensive as some—for example, he does not cover inputs, although it is important to emphasize that he was insistent that the evaluation process began with clearly stated goals or objectives. Neither does he go beyond measuring the results of activities, campaigns, or programs to examine organizational or societal impacts. Another model is Macnamara’s (2002, 2005) pyramid of public relations research (note research, not evaluation), which not only provides a program logic based on three main stages, similar to the previously mentioned authors, but adds a range of data collection techniques that can be used for measuring effectiveness at each stage of the process (Figure  24.3). Macnamara has not been purist about this: he recognizes that time and budgets are often constraints to more reliable and preferable formal research methods, and so he suggests a number of no‐ or low‐cost informal data collection techniques that serve as useful indicators rather than precise measures. Given budget restraints in the public sector, this is helpful. Watson’s (1997) short‐term and continuing models (later superseded by the unified model (Watson & Noble, 2014)), show a different approach recognizing that not all activities, campaigns, or programs are the same. Some are short in duration, have a relatively simple and singular objective, and are not concerned with gaining feedback. Analysis of success or failure is

374

Anne Gregory Measurement Methodologies: (formal & informal)

OUTCOMES (Functional & organizational evaluation) Employee

Outtakes

Number who

Change ..…..…………………………………………........ Quantitative surveys (large-scale structured) Behavior …......…………………………………….….......... Sales; Voting results; Adoption rates; Observation Number who Change Attitudes ……….…………………………………………......... Focus groups; Surveys (targeted) (e.g., Customer, or Shareholder Satisfaction); Reputation studies

Number who understand messages.... ……………………………… Number who retain messages …….…...… …………………………… Number who consider messages ……....…..... ………………………… Number & type of messages reaching target audience ..……………………… Number of messages in the media ……………..…....`………………….… Number who received messages ………………....…. …………………….. Number of messages sent …………………………………..……………..…..

(Proposed by some as a 4th stage)

OUTPUTS (Process & program evaluation)

Focus groups; Interviews; Complaint decline; Experiments Interviews; Focus groups; Mini-surveys; Experiments Response mechanisms (1800, coupons); Inquiries Media Content Analysis; Communication Audits Media Monitoring (clippings, tapes, transcripts) Circulations; Event attendances; Web visits & downloads Distribution statistics; Web pages posted

Quality of message presentation ………………………………………… ……… Expert analysis; Peer review; Feedback; Awards

INPUTS (Formative research & planning)

Appropriateness of message content …………………………………….……… …. Feedback; Readability tests (e.g., Fog, Flesch); Pre-testing Appropriateness of the medium selected ………………………………………….… …. Case studies; Feedback; Interviews; Pre-testing (e.g., PDFs) How does target audience prefer to receive information? …………….………….... …….. Academic papers; Feedback;Interviews; Focus groups\ What does target audience know, think, feel? What do they need/want? ……….. ………. Observations; Secondary data; Advisory groups; Chat rooms & online forums; Databases (e.g., Customer complaints)

Key Steps/Stages in Communication

Figure 24.3  Macnamara’s (2002, 2005) pyramid model of PR research.

uncomplicated and usually binary; that is, it failed or it succeeded. Government media campaigns can fit into this category: the objective is to raise awareness. The message is received and the analysis shows awareness has been raised. The continuing model is for more long‐term and complex programs with multiple objectives that seek to achieve sophisticated, multi‐layered effects. For these kinds of campaigns, constant monitoring is required in order to gain feedback, which can then be used to modify the program and make it more effective and efficient. Monitoring will use several informal and formal measures, and then a judgment is made about whether the program should continue (stay alive) or be discontinued because it has succeeded in achieving its aims and objectives. An example of an on‐going and complex issue that requires this kind of approach is campaigns aimed at raising awareness of environmental issues and at the same time the behavior changes required to assist. This may involve detailed stakeholder engagement to ensure long‐term energy conservation policy is developed with utility companies and communication campaigns and possibly regulatory measures to ensure that citizens switch to reusable shopping bags. Finally, in this section on evaluation models it is worth singling out social media for special mention. The Barcelona Principles outlined in Chapter 28 (AMEC, 2015) specifically state the social media channels can and should be measured consistently with other channels. The UK government’s evaluation framework (GCS, 2016a) does precisely that, using the same inputs, outputs, outtakes, outcomes, and organizational impact process as it does for other communication specialisms. While the program logic is the same, AMEC (2014) has recommended a different nomenclature for the stages of their framework, the marketing funnel. The rationale behind the funnel is that these are the stages that a social media user passes through from awareness to interest, preference, action, and advocacy. Undoubtedly, new measurement and evaluation frameworks will be launched over the coming years, and indeed, the newest, AMEC’s (2016) Integrated Evaluation Framework, is reviewed in Chapter 28. What appears to be happening is a coalescing around program logic models, and this is to be welcome for two reasons: First, they make intuitive and pragmatic sense. They follow the pattern of how activities and campaigns/programs actually unfold. Second, given there is an emerging consensus, there is an increased likelihood that practitioners will begin to use the processes and tools that are being recommended, many of which have been available for decades (Gregory & White, 2008; Macnamara, 2014; Zerfass, Verčič, Verhoeven, Moreno, & Tench, 2015).

The Fundamentals of Measurement and Evaluation of Communication

375

All the models outlined above focus mainly on program effectiveness, although one or two move beyond to organizational effectiveness. Chapter 27 explains in detail how the organizational contribution of communication is defined and measured, but here some of the main ­arguments in the effectiveness debate are now explored.

Effectiveness That communication should demonstrate effectiveness is a given (IPR, 1997, 2003; Macnamara, 2015; McCoy, 2016; Watson & Noble, 2014). By its very nature, communication is complex, multi‐step, and multidisciplined: one measure does that complexity an injustice and is incapable of capturing the richness of the contribution. However, this does not stop the search for a single effectiveness measure, and a popular one is financial return.

Financial Return Largely as a result of expressed preferences from practitioners and the plea that public relations should use business language to make its contribution understood (Gaunt & Wright, 2004; Gregory & Watson, 2008; Likely, Rockland, & Weiner, 2006; Sinickas, 2003), return on investment (ROI) seems to be a favored measure. The sentiment appears to be that if a financial return on spend can be demonstrated, then the worth of communication will be proved. ROI is a term senior managers understand, and if they can be obliged with a measure that they are familiar with, then communication will be valued and budgets preserved. In like vein, it also appears that other metrics that have a financial value attached to them have gained credence over the years and have been difficult to displace. For example, advertising value equivalents (AVE), which is derived by multiplying the column centimeters, seconds/minutes of broadcast airtime, or website/social media advertising space by the advertising rate, has been a popular measure for many years despite its well‐rehearsed dubious and spurious merits (AMEC, 2015; IPR, 2003; Jeffrey, Jeffries‐Fox, & Rawlins, 2010; Watson & Noble, 2014). The public sector too is being pressed to show value for money, so ROI is a term constantly being used to demonstrate contribution. There are, however, numerous problems with ROI as a measure of communication. A number of these refer mainly to the private sector and are linked to sales, for example, return on media impact (ROMI) and return on target influence (ROTI) (Likely et al., 2006) link media exposure to sales. However, there are a number of problems that apply equally to the public and private sectors. First, there is the issue of defining ROI. The then‐IPR in the UK (now CIR) sought to bring some clarity to the debate by providing a technical definition in line with accepted financial terminology: the “ratio of how much profit or cost saving is realized from an activity, as against its actual cost, which is often defined as a percentage” (Institute of Public Relations & Communication Directors’ Forum (IPR & CDF), 2004, p. 15). Likely (2012) also argues that using the term ROI should be within the strict definitions laid down by the accounting and finance professionals and contributes two further ideas that help to demonstrate financial contribution. He prefaces these by stating that organizations (of all types) have three drivers of financial performance: 1 Increase in revenue 2 Decrease in costs or expenditure 3 Avoiding costs by reducing operational and regulatory risks His two alternative financial measures are benefit‐cost ratio (BCR) and cost‐effectiveness analysis (CEA). BCR is similar to ROI, but whereas ROI measure actual returns, BCR can be used to scrutinize a proposal or chose between options in order to build a case for support. BCR

376

Anne Gregory

mirrors work done by Ehling (1992) whose compensating variation requires the communication planner to decide whether the time and costs of the proposed course of action and the results of that action are actually worth it to the organization in financial terms. This is a useful measure in the public sector where resources are tight and have to be used where they are likely to be most effective. The second issue with ROI is that many communication activities, including those predominantly undertaken by the public and third sectors, do not have financial returns as their purpose. Creating and developing communities of interest, seeking social change, working with volunteers, etc. add value in dimensions other than the financial. They are all part of what Heath (2006) calls building and maintaining a fully functioning society. The third issue is that, although it is a reasonable assumption to believe that communication activities which solidify relationships and prevent or resolve conflict both reduce costs and create opportunities, it is difficult to allocate to these a precise financial value. In Murray and White’s (2005) interviews with CEO, these senior managers could cite numerous examples where good relationships had prevented or reduced the cost of litigation, regulation and negative publicity and increased the opportunities for doing business, although it was impossible to quantify this precisely. They also identified that knowing key stakeholder’s views facilitated well‐informed decision‐making and reduced risk since it increased broad‐based intelligence and provided information about how those decisions might be received. Recognizing the difficulties of ROI framed in purely financial terms, another initiative that features in the nonprofit literature is social return on investment (SROI). SROI seeks to blend economic, social, and environmental outcomes (Bhatt & Hebb, 2013). The most popular SROI approach (Onyx, 2014) follows the program logic model of input, activities, output, outcome, and impact, specifying a “theory of change” for each activity, which is normally long‐term and concerned with societal or environmental impact. A key feature of SROI is that it uses a participatory evaluation methodology involving key stakeholders in both defining what the activity impacts might be and in assigning financial proxy measures to them (Ecorys, 2014; SROI Network, 2012). Such an approach lends itself public sector communication in democracies, where joint evaluation of programs with citizens are increasingly popular. The arguments above do not imply that communication is never legitimately expected to make a financial return, nor held accountable for doing so. There are many instances, usually in a marketing context, where communication is deployed to secure sales or a service (Gregory & White, 2008). While less prevalent in the public sector, it certainly happens, as in the example given earlier of citizens purchasing passports, and communication campaigns are frequently used in Western democracies to maximize taxation revenue. One such is a campaign run in the UK by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs Department that successfully brought forward tax payments of £200 million from people who were usually late in paying. All this points to a much more complex, varied, and rich way of evaluating the contribution of communication, and such thinking runs in parallel with those in the financial sector who themselves have become dissatisfied with monetary measures as the sole indicator of organizational health and performance. As far back as 1992, Kaplan and Norton (1992, 1996) introduced the notion of the balanced scorecard, which recognized that tangible returns such as profit provided only a partial picture. Intangible assets (nonmonetary) were important, too. They recommended three other dimensions that should be taken into account: the customer perspective, the internal business perspective (focussing on core competencies, processes, decisions, and actions), and the innovation and learning perspective. The International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC, 2013), supported by all the major accounting professional standards bodies, has developed a reporting protocol based on six ­capitals, only one of which is financial, but significantly for communication, one is social and relationship, with intellectual and human capitals also being included—the potential of which are realized through communication. A number of public and not for profit organizations have

The Fundamentals of Measurement and Evaluation of Communication

377

adopted integrated reporting as a holistic way of representing their value to stakeholders (e.g., the City of London Corporation and the World Bank Group).

Methodologies for Evaluation The foregoing discussion leads logically to questions about what methodological approaches would be appropriate for evaluating communication. Chapter 28 provides a number of examples of the specific metrics and measures that are applied, so this chapter will confine itself to broad approaches. Reading the literature can lead to the impression that communication has particular difficulties in measurement and evaluation, but as Gregory and White (2008) point out, “Measurement and evaluation are problematic in all areas of management … in the dynamic interrelated world business world it is difficult to separate out the effect of one area of management such as public relations” (p. 313). As mentioned earlier in this chapter, Grunig et al. (2002) stated that communication can be evaluated at individual publication or message, program, departmental, organizational, and societal levels. While it is perfectly possible to evaluate singularly at all these levels, they can be regarded as a continuum with programs contributing to total departmental performance, departments contributing to overall organizational performance, and the organization making a contribution (or otherwise) to society. Therefore, the two methodologies discussed next can usually be seen to be relevant at more than one level, even though they may have particular application at one level.

Quantitative Methods Macnamara puts it well when he states that communication is a “victim of the enlightenment” (2015, p. 378) in that a key obstacle in measurement and evaluation is the dominance of the scientific paradigm and hence quantitative methods for gauging performance. In the scientific method, mathematics and numbers prevail. It is essentially a reductionist methodology that seeks to explain the world in a deductive and rational way using the most parsimonious terms. Nothing could illustrate the method better that Einstein’s brilliant but sparse formula explaining the theory of special relativity: E = mc2. This partly explains why, in its search for respectability and credibility (L’Etang, 2008), there has been a drive by the communication industries and a demand by senior managers, often trained in business schools, for a quantifiable approach to measurement and evaluation. In light of this, the search for ROI has an explainable basis and is a legitimate measure where it is appropriate, although as Likely (2012) points out, in terms of its strict definition, ROI can only be applied at the organizational level at a time when it is possible to calculate all gross investments and any time‐delayed returns. However, such purity in definition does bring its problems, and it is arguable that the boundaries between program and organizational level contribution can become blurred. For example, in many countries local authorities have commercialized their renting out of facilities such as sports pitches. Effective communication campaigns have stimulated sales, which have brought welcome additional revenue streams. In this instance, program level success has been directly measurable, but this has also meant that local authorities have become more financially sustainable overall—an organizational contribution is clear. While the example above is clearly at program output level and arguably at organizational impact level, there are other quantitative measures at an input, output, and outtake level. Examples are given in Chapter 28, but typically at the input level there can and should be quantitative assessment of the percentage of target audience with specified awareness, opinions, and

378

Anne Gregory

behaviors identified through benchmark or baseline research, budget calculations, and objectives, some at least of which will have target numbers. At the output level, reach, penetration of core messages, share of voice, impressions per tweet, and numbers attending events are characteristic quantitative measures.

Qualitative Measures Quantitative measures are entirely appropriate for those activities and objectives that demand numerical appraisal, but the world of human relationships and interactions cannot be judged on this basis alone. To obtain an understanding of awareness, attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and their component emotional and nonrational parts such as prejudice, trust, empathy, loyalty, and emotional attachment, requires a qualitative approach that investigates the reasons for and gains an understanding of their strength. Furthermore, qualitative measures will be needed to arrive at a comprehensive and informed evaluation of what is required and how success might be measured. In 1999, Linda Hon and James Grunig produced their seminal paper on measuring the quality of relationships (Hon & Grunig, 1999), followed by Grunig’s (2002) practical guide on using qualitative measures to judge the quality of relationships, which included mutuality of control, trust, commitment, and satisfaction. Ultimately, qualitative research requires that people are asked about their views or that they are observed (IPR, 1997, 2003; Likely & Watson, 2013; Panday & Garnett, 2006). Thus, techniques such as qualitative surveys, face to face or via channels such as telephone, websites, or social media and public polling, would yield the results required. Ethnographic studies such as observation and role‐playing are valuable to detect changes in behaviors or to capture expressed awareness, opinions, and beliefs. These techniques can be used at the input level (e.g., to measure initial attitudes) as well at the outtake level (e.g., judgments about tone of voice), outcome level (e.g., end of activity, campaign or program behavior changes), and organizational level (e.g., opinions of stakeholders on the reputation of the organization). To demonstrate the appropriateness of both quantitative and qualitative measures and when best to use each, several examples are shown in the following chapters in this section.

Conclusion This chapter has sought to paint the broader canvas for measurement and evaluation, touching on the main areas that are discussed in the literature and in practice in the public sector. In summary, it is important that measurement and evaluation are seen as embedded in the strategic planning cycle, with research contributing a number of important elements, including: • Establishing the context, benchmarks, and baselines. These allow for setting realizable and measureable objectives. • Following through. The measurement and evaluation will be used during the course of an activity campaign/program to monitor progress and make adjustments based on feedback. • Providing data. In conjunction with other contextual information, data establishes the basis on which evaluation can take place. The significance of objective setting at one or more of three levels has been emphasized to establish the starting points against which progress can be measured. A variety of evaluation models, largely based on program logic, have been presented along with measures of effectiveness and attendant methodologies. The chapter opened with an observation by Gregory and White (2008) that the evaluation debate seems like a car stuck in mud with its wheels spinning over the same ground, but gaining

The Fundamentals of Measurement and Evaluation of Communication

379

no real traction. The context over the last decade has changed, with a number of initiatives beginning to gain acceptance, such as the two iterations of the Barcelona Principles and the move toward a common set of standards, as outlined in Chapter 28, although the evidence is that progress is slow (Zerfass et al., 2015). The public sector is at the forefront of some of these developments, and it would not be an exaggeration to claim that in general, it is more consistent and assiduous in its attempts to be systematic at evaluation than many other industries and sectors. It is also clear that there are areas that require more investigation. For example, despite considerable advancement in theory and practice on the contribution of communication to organizational performance, more work is required to define this in terms that secure more widespread support from practitioners and senior managers. Also Grunig et  al.’s (2002) fifth level of communication’s contribution to society is underexplored and demands not only careful ­ ­articulation, but also the development of measures that will attract society‐wide approval. For the public sector, this seems particularly important, since it is only through the support of the communities and societies in which they operate that they will continue to exist.

References AMEC (Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication) (2016). Integrated evaluation framework. London, UK: AMEC. AMEC (International Association for the Measurement and Evaluation of Communication) (2014). Social Media Measurement Framework User Guide. London, UK: AMEC. http://www.social‐media‐ measurement‐framework.org/wp‐content/uploads/2014/06/Social‐Media‐Measurement‐ Framework.pdf AMEC (International Association for the Measurement and Evaluation of Communication) (2015). Barcelona Principles 2.0. London, UK: AMEC. http://amecorg.com/wp‐content/uploads/2015/09/ Barcelona‐Principles‐2.0‐development‐and‐detailed‐changes.‐7‐September‐2015.pdf Bhatt, B., & Hebb, T. (2013). Measuring social value: A social metrics primer. Working Paper WP 13‐06. Ottawa, ON: Carleton Center for Community Innovation, Carleton University. http://carleton. ca/3ci/wp‐content/uploads/Social‐Metrics‐Primer‐Sept‐20‐final‐2.pdf Broom, G., & Dozier, D. (1990). Using research in public relations: Applications to program management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐Hall. Brown, J., Gaudin, P., & Moran, W. (2013). PR and communication in local government and public service. London, UK: Kogan Page. Cutlip, M., Center, A., & Broom, G. (1985). Effective public relations (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. DPC (Department of Premier and Cabinet) (2016). NSW government evaluation framework for advertising and communication. Sydney, AU: NSW Government. EC (European Commission). (2014). Measuring the European Commission’s communication: Technical and methodological report. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/communication/about/evaluation/index_en.htm. Ecorys (2014). Wellbeing programme: An introduction to social return in investment. www.biglotteryfund. org.uk. Edwards, L., & Hodges, C. (Eds.) (2011). Public relations, society and culture: Theoretical and empirical explorations. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Ehling, W. (1992). Estimating the value of public relations and communication to an organisation. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management: A study of communication management in three countries (pp. 617–638). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fairchild, M. (1997). How to get real value from public relations. London, UK: ICO. Gaunt, R. & Wright, D.K. (2004). Examining international differences in communication measurement: Benchpoint global measurement survey 2004. Paper presented at the PR Measurement Summit, September 21–24, Durham, NJ. GCS (Government Communication Service) (2016a). GCS evaluation framework. London, UK: Cabinet Office. https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/wp‐content/uploads/2015/11/GCS_GCS‐Evaluation‐framework_ A4‐_191115.pdf

380

Anne Gregory

GCS (Government Communication Service). (2016b). A guide to campaign planning. https://gcs. civilservice.gov.uk/wp‐content/uploads/2015/09/OASIS‐Campaigns‐Guide‐.pdf. GCS (Government Communication Service). (2016c). The GREAT Britain campaign Cabinet Office/ No 10. https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/guidance/campaigns/case‐studies/#great. Gregory, A. (2001). Public relations and evaluation: Does the reality match the rhetoric? Journal of Communication Management, 7(3), 171–189. Gregory, A. (2015). Planning and managing public relations campaigns. London, UK: Kogan Page. Gregory, A., & Watson, T. (2008). Defining the gap between research and practice in public relations programme evaluation – towards a new research agenda. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24(5), 337–350. Gregory, A., & White, T. (2008). Introducing the chartered Institute of Public Relations initiative. In B. van Rruler, A. Verčič, & D. Verčič (Eds.), Public relations metrics: Research and evaluation (pp. 307–317). New York, NY: Routledge. Gregory, A., & Willis, P. (2013). Strategic public relations leadership. London, UK: Routledge. Grunig, J. (2002). Qualitative methods for assessing relationships between organisations and publics. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/ wp‐content/uploads/2002_AssessingRelations.pdf. Grunig, L., Grunig, J., & Dozier, D. (2002). Excellent organisations and effective organisations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Harrison, K. (2011). Strategic public relations. South Yarra, AU: Palrave Macmillan. Heath, R. (2006). Onward into more fog: Thoughts on public relations research directions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(2), 93–114. Henningsen, A., Traverse Healy, K., Gregory, A. Johannsen, A., Allison, R., Bozeat, N., & Domaradzki, L. (2014). Measuring the European Commission’s communication: Technical and methodological report. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/communication/about/evaluation/index_en.htm. Hon, L., & Grunig, J. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. IIRC (International Integrated Reporting Council). (2013). The International IR Framework. http:// integratedreporting.org/wp‐content/uploads/2013/12/13‐12‐08‐THE‐INTERNATIONAL‐IR‐ FRAMEWORK‐2‐1.pdf. IPR (Institute for Public Relations) (1997). Guidelines for measuring the effectiveness of PR programmes and activities. The Institute for Public Relations Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. IPR (Institute for Public Relations) (2003). Guidelines for measuring the effectiveness of PR programmes and activities. The Institute for Public Relations Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida. IPR (Institute of Public Relations) & CDF (Communication Directors’ Forum) (2004). Best practice in measurement and reporting of public relations and ROI. London, UK: IPR/CDF. Jeffrey, A., Jeffries‐Fox, B., & Rawlins, B. (2010). A new paradigm for media analysis: Weighted media costs. http://www.instituteforpr.org/wp‐content/uploads/A_New_Paradigm_JeffriesFox.pdf. Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1992). The balanced scorecard – measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79. Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2004). Logic model development guide. Battle Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation.https://www.wkkf.org/resource‐directory/resource/2006/02/wk‐kellogg‐foundation‐logic‐ model‐development‐guide (Original work published 1998) Kellogg Foundation (2010). W. K. Kellogg foundation evaluation handbook. Battle Creek, MI. https:// www.wkkf.org/resource‐directory/resource/2010/w‐k‐kellogg‐foundation‐evaluation‐handbook Kiss, S. J. (2014). Responding to the ‘new public’: The arrival of strategic communications and managed participation in Alberta. Canadian Public Administration, 57(1), 26–48. Lamme, M., & Russell, K. (2010). Removing the spin: Towards a new theory of public relations history. Journalism and Communication Monographs, 11(4), 281–362. L’Etang, J. (2008). Public relations: Concepts, practice and critique. London, UK/Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

The Fundamentals of Measurement and Evaluation of Communication

381

Likely, F. (2012). Principles for the use of return on investment (ROI), Benefit‐cost ration (BCR) and cost‐effectiveness analysis (CEA) financial metrics in a public relations/communication (PR/C) department. Paper presented to the 15th International Public Relations Research Conference, 8–10 March, Miami, FL. Likely, F., Rockland, D., & Weiner, M. (2006). Perspectives on the ROI of media relations publicity efforts. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. http://www.instituteforpr.org/research_single/ perspectives_on_the_roi Likely, F., & Watson, T. (2013). Measuring the edifice: public relations measurement and evaluation practice over the course of 40 years. In K. Sriramesh, A. Zerfass, & J. Kim (Eds.), Public relations and communication management: Current trends and emerging topics (pp. 143–162). New York, NY: Routledge. Lindenmann, W. (1993). An ‘effectiveness yardstick’ to measure public relations success. PR Quarterly, 1(38), 7–9. Macey, W., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3–30. Macnamara, J. (2002). Research and evaluation. In C. Tymson & P. Lazar (Eds.), The New Australian and New Zealand Public Relations Manual, (pp 100‐134). Sydney, AU: Tymson Communications. Macnamara, J. (2005). Jim Macnamara’s public relations handbook (5th ed.). Sydney, AU: Archipelago Press. Macnamara, J. (2014). Emerging international standards for measurement and evaluation of public relations: A critical analysis. Public Relations Inquiry, 3(1), 7–29. Macnamara, J. (2015). Overcoming the measurement and evaluation deadlock: a new approach and model. Journal of Communication Management, 19(4), 371–387. Macnamara, J. (2016a). A taxonomy of evaluation: Towards standards. London, UK: Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication. http://amecorg.com/amecframework/taxonomy. html Macnamara, J. (2016b). Evaluating public communication: Exploring new models, standards and practice. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. McCoy, M. (2016). Measurement and evaluation. In A. Theaker (Ed.), The Public Relations Handbook (pp. 219–242). London, UK: Routledge. Melkers, J., & Willoughby, K. (2005). Models of performance measurement use in local government: Understanding budgeting, communication and lasting effects. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 180–190. Murray, K., & White, J. (2005). CEO’s views on reputation management. Journal of Communication Management, 9(4), 348–358. Nesterak, E. (2014, July 13).Head of White House ‘nudge unit’ Maya Shankar speaks about newly formed social and behavioural sciences team. ThePsychReport. http://thepsychreport.com/current‐events/ head‐of‐white‐house‐nudge‐unit‐maya‐shankar‐speaks‐about‐newly‐formed‐us‐social‐and‐ behavioral‐sciences‐team. Noble, P. (2011). Public relations programme research and evaluation. In R. Tench & L. Yeomans (Eds.), Exploring public relations (3rd ed., pp. 168–317). London, UK: Pearson. Noble, P. (2014). Public relations programme research and evaluation. In R. Tench & L. Yeomans (Eds.), Exploring public relations (3rd ed., pp. 168–180). London, UK: Pearson. Onyx, J. (2014). The politics of social impact: “value for money” versus “active citizenship”? Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, 6(2), 3923. Panday, S. K., & Garnett, J. L. (2006). Exploring public sector communication performance: Testing a model and drawing implications. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 37–51. Robinson, S. E. (1990). Improving organisational communication: Developing a management strategy. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 3(1), 25–35. Sinickas, A. (2003). Focus on behaviour change to prove ROI. Strategic Communication Management, 7(6), 12–13. Skelley, L., & Ziviani, M. (2012). Measuring PR performance across borders – how a global programme works. In PR professionals definitive guide to measurement. London, UK: Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication. http://prguidetomeasurement.org/wp‐content/uploads/ 2013/04/Chapter‐5‐Laura‐Skelley‐Michael‐Ziviani.pdf

382

Anne Gregory

Skinner, C., von Essen, L., & Mersham, G. (2016). The handbook of public relations. Johannesburg, South Africa: OUP. SROI Network (2012). A guide to social return on investment 2012. Haddington, Scotland: Lothian. http://www.thesroinetwork.org/publications/doc_details/241‐a‐guide‐to‐social‐return‐on‐ investment‐2012 (accessed 16 December 2013) Stacks, D., & Bowen, S. (Eds.) (2013). Dictionary of public relations measurement and research. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/dictionary‐of‐public‐relations‐ measurement‐and‐research. Taylor‐Power, E., & Henert, E. (2008). Developing a logic model: Teaching and training guide. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/pdf/lmguidecomplete. pdf Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Watson, T. (1997). Measuring the success rate: evaluating the PR process and PR programs. In P. Kitchen (Ed.), Public Relations Principles and Practices (pp. 283–299). Boston, MA: International Thomson Business Press. Watson, T. (2008). Public relations research priorities: A Dephi study. Journal of Communication Management, 12(2), 104–123. Watson, T. (2012). The evolution of public relations measurement and evaluation. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 390–398. Watson, T., & Noble, P. (2014). Evaluating public relations: A best practice guide to public relations planning, research and evaluation (3rd ed.). London, UK: Kogan Page. White, J., & Blamphin, J. (1994). Priorities for research into public relations practice in the United Kingdom. London, UK: City University Business School and Rapier Marketing. Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., Verhoeven, P., Moreno, A., & Tench, R. (2015). European communication monitor 2015. Brussels, Belgium: European Association for Communication Directors (EACD) and European Public Relations Education and Research Association (EUPRERA) in association with Helios Media, Berlin. http://www.zerfass.de/ECM‐WEBSITE/media/ECM2015‐Results‐ChartVersion.pdf.

25

Measuring and Evaluating Media: Traditional and Social Stefania Romenti and Grazia Murtarelli

Introduction Media remain essential to public sector communication. To track and improve performance, communication through and with media must be evaluated. However, today the media environment raises both challenges and opportunities for media evaluation. This is due to  the increased number and types of “new media” that are challenging press, radio, and television (TV) and creating a modern mediascape characterized by disintermediation and fragmentation. Despite the recognized importance of media in public sector communication, the evaluation of both traditional and social media has relied in the past on a few primary quantitative metrics. However, digital media now enables the collection of a wide range of metrics, such as the number of views, downloads, clickthroughs, likes, follows, and shares. But with the proliferation of many different metrics, identifying standards for media evaluation is ever more challenging. In undertaking evaluation of media relations and publicity practices, there are two interrelated but nevertheless different activities to examine: 1 Media relations, the relationship with journalists and major social media influencers, such as bloggers; and 2 Media publicity, the extent to which media content positively supports the objectives of an organization. The advent of digital communication has revolutionized the way organizations interact with news media and the way the media system is organized and works (Alfonso & de Valbuena Miguel, 2006). The media system is increasingly characterized by a greater fragmentation of audiences and by the emergence of new professions such as data‐driven journalists and social influencers (Gillin, 2008; Parasie & Dagiral, 2013; Solis & Breakenridge, 2009). Thus, the focus of media relations and publicity practices is shifting to social media (Waters, Tindall, & Morton, 2010).

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

384

Stefania Romenti and Grazia Murtarelli

Within this new digital communication environment, public communication practitioners are increasingly being required to be skilled in planning relational strategies with online news media and in foreseeing and evaluating the success of digital communication strategies. Understanding the impact of social media relations is necessary for legitimizing investments in online communication and for justifying strategic choices made within the new environment. But, while there is a need to develop shared and standardized evaluation practices, the proliferation of new channels, tools, and metrics introduces new challenges. The purposes of this chapter are to provide a systematic overview of the extant metrics and measurement techniques for evaluating traditional and social media relations practices and to offer a view for the future. The chapter is structured as follows. First, we begin by briefly depicting the nowadays media scenario to address the complexity of evaluation and measurement processes. Then, we describe media relations’ metrics. Next, we explore methods and metrics for evaluating and measuring publicity. Finally, we turn to a discussion on the impact of media relations and publicity on organizational performance.

Media Landscape at a Glance The traditional media landscape has undergone dramatic changes over the past decade. As new communication channels increase and gain audiences, newspaper print runs have reduced, and TV audiences are impacted by the competition provided by digital media and web platforms. In an effort to maintain their business, the established monopolies and oligopolies of traditional media and the “old economy” are banding together, as seen with the announced merger between Time Warner and AT&T. Others traditional media are being purchased by a relatively new player, as seen in the sale of The Washington Post to Amazon. This is the era of convergence‐divergence, as defined by Ash (2016), where the media and audience regularly exchange their roles in a multi‐device stream of stimuli and reactions. In a world where mobile internet users exceed half of the total internet users (Chaffey, 2018), newspapers such as The Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The New York Times have developed online applications to deliver real‐time coverage of news, and other media such as The Washington Post deliver instant articles on Facebook. We are also living in an era of fake news (Balmas, 2014; Borden & Tew, 2007) and post‐truth (Bailey, 2018; Harsin, 2015), which news sources, media producers, and consumers have to negotiate. In 2016, American TV audiences were down by 11% compared with six years earlier, and in the 12–24 age group, the decrease was 40% (The Economist, 2016). As with print media, TV networks began creating multimedia platforms to compete with news circulated via the web. So, as a result of the vast changes to media content and distribution, traditional media relations and publicity practices are no longer suited. Over the last decade, an impactful phenomenon called deliberate disintermediation (i.e., when stakeholders benefit from direct access to information, goods, or services without traditional intermediaries such as news media, publishing companies, or other subjects) has developed. The phenomenon of disintermediation “describes the much more prevalent negotiated reduction of the number and the value of links dominated by a central institution and the simultaneous strengthening of links between the members of a community” (Gregory & Halff, 2017, p. 7). Gregory and Halff (2017) suggest that the role of third parties that operate as intermediaries between producers and consumers of information become less important, since organization’s relationships with the public are changing by being direct, interactive, and real‐time. This has resulted in transforming information searching modalities that significantly support consumer decision‐making processes (Raaij, 1998). These changes undermine the traditional intermediary role of journalists and news media. In the past, journalists defined facts, framed information, quoted official sources in order to create

Measuring and Evaluating Media

385

news, and shared content to the vast audience (Hermida, 2010). Nowadays, the social media environment has stimulated the increasing fragmentation of news and the proliferation of official and not official sources of information. This has resulted in the rise of new types of information professionals such as ambient journalists1 (Hermida, 2012), participatory or citizen journalists (Glaser, 2009),2 and grassroots journalists (Aitamurto, 2011).3 Within this framework, the previously ambiguous “love‐hate” relationship between journalism and public relations (Harcup, 2009, p. 72) needs to be re‐addressed. As the media landscape has undergone such a revolution, assessing the effectiveness of media relations strategies is complex. But digital media have an important role to play. They can now make available a variety of metrics to governments and public sector companies by providing opportunities to get data in real‐time and to understand the impact of media relations and publicity. To implement a successful media measurement and evaluation plan, the first step is to identify the type of media used by public communication practitioners. In this regard, this chapter proposes dividing media channels into three categories: traditional media (i.e., newspapers, magazines, TV); online media (both online versions of traditional media and media online, i.e., online newspapers); and social media. The major focus of media and communication practitioners has been on the level of quantitative and qualitative visibility that organizations receive in the media, in the form of publicity. Publicity is a general term that refers to media content that is produced with input or influence from the organization or independently reporting on the organization. Publicity includes content in traditional, online, and social media, and it differs from media relations, which refer to the interactions among PR practitioners and journalists and editors. This involves a great deal of work done behind the scenes, which could positively affect the quality of relationships between organizations and media’s staff. In the next section, the analysis will look at how media relations are evaluated, and the challenges posed by new media (online and social).

Evaluating Media Relations Media relations is a relationship‐based practice. Credibility and respect are the main drivers of relationships between organizations and journalists (either people working within a traditional editorial team or social web influencers or online journalists). Credibility and respect are more and more challenged by the digital context, due to the existence of frequent false rumors, misinformation, and fake news. Practitioners use a wide range of tools and techniques to cultivate relationships with journalists and editors. These include press releases, press conferences, interviews, online newsrooms, phone calls, e‐mails, briefings, and provision of background material. Most of the media relations work is behind the scenes. The quality of a media relations process is measured through the quality of relationships developed between the organization’s staff and journalists and editors. The quality of a relationship could be assessed through audits performed on a regular basis. Organizations should entrust audits to independent agencies in order to disclose eventual weaknesses in the   Ambient journalism can be defined as “Social awareness streams … where the journalism itself becomes fragmented and omnipresent, with contributions from both journalists and non-journalists” (Hermida, 2012, p. 660). 2  Citizens journalists are “people without professional journalism training can use the tools of modern technology and the global distribution of the Internet to create, augment or fact-check media on their own or in collaboration with others” (Glaser, 2009, p. 622). 3   Grassroots journalism is “the grassroots bottom-up distribution in which journalism is created and influenced by the public, the readers, or the users” (Aitamurto, 2011, p. 431). 1

386

Stefania Romenti and Grazia Murtarelli

relationships with journalists. This aim is attainable by applying evaluation models that identify relationships with stakeholders as units of measurement and break down relationships into variegate components to assess their overall efficacy. As examples of essential components of a relationship, Hon and Grunig (1999) refer to trust, commitment, and satisfaction. As for trust, this refers to the organization’s level of willingness to open up to the journalists and editors, by guaranteeing the establishment of a transparent and authentic flow of information. Trust is a complex concept, which has to be further divided into three subcomponents in order to be measured: integrity, dependability, and competence. Integrity is the perception among journalists that an organization is honest, and it fairly conducts its business. Dependability refers to the journalists’ conviction that the organization will keep its promises. Finally, competence refers to media’s conviction that the organization has the ability to carry out its promises. Therefore, the relationship between the organization and stakeholders is based on trust if the media think that the former will keep its promises and that it possesses the necessary skills to do so. Commitment refers to the parties’ willingness to maintain stable relationships over time. Both parties consider this dimension as the amount of the resources invested to maintain the relationship and to make it last over time. Finally, satisfaction rests on the difference between resources allocated, costs borne, and benefits obtained for each party involved in the relationship. Satisfaction is related to the quality of information received by the parties, in terms of in‐depth analysis, truthfulness of news, promptness by press offices in providing answers to the different requests. Organizations should also focus on and constantly monitor the quality of relationships with the press contacts that are assigned to cover the company, its products or its industry. A crucial activity for organizations is, for instance, to take into account those journalists who write for the company targeted media list or those who write about topics of interest for the organization or, finally, those who are the most influential journalists within the organization’s industry. Within the digital environment, in order to measure the quality of online relationships, organizations need to integrate the analysis of offline components previously explained such as trust, commitment, and satisfaction with online‐based components related to the following main two elements (Gilpin, 2010): the transactional content, what is exchanged by organizations and online journalists or bloggers that can help companies in measuring the quality of developed relationships; the nature of ties and connections between the parties, in terms of strength, mutuality, roles, and expectation within the relationship. If we adopt a logic model perspective to identify the sequential chain of measures that can be applied to evaluate media, we can include inputs that can be transformed into activities and in turn generate outputs, outcomes, and impacts. Inputs are working hours and resources invested by companies’ staff to build and cultivate relationships with journalists and editors, to understand the different media targets and which kind of information they need to be fed with. Activities are part of the media relations process and include preparing media releases, organizing press tours and conferences, and whatever else could be useful for the attainment of the predefined goals. Outputs are the most frequently evaluated results of the work done by media offices. When we cite outputs, we refer to the publicity or visibility generated into media. These are the first results of a media process and are often considered superficial. The most important results are the effects generated by publicity on the publics (the outcomes) and the final influences of publicity on the organization (the impacts). The next section of this chapter provides a more detailed analysis of the metrics evaluating publicity.

Evaluating Traditional Media Publicity The main result of media relations is the amount of exposure or attention that the organization received in the media, called publicity. For many years, publicity was simply assessed by summing up the number of times an organization as well as its products, services, brands, or spokespersons

Measuring and Evaluating Media

387

were cited in the media. Over time, measures of publicity have become more and more sophisticated. They focused on the quality of contents, on the appropriateness of media on which contents were published and on the features of persons who were exposed to the published contents. Practitioners use the following variables to determine the salience and likely impact of the contents: • Prominence of contents. It is related to the visibility degree attributed to the citations of the organization, its products, and services in the articles. If the name of the organization is mentioned in the title or at the beginning of an article, or during the announcement of a TV service, the prominence is evaluated as higher. If the citation is less visible as is included in the body of the text, without any specific highlight, the prominence and consequently the quality of exposed contents will be assessed lower. • Positioning of articles. It is related to the position of the article citing the organization within the media. If it appears on the front page of a conventional media outlet, or in a special section (i.e., automotive or finance), contents result as more prominent and the quality of exposure is consequently evaluated as higher. The position and prominence of contents dedicated to organization are important with regard to whether the messages appear in clearly visible positions, such as the top right‐hand side of the page of a newspaper, or the most upper part of an online newspaper—where average users spends 81% of their time (Fessenden, 2018). • Source of the content. The source refers to the roots of exposure and visibility. More specifically, it is assessed whether the exposure has been generated by the activities done by the organization’s staff, through for instance a press conference or up‐to‐date information conveyed to news media. The source of exposure is an indicator that the media relations process was effective, and it can positively impact the quality of relationships with the journalists. • Size or length of exposure. Exposure is related to the physical space occupied by publicity, in terms of centimeters occupied by items mentioning the organization in the media as well as the number of minutes dedicated to the company in a TV service. To this regard, it could be quite surprising to see how the quantity of articles published in the media is the predominant criteria for evaluating the exposure, rather than the quality of its contents. • Share of voice. It is related to the exposure and coverage the organization obtains within the media compared to the total exposure media are getting to all organizations belonging to the same industry. In other words, share of voice makes organizations able to compare their coverage to that of their competitors. • Visual content. The visual component bears relevance, because message effectiveness might depend on the use of images, tables, charts, black and white, or colored text. If the image is highly related to the organization, the quality of the article is evaluated as higher. Other variables affecting the salience of contents are more related to the characteristics of media on which contents have been published. For instance, the significance of the media according to the target audience as well as the media diffusion (i.e., newspaper circulation data or program ratings) could influence the quality of publicity. Reach and opportunities to see (OTS) (or impressions) are even crucial metrics to be considered (Galpin & Gullen, 2000; McDonald, 1997; Broadbent, Spittler, & Lynch, 1997). Reach estimates “the size of an audience exposed to a communication based on some audited system (traditional media)” (Stacks & Bowen, 2013, p. 26). OTS or impressions refer to the number of times a specific message disseminated by the organization could reached the target audience (Stacks & Bowen, 2013, p. 26). This index is calculated by multiplying the rate of media diffusion by the number of times the message appears. If, for instance, in a certain period of time, a daily newspaper published four articles containing a given message from the company, OTS will be calculated by multiplying the number of newspaper readers by the number of published articles. If the message is also disseminated by other media, circulation data concerning different media will be added up, as will the number of times

388

Stefania Romenti and Grazia Murtarelli

the company has been referred to in the media (articles, TV programs, and so forth). However, this index might not be relevant when showing the number of people who are likely to be reached by the message without considering the frequency they have been exposed to the message. The OTS index equal to 30 million people might either mean that each of them has read the message once or that 10 million people have been exposed to the message three times. For this reason, this index usually refers to people who have been exposed to the message once, in order to clearly indicate the frequency and the number of receivers of a given message. Further, the OTS is ­significant if the media used and the target public to whom the message has been sent were appropriate. Actually, impressions ought not to be confused with outcomes, as the latter only exists in people’s mind and could be a consequence of impressions. Results concerning the quality of published contents could be customized for the organization, as they could be related to its reputational pillar and help measuring its media reputation. Media reputation can be defined as the total number of contents reported by media concerning the following organizational dimensions: the quality of its products and services, its organizational leadership, its governance and management, workplace satisfaction, corporate social responsibility, emotional appeal, innovative attitude, and performance (Deephouse, 2000). Media reputation is an indicator of how media perceive an organization and the quality of ­contents that discusses the organization’s behaviors.

The Methodology of Media Content Analysis As we have discussed in the previous section, the evaluation of media publicity could be focused on variables that determine the salience of contents such as prominence, positioning, and so on. Those mentioned are just part of the variables that can be examined in a media content analysis. What is really important for an organization is to analyze the nature of topics that media relate to organization and the accuracy of messages included in media outlets. If an organization diffuses a media release, then it should evaluate if messages that have been communicated are accurately mentioned or if they are neglected by the media. If media don’t regularly pay proper attention to messages spread by an organization, it would mean, for instance, that messages are not prominent enough in press releases or that the organization’s staff did not take adequate care of newsworthiness of messages themselves. Also, the tone (positive, neutral, and negative) of the published contents influences the quality of media publicity. The tone measures the way the media regards the organization, its people, its product, or the spread messages. Media content analysis is a systematic and objective methodology recommended to evaluate the contents and the tone of media publicity. It is a “specialised sub‐set of content analysis, a well‐established research method that has been used since the mid‐eighteenth century” (Macnamara, 2005, p. 191). Content analysis is widely used in communication research because it allows researchers to focus in the meantime both on the contents and contexts within which contents are applied, as well as to reflect upon communalities across contents reported by media (Lombard, Snyder‐ Duch, & Bracken, 2002; Neuendorf, 2017; Riffe, Lacy, & Fico, 2014). It has been a matter for discussion over many decades whether content analysis is a quantitative or qualitative method (Macnamara, 2005, 2018a). “In quantitative content analysis, a researcher uses objectives and systematic counting and recording procedures to produce a quantitative description of the symbolic content in a text” (Neuman, 2006, p. 323). Qualitative content analysis is able to capture the context within which contents become meaningful. While through quantitative content analysis researchers count manifest units of analysis, qualitative analysis focuses on latent messages and interpretation of potential meanings as well. Quantitative and qualitative approaches are more and more considered complementary, and researchers frequently advocate for a blended research approach. For media relations evaluation, the advantage of using a mixed approach such as content analysis is that it allows for a closer look and deeper understanding of the issues

Measuring and Evaluating Media

389

­ iscussed by stakeholders by evaluating the content and focusing on the most important themes. d At the same time a mixed method approach can provide meaningful insights into what matters most for stakeholders. The first step of both a qualitative and quantitative content analysis is identifying units of analysis (i.e., words, phrases, and images) and then assigning them to categories through a process called coding, which can be human or automated. Coding categories can be derived directly and inductively from the raw data (Mayring, 2000; Patton, 2002) to produce descriptions or typologies that reflect how the people view the social world. Biases due to cultural influences, human subjectivity among coders and implicit meanings attributed to words should be minimized by using precise coding guidelines. Details about the methodology for conducting media content analysis can be found in Macnamara (2018b).

Evaluating Online and Social Media The new digital scenario puts a huge amount of metrics, methodologies, and tools at public communication practitioners’ disposal for evaluating the efficiency of organizational inputs (channels and tools) used for implementing media relations activities and analyzing the main outputs and outcomes of online media relations in terms of digital publicity.

Measuring the Efficiency of Online Process Public communication practitioners willing to explore organizational inputs need to evaluate the efficiency of media relations channels and tools and make comparisons amongst different media relations processes and initiatives. For example, an organization can calculate the cost per key message by comparing the cost of each single activity with the number of key messages reported in the media and related to each performed activity. The following are the most used efficiency measures within digital environment: • Cost per impression (CPI). The cost for each impression obtained is calculated as the overall cost of communication activities/number of impressions. • Cost per lead (CPL). The cost of each lead or potential new contact is calculated as the cost of communication activities/number of leads. • Cost per action (CPA). The cost of each action (comment or mention) is the cost of communication activities/number of actions. • Cost per engagement (CPE). The cost of each interaction (click, like, or share) is the cost of communication activities/number of interactions (click, like, or share). • Cost per click (CPC). The cost for each click on digital content is the cost of communication activities/number of clicks. • Cost per referral (CPR). The cost of each positive review is the cost of communication activities/number of positive reviews. Efficiency measures vary according to the media channel used and according to industry. Efficiency measures have not yet been standardized; however, public communication practitioners have at their disposal a series of benchmarks, as shown in Table 25.1. According to research carried out by Salesforce Marketing Cloud (2016) on the average CPMs (cost per thousand impressions) among different social media channels, based on the analysis of impressions and engagements by marketing cloud customers, LinkedIn sponsored status update has the highest average CPM. The lowest average CPM was attributed to Instagram. Research in the different average CPLs by channel or industry is illustrated in Tables 25.2 and 25.3, which shows that the highest CPL is related to the display and CRM advertising ($71) channels, whereas the lowest is related to SEO‐content marketing activity ($14).

390

Stefania Romenti and Grazia Murtarelli Table 25.1  Average Cost per Impression by Channel. Channel

Global average CPMs ($)

Instagram Facebook Twitter Facebook mobile app LinkedIn sponsored status update

4.44 5.75 6.93 7.29 29.37

Source: Salesforce Marketing Cloud https://www.marketingcharts.com/ digital‐68514 2016.

Table 25.2  Average Cost per Lead by Channel. Channel

Cost per lead ($)

Display and CRM advertising SEA (search engine advertising) Referrals Webinars Social media advertising Email marketing Retargeting adv Social media SEO‐content marketing

71 60 54 45 43 39 33 27 14

Table 25.3  Average Cost per Lead by Industry. Channel Finance Technology Health Manufacturing Travel and tourism Retail/CPG (cost per gross rating point) Education Telecommunications Media/marketing

Cost per lead ($) 47 45 37 36 29 29 27 26 24

Across industries finance ($47) and technology ($45) registered the higher CPL whereas telecommunication ($26) and media/marketing ($24) industries showed the lowest CPL (Table 25.3). CPE (like and shares), CPC (number of clicks), CPA (comments or mentions), and CPR (positive review) are related to specific actions implemented by digital users. Google AdWords provides industry benchmarks for what concerns the average CPC and the average CPA as indicated in Figures 25.1 and 25.2. These tables provide examples of benchmarking systems for professionals with the aim to enable them in understanding, comparing, and interpreting collected results. More specifically, Google AdWords examine two types of networks: the Google search network and the display network. The first one is related to a group of search‐related websites and apps where a

391

Measuring and Evaluating Media 8.00 7.00

6.75

6.40

6.00 5.00 4.00

2.78

2.46

3.00 2.00 1.43 1.00

3.44

3.33

0.62

2.40

2.94 2.62

3.80

2.37

2.56

2.04

1.49 0.58 0.79 0.81

1.16

1.53 0.45

0.78 0.86 0.63 0.60 0.54 0.72 0.75

0.51

0.44

0.47

Pe rs on Co al m m Em er ce Ed pl oy u ca m en ti Fi na t S on nc er e vi ce & In s H s ur ea an lth ce & M e di H om ca In l e du G st o od ria s ls er vi ce s Le ga Re l al Es t a Te Tr ch te av no el lo & gy H os pi ta lit y E-

& g in

Da t

Co n

su m

er

Se

B2

B rv ic es

Ad vo ca Au cy to m ot ive

0.00

Average CPC on the search network ($)

Average CPC on the display network ($)

Figure 25.1  Benchmarking CPC by industry. Source: Adapted from Irvine, 2017. 160

120 100

60

90.7 76.76 65.8

33.52 60.48

70.69

40 23.68

20

116.61

116.17

116.13 96.55

80

133.52

143.36

130.36

140

60.23

72.7

81.93 78.09 59.47

45.27 48.04

87.13 72.58 56.76

78.09

86.02

51.58

103.6

99.13

74.79

44.73

39.52

es Pe r so Ena Co l m m Em er ce Ed pl oy uc m at en Fi i na t S on nc er e vi ce & I s n H s ur ea an lth ce & M ed H ic om al In e du G st ria ood s ls er vi ce s Le ga Re l al Es ta Te Tr ch te av no el lo & gy H os pi ta lit y

Da tin

g

&

Se

rv

ic

B B2 m er

Co n

su

Ad vo ca Au cy to m ot ive

0

Average CPA on the search network ($)

Average CPA on the display network ($)

Figure 25.2  Benchmarking CPA by industry. Source: Adapted from Irvine, 2017.

c­ ommunication campaign could appear. By using the Google search network, an advertisement can appear close to the search results when a user looks for specific terms related to the ­communication campaign (support.google.com, 2018). The display network includes a huge network of different websites across Internet and linked to Google that could be visited by potential users (support.google.com, 2018). The average CPC in AdWords across all industries is $2.32 on the search network and $0.56 on the display network. On the search network the highest value is in legal industry ($5.88) whereas,

392

Stefania Romenti and Grazia Murtarelli

Table 25.4  Online Source of Information Measures.

Author/media recognition Relevance Reach

Resonance

Online media

Social media

Name of the journalist(s) who write often about the organizations, product, service Relevance of the media/influencer for your target audience Number of people who could potentially read, see, hear a content published by the media/influencer Number of times online content published by influencers is shared

Identity of online influencers Relevance of the media/influencer for your target audience Number of people who could potentially read, see, hear a content published by the media/influencer Number of times online post or tweets are shared by other users

Source: Authors.

the lowest is in dating and personal ($0.19). On the display network, the highest value is in the employment service industry ($0.66) whereas the lowest is in dating and personal ($0.18). The global average CPA in AdWords is $59.18 on the search network and $60.76 on the display network. On the search network the highest CPA observed is in the legal industry ($135.17), whereas the lowest is in dating and personal ($6.91). On the display network the highest CPA is in travel and hospitality ($129.69), whereas the lowest is in technology ($19.23). Concerning the analysis of organizational inputs, public communications practitioners also need to analyze the source of information. For online publicity, this means analyzing and understanding the different types of influencers operating in the new digital mediascape. Online influencers are characterized by specific features illustrated in Table 25.4: relevance, reach, and resonance. After having recognized and identified the author/media, public communication practitioners need to evaluate which is the relevance of the media/influencer for the target audience and for the organization (in terms of topics and contents matching); which is the dimensions of the media/influencer network (how many users follow them); and which is the resonance of the media/influencer, in terms of number of online contents, articles, posts, and tweets shared by media/influencers network’s users. According to the different level of relevance, reach and resonance, Traackr, a leading influencer management platform, has identified 10 profiles of influencers, and classifes them as the celebrity; authority; connector; personal brand; analyst, activist; expert; insider; disruptor; and journalist. Each type of influencer has diverse relational needs and so may require different modalities of engagement. For example, a celebrity influencer might like to develop and find new sponsors or develop partnerships with organizations, whereas authority influencers might prefer to be helped to create value for his or her community. Connectors could be supported by increasing and improving their networks, while personal brand influencers may need to build a strong reputation, and an analyst may simply prefer to gather data and specific knowledge. An activist influencer may appreciate being given access to organizational contexts and being given the opportunity to be involved in discussions directly with organization, whereas an expert can be called on for comment and to share his or her opinion about on a specific topic. Insider influencers may ­welcome being involved in fertile debates, but disruptors might prefer a more challenging or demanding debate with an organization. Finally, journalists desire to be provided with exclusive comments, information, and materials (http://www.traackr.com/faces‐of‐influence, 2015). Calculating the value of an influencer for the organization is possible. Figure 25.3 allocates dollar figures to indicate the cost per post published by influencers (according to their audiences) on different channels. Organizations can estimate the economic value of a specific social media account. For example, on Twitter, it is possible to influence by using specific programs such https://webfluential.

393

Measuring and Evaluating Media 10050 10000 9000 8000 6700

7000 6000

5000 5000 4000

3500 2000

3000 2000 1000 0

500 330 250

1000 670 500 340

300 200 150 100 90

150170

300

10000 Fans/Followers

25000 Fans/Followers

50000 Fans/Followers

Twitter ($)

Facebook ($)

Instagram ($)

3000

1340 1000 680 600

100000 Fans/Followers Wordpress ($)

500000 Fans/Followers YouTube ($)

Figure 25.3  Online source media/influencer value (cost per post according to different social media channels). Source: Adapted from Geyser, 2017.

com/influence‐estimator. These tools can help organizations enhance their online visibility by measuring the reach and the impressions of their media relations activities, that is, by estimating the number of people who had the opportunity to see a specific media relations campaign.

Measuring Online and Social Media Publicity For what concerns the measurement and evaluation of online and social media publicity, public communication practitioners need to take into consideration quantitative and qualitative metrics related to the space occupied by the online content. In this regard, pages viewed by users, search engine rankings generated from specific content, or keywords searches are often used as crucial metrics to evaluate the quality and the prominence of online content. Concerning social media, applications such as Sagekey Software and Social Mention can be used to monitor word of mouth and collect posts, comments, and shares. Textual objects such as digital posts, comments, and tweets can be analyzed to determine the percentage of positive messages and calculate the ratio as compared to negative messages. Furthermore, in the digital environment, sentiment analysis can be automated through data mining or textual analysis techniques that aim to identify messages by tone (Wilson, Wiebe, & Hoffmann, 2005). Applications such as Brandwatch, Radian 6, or Open Text can then be used to create a map of tones of the results for each topic. In addition to analyzing media articles,

394

Stefania Romenti and Grazia Murtarelli

Table 25.5  Quantity and Quality of the Space Occupied by the Content in the Media.

Number of items mentioning the company Number and prominence of mentions of organizations, products, brands, or spokespeople Topic Key messages about the organizations Prominence of content

Tone of coverage

Coverage of competitors Size Visual impact

Online media

Social media

Number of online articles, video clips, etc. Number of citations and highlighting (i.e., bold, italics, underlined, etc.)

Number of posts, comments, tweets, etc. Number of mentions and highlighting of mentions (i.e., bold, italics, underlined, etc.)

Main issues, subsidiary themes Number and accuracy of reported key messages Position of the content, section in which it appears, page views, search engine position Sentiment analysis toward company, products, services, topics (positive, neutral, and negative) Online share of voice Length, number of words Photographs, images related to the organization

Main issues, subsidiary themes Number and accuracy of reported key messages Likes and retweets by influencers, page views, search engine position Sentiment analysis (positive, neutral, and negative)

Social media share of voice Length, number of words Photographs, images related to the organization

Source: Authors.

public communication practitioners could identify the main messages shared in media relations activities and use sentiment analysis to examine digital audience attitudes in replies and follow‐ up posts to the media relations activities. Table 25.5 summarize the main online and social media metrics for evaluating quantity and quality of the space occupied by the content in the online mediascape, which are similar to those related to the offline environment. From a quantitative perspective, social media also provides different measures for evaluating the immediate reaction of the audience to a specific message received via social media. The metrics most widely used are: • • • • • • • •

Clickthrough rate (CTR) % Referral traffic Coupon download (% increase or decrease rate) Information request (% increase or decrease rate) Really Simple Syndication (RSS) subscriber (% increase or decrease rate) Number of rating % Sharing rate per post % Retweet rate per post

These measures primarily focus on activation – that is, the extent to which an organization is capable of stimulating an action and encouraging digital users to ask for information about or acquire products and services. To achieve this, data and information can be collected such as CTR—defined as the number of clicks that digital content can receive per the number of impressions. The formula to calculate CTR is:

Total clicks on ad) / Total impressions

Clickthrough rate.

395

Measuring and Evaluating Media

Box 25.1  Calculation of Average CTR Two measures can be calculated for CTR, basic or average. While basic CTR measures the rate of clicks on each piece of content published by organizations, the average CTR is the total number of clicks divided by the total impressions across the digital communication campaign (Irvine, 2017). What is considered as a good average CTR can vary by industry. At a general level, over 2% may be considered an above‐average CTR (Wordstream.com, 2017). However, public communication practitioners have identified Google AdWords Industry Benchmarks as a guide for average CTR across industries. Table 25.6 shows the average CTR in AdWords across different industries on the search network or the display network. The industry with the highest average CTR on the search network is identified as dating & personal, while the industry with the highest average CTR on the display network is technology. A complementary metric to the CTR is “referral traffic,” which is a Google method for collecting information about the traffic source to websites or specific webpages. Referral traffic can be displayed as statistics based on the bounce rate, or the number of people who come to visit a website and then leave after a few seconds; the percentage of new visitors to a website or webpage; and the average time spent by users from a specific source. Table 25.6    Benchmarking CTR in Different Industries. Industry Advocacy Automotive B2B Consumer services Dating & personal E‐commerce Education Employment services Finance & insurance Health & medical Home goods Industrial services Legal Real estate Technology Travel & hospitality

Average clickthrough rate on the search network (%)

Average clickthrough rate on the display network (%)

1.72 2.14 2.55 2.40 3.40 1.66 2.20 2.13 2.65 1.79 1.80 1.40 1.35 2.03 2.38 2.18

0.52 0.41 0.22 0.20 0.52 0.45 0.22 0.14 0.33 0.31 0.37 0.35 0.45 0.24 0.84 0.47

Source: http://www.wordstream.com/average‐ctr, 2017.

However, it is also important to calculate the average CTR (see Box 25.1). Activation can be measured not only as clickthroughs but also in terms of specific online behaviors such as coupon downloading, information requesting, or RSS subscription (RSS stands for “Really Simple Syndication” and it is a tool for distributing a list of headlines, update news, to a wide number of people who decide to subscribe for receiving automatic updates). Each behavior can be measured by counting the number of online coupons downloaded; the number of information requests via mail or chat; or number of RSS subscribers. For each metric,

396

Stefania Romenti and Grazia Murtarelli

the percentage increase or decrease rate over a specified period of time should also be calculated. By triggering and stimulating specific behaviors, organizations can identify qualified leads and audiences who showed an interest in the organization. The ability to collect increasing number of qualified leads can therefore be useful for evaluating media relations and, especially for activities aimed at stimulating earned media. Social media relations can also engage in advocacy by engaging in the following: • Stimulate and encourage mentions and positive ratings. • Prompt or post reviews of an organization, its products, and services. • Foster relationships with potential brand ambassadors or encourage testimonials. To assess if the aim of advocacy has been achieved, the following metrics can be collected: the number of positive scores collected by the means of social media (i.e., positive recommendations); the hashtag rate, based on the percentage of mentions using relevant hashtags; and the percentage of posts or tweets (retweets) shared online by digital users.

Outcomes and Impacts of Media Relations Outcomes can be defined as the effects that publicity gained by means of the media relations process. They refer to the short‐, medium‐, and long‐term changes induced in audiences. Desired outcomes should be included in the aims of media relations process. Jin and Cameron (2007) define three types of outcomes: cognitive, affective, and conative. Cognitive outcomes (also known as outtakes) are assessed in terms of whether the audience knows, understands, remembers, or immediately reacts to a message reported by a traditional or an online media. People’s ability to understand the message depends on the accuracy and the richness of the meaning attributed to it. Cognitive outcomes can be evaluated by exploring two forms of remembering, that are recall and retention. Recall refers to the interlocutor’s ability to remember the message and how it was conveyed by the organization, with or without stimulation. Retention is concerned with the ability to recollect the message in terms of its key contents. Evaluation is not only focused on recall and retention, but it also takes into account any immediate occurring reaction, such as, for instance, when a person receiving a message visits the organizational website after having read an article on the media. Affective outcomes refer to the changes to interlocutors’ opinions, interests, preferences, wishes, or attitudes induced by the means of communication activities. It is important to note that a major difference exists between opinion and attitude, which affects the research methods used to assess them. Opinions are easier to get because they are expressed verbally or in writing, whereas attitudes cannot be revealed by analyzing what people say, as they depend on knowledge, thinking (cognitive and mental predispositions), feelings, and motivation. Attitudes must be assessed by using indirect questions. Behavioral outcomes show changes to interlocutors’ routines attributed to the communication activities and, as such, they are considered both the most interesting and the most difficult effects to evaluate. These outcomes might be observed over long periods of time and make use of more sophisticated techniques than those used in the previous stages (e.g., experimental or quasi‐experimental research, survey, direct, and indirect observation). Identifying the outcomes of communication is not an easy process, as it might involve the implementation of highly advanced research methods of data processing. The more sophisticated the method adopted, the more accurate the results are likely to be. However, measuring outcomes is necessary for evaluating the impact of media relations on organizations and on its business indicators.

Measuring and Evaluating Media

397

Evaluating the impact of a media relations process on the organizational performance requires communication practitioners to be familiar both with management terminology and organizational key performance indicators (KPIs) and key performance results (KRI). Parmenter (2007) draws a distinction between KPIs and KRIs. KPIs are lead measures of organizational performance that are crucial to the company’s current and future success. They are nonfinancial measures that are regularly monitored and associated with top responsibilities. While KPIs are core for performance and can be adjusted to increase the latter significantly, KRIs keep track of the organization’s activities in relation to specific business areas. KRIs are influenced by different activities and cover a longer period of time than do KPIs. In performance measurement, the 10/80/10 rule needs to be applied, which means companies shall monitor 10 KPIs, 80 PIs (performance indicators), and 10 KRIs. Internationally KRIs and KPIs can be classified according to six categories even linked to public sector performance: financial, citizens, internal processes, growth, community, and employees’ perspectives. The financial category is concerned with the organization’s ability to appeal to the financial community and by generating positive economic results in the short, medium, and long run, such as in public enterprises. Economic and financial clusters could include an increase in earnings from selling goods and services for instance by state businesses, as well as efficiency in administrating organizational resources in core governmental agencies. As regards citizens, their needs should be satisfied by offering high‐quality products and services. Measures included in the citizens’ cluster are, for instance, the level of people satisfaction, their loyalty, and acquisition. In relation to internal processes, KPIs consist in identifying key processes to generate value, namely those that have the most significant impact on citizens’ satisfaction and those that contribute to fulfilling the main company’s economic goals. Specific quality standards are set down for each key process. The growth category is concerned with the organization’s potential to offer new services so as to generate new growth and learning processes. Key elements include staff skills and empowerment levels and systems to disseminate information. The community cluster shows the support the organization receives at the local and national level, such as through long‐term partnerships activated for promoting organizational support for environmental conservation. Finally, the employees’ category includes indicators that concern the improvement of employees’ perception about their own organization and its ability to attract talents. These aspects are also important from the standpoint of workers in terms of their satisfaction, organization culture, and sense of belonging. Calculating the organizational impact of media relations processes means finding the interrelations among resources invested into media relations (inputs), activities done (media relations), outputs (publicity), effects on target audiences (outcomes), and the KPIs. No golden formula exists for calculating the organizational impact. Numerous managerial methods and econometric models are available to calculate the impact of media relations on organizational performance. It is crucial to implement methods that are correct from a methodological point of view and to avoid simple methods that provide misleading results. For example, for many years so‐called advertising value equivalents (AVEs) has been widely used as indicator to calculate an economic value of publicity. AVE calculations involve multiplying the space or time occupied by editorial coverage by the cost of buying that coverage as advertising. The shortcomings of this metric have been discussed by many academics (Macnamara, 2005, 2018a; Watson, 1997) and professional associations in the field, including the International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC). AVEs are an example of pseudo‐evaluation practice at best and are described as invalid by many. International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication [AMEC]

398

Stefania Romenti and Grazia Murtarelli

(2017), for instance, presents a list of 22 reasons why AVEs shouldn’t be used. The reasons can be summarized as follows: • Advertising and public relations are not equivalent. AVEs confuse advertising with editorial. Advertising initiatives and messages are controlled, always positive and addressed to interrupt audiences for drawing attention. Editorial is not controlled, could be negative as it comes from a third‐party viewpoint, and for this reason has more credibility than advertising. • AVEs confuse cost with value. The two concepts are totally different and bear no relationships to each other. • AVEs take no account of qualitative coverage and target audiences. AVEs provide a quantitative metric that does not provide any insights concerning, for instance, the quality of messages or the relevant issues discussed. Additionally, they reward mass media outlets at the expense of low‐readership news outlets. • There is no standard to measure AVEs. AVEs measurement is based on different methodologies developed by each provider, which makes the metric not transferable between suppliers. Another critical and much‐debated topic among communication scholars is the return on investment (ROI). More specifically, ROI has been a much‐discussed issue within the public relations field for many decades (e.g., Macnamara 2004, 2006), with three arguments presented by academics and practitioners that could be described as hardline, alternative, and disapproving. The hardline approach is the one intended to provide the most faithful reproduction of ROI financial calculation in communication processes. This means expressing the contribution of communication in monetary terms, by assessing (i) resulting earnings (e.g., percent of increase in share value, percent of sales increase); (ii) cost reductions (e.g., reduction of production or managerial costs following a change in employees’ behavior); (iii) cost savings resulting from risk reduction (e.g., thanks to improved relations with stakeholders there are lower risks related to possible litigation and ensuing costs). The alternative approach suggests some alternative methods to calculate the economic value of communication, including cost‐benefit analysis, cost‐efficacy relationship, and social ROI (Watson & Likely, 2013). It is worth noting that an increasing number of communication measurement specialists adopt a disapproving approach, by arguing that ROI shall not apply to communication processes for at least two reasons. First, the most significant results of communication are long‐term ones and have no economic implications. Second, communication activities are frequently carried out along with other activities; thus, it is difficult to calculate ROI for each of them. Consequently, they opine that ROI in communication is concerned with reaching the objectives that have been set down, so they relate to the term return on objectives (ROOs). Besides ROO, many other indicators exist that have been used alternatively to ROI. Macnamara (2014) illustrated four variations of ROI proposed by Likely, Rockland, and Weiner (2006) for evaluating media publicity: • ROI (return on impressions) is the number of people in a company’s target group who have been exposed to the message net of the costs borne to reach them. • ROMI (return on media impact) is the statistical relations between media coverage quality/ quantity and variations linked with sales data. • ROTI (return on target influence) – in other words, the degree of change taking place in the target public. ROTI is arrived at by comparing data before and after the communication activity, minus the investments made to carry out the latter. • ROE (return on expectations) is the public’s expectations that have been fulfilled by communication activities. • ROEM (return on earned media) is the same as the AVE.

Measuring and Evaluating Media

399

ROI remains one of the most challenging measures for communication practitioners and it is considered the “Holy Grail” also in the digital media environment (Fisher, 2009). So far, the difficulty in identifying a shared method for measuring social media ROI has encouraged ­academics and practitioners to modify its original meaning, from return on investment to return on influence (Martin, 2011), or realization of influence (Solis, 2012). A multifaceted view on social media ROI emerges with three main streams of thought and research (Fisher, 2009; Gilfoil & Jobs, 2012): 1 Deniers believe social media ROI cannot be measured and suggest the focus should be on metrics other than ROI, such as reach and branding impact (Filisko, 2011). 2 Definers believe social media ROI can be measured by using clear‐cut definitions and perspective exclusively, such as measuring social media investments customers make when they digitally engage with brands (Blanchard, 2009; Hoffman & Fodor, 2010). 3 The Dedicated believe that social media ROI can be measured by using and integrating ­different frameworks and metrics (Murdough, 2009; Nair, 2011). While considering these different perspectives, if communication practitioners intend to ­ easure social media ROI, they also need to accurately define their performance objectives and m identify costs. We can cluster impacts of social media relations into three different categories (see Table 25.7): 1 Engagement and consumption. Media relations activities intend to enhance the visibility of organizational content, the interaction and participation of digital users, and finally the development of social connections. Examples of social media KPIs are: return visit rate; the time spent on the website; conversational rate; response rate; percent rate of shared content; percent rate of positive comments about the company; and engagement rate (Michaelleander. me 2017). 2 Containment. Media relations could be used for limiting negative actions or behaviors toward organizations, such as in a crisis. In this regard, the main digital KPIs are the reduction of bounce rate; the reduction of unsubscription rate; the reduction of RSS feed/newsletter deactivation; and the reduction of unlike and unfollow rate. Table 25.7  Metrics per each Accountability Aim. Engagement and consumption aim

Containment aim

Conversion aim

Number of unique visitors Return visit Comment rate Product relationships Site/social media traffic

Cost savings

Opt‐in registration score/newsletter sign‐up rate Email‐open rate/email click through rate Pay per click traffic volume Acquisition rate

Response rate Engagement rate Lead volume Net promoter score Redirect rate Page per session Social media reach influence Map of tone Source: Authors.

Mail bounce rate Inventory levels Percent negative reviews Call rate Average resolution time Amplification rate Unsubscribe rate Negative reviews Abandoned rate Negative comments Cost per lead

Mail count Chat count Subscriber rate Brochure download rate Average order value Sales per channel Sales per visits Conversation rate/social media share rate

400

Stefania Romenti and Grazia Murtarelli

Box 25.2  Automated ROI Calculation The Center for Sales Strategy, for instance, has published a digital ROI calculator, as illustrated in the following Figure 25.4. Return on Investment is calculated by taking into account the total investment per digital campaign, the cost per thousand of impressions, the CTR, the conversion percentage, and the projected revenue per conversions. Similarly, Hubspot.com has developed a digital ROI calculator (Figure 25.5). The second example takes into account the number of visitors, the number of leads, the number of customers, and the sales price per customer. As mentioned before, there is no a standard to calculate the social media ROI but it can vary according to specific aims and costs. Digital ROI Calculator Enter the variables of your digital campaign in the green cells:

Total Investment

$

Cost per Thousand (CPM)

$

Total Impressions

150.00 1.50 100,000 5.00 %

Click Through Rate (.1%, .2%, etc.) Total # of Clicks

5,000

Cost Per Click

$

0.03 4%

Conversion Percentage (5%, 10%, etc.) Number of Conversions

200

Cost Per Conversion

$

0.75

Projected Revenue Per Conversion ($250, $500, etc.) $

250.00

Total Revenue from All Conversions

$

50,000.00

Return on Investment

$

49,850.00

Figure 25.4  An example of a digital ROI calculator. Source: http://olc.thecenterforsalesstrategy. com/resources/digital‐roi‐calculator, 2017.

ROI CALCULATOR This calculator simulates the potential return on investment that your could realize by conducting inbound marketing with HubSpot software.

Enter your current metrics to calculate your potential results, then scroll down to view them.

Monthly Visitors

10000

?

Monthly Leads

12

?

Monthly Customers

14

?

145

?

Monthly Sales Price per Customer

Figure 25.5  An example of a digital ROI calculator. Source: https://www.hubspot.com/roi‐calculat or?monthlyVisitorsChart=10000&monthlyLeadsChart=12&monthlyCustomersChart=14&monthly RevenueChart=145, 2017.

Measuring and Evaluating Media

401

3 Conversion aim. Media relations could stimulate real and concrete action by digital users. In this case, main digital KPIs focus on: increasing newsletter subscriptions or the number of followers; generation of leads; or growing download of informative material (coupons, ­brochures, or documents). By taking into account investments and costs, the various social media platforms have tried to provide practitioners with useful tools for automatically calculating social media ROI (Box 25.2).

Conclusions In the contemporary media scenario, assessing the effectiveness of a media relations strategy has become quite complex. On one side, public companies have more opportunity to understand in near real‐time what impact their media relations had, thanks to the fact that metrics are more quickly and readily available for online and social media. On the other side, interdependencies among conventional and new media are creating new challenges for evaluation practices. This chapter summarized the commonly used metrics to assess the level of visibility that organizations receive in the media, the so‐called publicity. Then the effects of publicity on ­various audiences and the consequent impact on organizational goals were discussed.

References Aitamurto, T. (2011). The impact of crowdfunding on journalism: Case study of spot. Us, a platform for community‐funded reporting. Journalism Practice, 5(4), 429–445. Alfonso, G., & de Valbuena Miguel, R. (2006). Trends in online media relations: Web‐based corporate press rooms in leading international companies. Public Relations Review, 32(3), 267–275. Ash, T. (2016). Free speech: Ten principles for a connected world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Bailey, R. (2018). When journalism and satire merge: The implications for impartiality, engagement and ‘post‐truth’ politics–A UK perspective on the serious side of US TV comedy. European Journal of Communication, 33(2), 200–213. Balmas, M. (2014). When fake news becomes real: Combined exposure to multiple news sources and political attitudes of inefficacy, alienation, and cynicism. Communication Research, 41(3), 430–454. Blanchard, O. (2009). The basics of social media ROI. Social fresh conference. http://www.slideshare. net/thebrandbuilder/olivier‐blanchardbasics‐of‐social‐media‐roi/ (accessed 15 May 2018). Borden, S. L., & Tew, C. (2007). The role of journalist and the performance of journalism: Ethical lessons from “fake” news (seriously). Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(4), 300–314. Broadbent, S., Spittler, J. Z., & Lynch, K. (1997). Building better TV schedules: New light from the single source. Journal of Advertising Research, 37(4), 27–32. Chaffey, D. (2018, January 14). Mobile Marketing Statistics compilation. SmartInsights.com. https:// www.smartinsights.com/mobile‐marketing/mobile‐marketing‐analytics/mobile‐marketing‐statistics (accessed 18 January 2018). Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource‐based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1091–1112. Fessenden, T. (2018), Scrolling and Attention. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/scrolling‐and‐ attention (accessed 18 May 2018). Filisko, G. (2011). Social media or snake oil: Does social media measure up to the hype? ABA Journal, 97(1), 26–27. Fisher, T. (2009). ROI in social media: A look at the arguments. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 16(3), 189–195. Galpin, J., & Gullen, P. (2000). Beyond the OTS: measuring the quality of media exposure. International Journal of Market Research, 42(4), 1–16. Geyser, W. (2017). On which basis are the influencers paid by the agency for video content? https://www. quora.com/On‐which‐basis‐are‐the‐influencers‐paid‐by‐the‐agency‐for‐video‐content (accessed 25 December 2017).

402

Stefania Romenti and Grazia Murtarelli

Gilfoil, D. M., & Jobs, C. (2012). Return on investment for social media: A proposed framework for understanding, implementing, and measuring the return. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 10(11), 637. Gillin, P. (2008). New media, new influencers and implications for the public relations profession. Journal of New Communications Research, 2(2), 1–10. Gilpin, D. (2010). Organizational image construction in a fragmented online media environment. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(3), 265–287. Glaser, M. (2009). Citizen journalism: Widening world views, extending democracy. In S. Allan (Ed.), The Routledge companion to news and journalism (pp. 622–634). New York, NY: Routledge. Gregory, A., & Halff, G. (2017). Understanding public relations in the ‘sharing economy’. Public Relations Review, 43(1), 4–13. Harcup, T. (2009). Journalism: Principles and practices (2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage. Harsin, J. (2015). Regimes of posttruth, postpolitics, and attention economies. Communication, Culture & Critique, 8(2), 327–333. Hermida, A. (2010). Twittering the news: The emergence of ambient journalism. Journalism Practice, 4(3), 297–308. Hermida, A. (2012). Tweets and truth: Journalism as a discipline of collaborative verification. Journalism Practice, 6(5–6), 659–668. Hoffman, D. L., & Fodor, M. (2010). Can you measure the ROI of your social media marketing? MIT Sloan Management Review, 52(1), 41–49. Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Institute for Public Relations. http://painepublishing.com/wp‐content/uploads/2013/10/Guidelines_Measuring_ Relationships.pdf International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication [AMEC] (2017), The definitive guide: Why AVEs are invalid. https://amecorg.com/wp‐content/uploads/2017/06/22‐ reasons‐to‐say‐no‐to‐AVEs‐by‐Richard‐Bagnall‐11‐June‐2017.pdf (accessed 3 December 2018). Irvine, M. (2017). Google AdWords benchmarks for YOUR industry. http://www.wordstream.com/ blog/ws/2016/02/29/google‐adwords‐industry‐benchmarks (accessed 25 December 2017). Jin, Y., & Cameron, G. T. (2007). The effects of threat type and duration on public relations practitioner’s cognitive, affective, and conative responses in crisis situations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(3), 255–281. Likely, F., Rockland, D., & Weiner, M. (2006). Perspectives on the ROI of media relations publicity efforts. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. http://www.instituteforpr.org/research_single/ perspectives_on_the_roi Lombard, M., Snyder‐Duch, J., & Bracken, C. C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587–604. Macnamara, J. (2004). Return on Investment (ROI) of PR & Corporate Communication. Australia: MASS Communication Group. Macnamara, J. (2005). Media content analysis: Its uses, benefits and best practice methodology. Asia‐ Pacific Public Relations Journal, 6(1), 1–34. Macnamara, J. (2006). Advertising values to measure PR: Why they are invalid. https://amecorg.com/ wp‐content/uploads/2011/10/Ad‐Values‐to‐Measure‐PR‐Paper.pdf. Macnamara, J. (2014). Emerging international standards for measurement and evaluation of public relations: A critical analysis. Public Relations Inquiry, 3(1), 7–29. Macnamara, J. (2018a). Evaluating public communication: Exploring new models, standards and best practice. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Macnamara, J. (2018b). Content analysis. In P. Napoli (Ed.), Mediated communication (pp. 191–211). Boston, MA/Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. Martin, A. (2011). Return on Influence, the New ROI. Harvard Business Review, 27. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Social Research/Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung, 1(2). http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/fqs‐texte/2‐00/2‐00mayring‐e.htm McDonald, C. (1997). From “frequency“ to “continuity”  –  is it a new dawn? Journal of Advertising Research, 37(4), 21–26. Michaelleander.me (2017). What is a good engagement rate on a Facebook page? Here is a benchmark for  you. http://www.michaelleander.me/blog/facebook‐engagement‐rate‐benchmark (accessed 20 December 2017).

Measuring and Evaluating Media

403

Murdough, C. (2009). Social media measurement: It’s not impossible. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(1), 94–99. Nair, M. (2011). Understanding and measuring the value of social media. Journal of Corporate Accounting & Finance, 22(3), 45–51. Neuendorf, K. A. (2017). The Content Analysis Guidebook (Second Edition) Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Neuman, W. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Parasie, S., & Dagiral, E. (2013). Data‐driven journalism and the public good: “Computer‐assisted‐reporters” and “programmer‐journalists” in Chicago. New Media & Society, 15(6), 853–871. Parmenter, D. (2007). Key performance indicators (KPI): Developing. London, UK: Wiley. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Raaij, W. F. V. (1998). Interactive communication: Consumer power and initiative. Journal of Marketing Communications, 4(1), 1–8. Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (2014). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research. New York, NY: Routledge. Salesforce Marketing Cloud (2016). How average global CPMs compare across social networks. https:// www.marketingcharts.com/digital‐68514 (accessed 4 October 2017). Solis, B. (2012). When ROI Represents The Realization Of Influence. http://www.briansolis. com/2012/02/when‐roi‐represents‐the‐realization‐of‐influence (accessed 2 October 2017). Solis, B., & Breakenridge, D. K. (2009). Putting the public back in public relations: How social media is reinventing the aging business of PR. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press. Stacks, D., & Bowen, S. (2013). Dictionary of public relations measurement and research. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. The Economist (2016). Angling for the future of TV. The Economist, (29 October). https://www. economist.com/news/business/21709345‐huge‐merger‐tries‐follow‐change‐way‐people‐watch‐ television‐angling (accessed 12 October 2017) Traackr (2015). The many faces of influence. http://wp.traackr.com/wp‐content/uploads/2013/11/ TheManyFacesOfInfluence.pdf (accessed 10 November 2017). Waters, R. D., Tindall, N. T., & Morton, T. S. (2010). Media catching and the journalist–public relations practitioner relationship: How social media are changing the practice of media relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(3), 241–264. Watson, T. (1997). Measuring the success rate: Evaluating the PR process and PR programs. In P. Kitchen (Ed.), Public relations: Principles and practice (pp. 283–289). London, UK: International Thomson Business Press. Watson, T., & Likely, F. (2013). Measuring the edifice: Public relations measurement and evaluation practices over the course of 40 years. In Public relations and communication management (pp. 183–202). New York, NY: Routledge. Wilson, T., Wiebe, J., & Hoffmann, P. (2005). Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase‐level sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the conference on human language technology and empirical methods in natural language processing. Vancouver, CA (6–8 October 2005: Association for Computational Linguistics. Wordstream.com, (2017). Average CTR (click‐through rate): learn how your CTR compares. http:// www.wordstream.com/average‐ctr (accessed 18 December 2017).

26

Measuring and Evaluating Audience Awareness, Attitudes, and Response Glenn O’Neil

Introduction Measuring and evaluating communication has been a major concern for communication ­practitioners since the late 1970s onwards (Likely & Watson, 2013). A more recent shift has been recognition of the importance of evaluating outcomes, such as audience awareness, attitudes, and response in addition to outputs such as audience distribution of messages, reach, and exposure. This focus on outcomes has been emphasized by the International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC) and features as one of the seven principles of its 2010 Barcelona Declaration of Measurement Principles, updated in 2015 to state: “Measuring communication outcomes is recommended versus only measuring outputs” (AMEC, 2015). Within the public sector, the emphasis on outcomes has been further reinforced in public management reforms from 1980s onwards with their emphasis on “results orientation” (Hood & Peters, 2004). This is concretely seen in the adoption of results‐based management systems across many public organizations, pushing them to move from output to outcome levels in performance management and evaluation (Mayne, 2007). Together with an increased focus on strategic communication that emphasizes a planning process involving communication goals linked to measurable objectives matched to indicators, communication practitioners are finding it more and more necessary to focus on achieving and evaluating communication outcomes (Smith, 2013; Stacks & Michaelson, 2010). Even then, a focus on outcomes is a “middle‐way” solution. It moves focus from simple outputs but does not claim to study the ultimate impact of communication on a target group, an organization, or society (see Chapter 27). Research on evaluating communication outcomes in the public sector has mostly been small‐ scale studies of the effects of communication initiatives, such as communication campaigns by government services in the health and social fields (Rice & Atkins, 2001; Rogers & Storey, 1987). Studies have also focused on examining the factors that impact the performance of public sector communications, both internally and externally (Pandey & Garnett, 2006). As discussed in the introduction to Part V, Public Sector Communication Measurement and Evaluation, ­similar challenges have been found amongst the public and private sector to evaluating communication outcomes.

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

406

Glenn O’Neil

This chapter first discusses theoretical issues pertinent to evaluating communication outcomes and is followed by a brief discussion of timing and then a description of the framework and ­methods used to evaluate outcome. Issues of analysis and reporting are then presented. The chapter concludes with a couple of case studies.

Theoretical Issues Communication typically aims for outcomes in three areas: change or maintenance of a public’s knowledge (including awareness and understanding), predispositions (opinions and attitudes), and behavior (Broom & Dozier, 1990; Watson & Noble, 2007). As stated in the introductory chapter of this handbook, a challenge for evaluating outcomes of public sector communication is that they are often seeking to influence intangible notions, such as “transparency, trust, accessibility, and responsiveness,” which are essentially predispositions. Scholars and practitioners can be guided by the large body of social science work that has examined how to assess outcomes for decades (as discussed further in Broom & Dozier, 1990 and Stacks & Michaelson, 2010). One key learning from this work is that in order to be able to measure outcomes, a move has to be made from abstract notions into something that can be measured (known as operationalization). Take, for example, the notion of trust. Trust is a multidimensional concept, and studies indicate that trust can be broken down into different attributes that a public would expect in an organization, including ability, benevolence, integrity, and predictability (Dietz & Hartog, 2006). These, in turn, can then be matched to relevant metrics or indicators (Macnamara, 2015). Therefore, any measure of trust needs to assess multiple attributes to gain a reliable view of its salience. In other cases, such as for evaluating a knowledge outcome (e.g., an audience’s awareness of a given issue), it may be simpler and could be limited to a single indicator and question to an audience, such as, do you know of issue X? A second key learning is that a domino assumption of effect (i.e., that knowledge will lead to favorable attitudes and then behaviors) is not supported by existing research. There are multiple factors at play, including a person’s existing views, environment, and many other intervening factors. Furthermore, research shows that changes are less likely to be seen as one moves from awareness to behavior (Dozier, 1993; Grunig, 1997). This has to be considered in assessing outcomes, and any presumptions of links between them and expected effects should be avoided.

Communication Outcomes and Evaluation Methods In addition to considering these broader theoretical issues, if a communication initiative is strategically conceptualized and planned, then the identification of outcomes to evaluate should be relatively straightforward. A challenge is that public sector communication often involves multiple publics with varying objectives (Luoma‐aho & Canel, Introduction chapter, this book). In this regard, choices may be needed to be made to select the most pertinent outcomes to evaluate (Weiss, 1998). Setting out the outcomes to evaluate in an evaluation framework can be a supportive process, as described in Table 26.1 using a simplified example. As seen in the example in Table 26.1, an evaluation method is assigned to each outcome and in this case, two outcomes are derived from the one objective. A method can be used to evaluate multiple outcomes such as a survey in this case. Alternatively, an outcome may require more than one method to evaluate, such as the attitude outcome. For this outcome, both a survey and focus group is suggested in order to explore further how support for issue xyz is manifested amongst citizens. Also noted is the sampling frame for each method. Qualitative methods tend to be nonrandom samples but aim to obtain feedback from all key demographics of a given target group. Quantitative methods tend to use statistically representative samples of a given audience (Lindenmann, 2003). In general, it is recommended to combine methods when evaluating

Measuring and Evaluating Audience Awareness, Attitudes, and Response

407

Table 26.1  Outcomes Evaluation Framework. Communication objectives

Outcomes

In 2016, the majority of citizens of province A are aware and supportive of issue X.

80% of citizens of province A are aware of issue X. Citizens express support for issue X.

Type of outcomes

Evaluation methods

Awareness

Survey

Survey: Representative sample of citizens of province ABC

Attitude

Survey Focus groups

Survey: Representative sample of citizens of province ABC Focus groups: group discussions with selection of key demographics of province ABC

Sampling frame

­ utcomes—essentially, a “mixed methods” research approach (Gregory, Morgan, & Kelly, 2005; o Lindenmann, 2003; Watson & Noble, 2007). Many existing communication evaluation guidelines and models offer guidance as to which methods are best used for which types of outcomes (Communications Consortium Media Center, 2004; Fairchild, 2003; Lindenmann, 2003; Macnamara, 2014), as summarized in the matrix found in Table 26.2. As noted in this matrix, a legitimate outcome can also be seeking change of an organization or institution, recognized long ago by Lazarsfeld (1948) and today often labeled as advocacy, an activity that can be carried out both by organizations as well as individuals such as activists (Stacks & Bowen, 2013). A method can also be both singular and inclusive in nature. A case study is an example of a method that can include other methods such as a survey or interviews, as could an ethnographic study including observation, focus groups, and interviews (Daymon & Holloway, 2010). Secondary research is not featured in the matrix, but it can be an equal source of data and information, such as existing staff surveys or market research (Stacks & Michaelson, 2010). Each of these methods is described further below. The extent to which information and data on the progress toward achieving the communication objectives is already being collected is an important aspect. Traditionally, communication practitioners have proven to be weak in monitoring data and evaluation in general (Watson & Noble, 2007). But any existing data and information can support the evaluation of outcomes, such as the monitoring of audiences to a given communication event or the growth of online support for a relevant issue. Evaluation of outcomes should not only be carried out for the predetermined purpose of proving the effectiveness of a program. Rather, it should be part of a larger effort to improve the effectiveness of a given communication initiative. As Michaelson and Macleod (2007) stated, “The goal of a measurement and evaluation programme is not to determine the success or failure of a public relations programme… [it] is to improve the overall performance of these efforts” (p. 11). This would imply also looking at more process‐based questions such as how an initiative was managed, how activities were implemented, etc. (Stacks & Michaelson, 2010; Watson & Noble, 2007).

Timing of Evaluation Another important point to consider is when to carry out the evaluation of outcomes. An ultimate test of effectiveness is to understand whether knowledge, attitude, or behavior of an audience has changed as a result of a given communication initiative (Lindenmann, 2003). Therefore,

408

Glenn O’Neil

it makes sense to evaluate outcomes before a given communication initiative is started and then again after it is completed—what is called a pre‐post design involving ex‐ante and ex‐post research. In practice, most evaluations are post‐only (i.e., once a communication initiative is finished), which has been found to be due to a lack of resources, knowhow of evaluation, and integration of evaluation within the communication function (Hornik, 2002; O’Neil, 2013; Rogers & Storey, 1987). If an evaluation is limited to post‐only, there are some possibilities to assess pre‐ post outcomes, such as by examining historical data or through before–after questions in surveys or interviews (Stacks & Michaelson, 2010). However, proving causality— that is, that a given communication initiative caused the change—is difficult but not impossible. Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies do exist to support such deliberations, but often correlation (i.e., that an association exists) is more plausible to demonstrate rather than actual causation (Daymon & Holloway, 2010; Weiss, 1998).

Types and Criticism of Evaluation Methods The categorization of outcomes and matching to evaluation methods as described above is not without its critics. A key criticism is the appropriateness of evaluating complex communication initiatives and their audiences through such categorization when outcomes are often unpredictable and occur in a nonlinear fashion (Lennie & Tacchi, 2013; Patton, 2011). For example, a communication initiative may not set out to cause behavior change but may inadvertently do so; in the same way, an initiative may set out to change attitudes before behavior but the latter may occur without an attitude change. In this regard, a mitigation approach is to document the expected path from activities to outcomes in which change is anticipated to occur, often referred to as the “program logic” or “theory of change” (Coffman, 2003). This, in turn, supports the identification of possible obstacles to achieving outcomes and identifies unanticipated outcomes, such as those at an interim stage that could be important to achieving longer‐term outcomes (Weiss, 1998). Following is a brief description of each of the main outcome evaluation methods featured in Table 26.2.

Surveys and Polls Surveys are a popular research tool for evaluating attitudes, beliefs, and opinions of a given audience. A poll is a very short survey with closed‐end questions (usually only a few questions and sometimes a single question) and is often focused on immediate behavior (Stacks & Bowen, 2013). A survey normally contains a series of questions in different formats for a participant to Table 26.2  Communication Outcomes and Methods. Web metrics

x x x

Tracking mechanism

x x x

Case study

x x x x

Observation study

Interview

x x x x

Ethnographic study

Focus group

Change to behavior (organizations) Change to behavior Change to attitudes Change to knowledge

Experiment

Survey x x x x

Select methods: Outcomes:

x x x x

x x x x

x x

x

Measuring and Evaluating Audience Awareness, Attitudes, and Response

409

respond to. Common closed‐end formats include multiple choice (e.g., select your preferences from this list), binary (e.g., have you done the following—yes or no), ranking (e.g., rank in priority which of the following you appreciate) and the Likert scale. The latter is often used as it allows a participant to provide a rating on a scale, which often matches closer a person’s feedback than a simple yes or no (e.g., how would you rate the communication on issue xyz: excellent, good, average, poor, very poor). Surveys can also contain open‐ended questions to probe further (e.g., please explain why you were not satisfied with the communication). However, open‐ended questions require further analysis than closed questions, as analysis of the latter can be largely automated. The development of online survey software has meant that surveys are now affordable and accessible for many to develop and conduct (Stacks & Michaelson, 2010). However, care is needed in who is the intended audience for the survey (the sample) and what are the key points desired to be extracted from the survey (questionnaire design) (Tharenou, Donohue, & Cooper, 2007). A major advantage of a survey is that it can evaluate multiple outcomes (e.g., awareness, attitudes, and behavior) in the one survey. A disadvantage is that a ­survey is based on self‐reporting, i.e., persons report what they think, have done or plan to do (Weisberg, Krosnick, and Bowen, 1996). In the public sectors, surveys are often used to measure awareness and response to government programs, ranging from health to infrastructure.

Focus Groups Focus groups are a group discussion approach to gain an in‐depth understanding of an issue, an organization, a service, or product, and to explore diversity within a group on topics (Stacks & Bowen, 2013; Stacks & Michaelson, 2010). A focus group normally contains 10–15 individuals from a similar or same demographic group. The group is overseen by a moderator, who manages the group and asks a series of predetermined questions. In evaluating outcomes, focus groups are particularly useful in understanding attitudes and opinions; the discussions can also replicate how people form opinions in real life, through discussion and debate with others (Daymon & Holloway, 2010). Focus groups typically would be used by a government service to learn how their communications on a new initiative is understood by key audiences, e.g., financial support to first homebuyers.

Interviews Interviews are a commonly used research tool and can be used to evaluate the broad spectrum of outcomes. Interviews, essentially one‐to‐one discussions between an evaluator and a person of interest can take three forms: structured, semi‐structured, and unstructured (Tharenou et al. 2007). A structured interview is asking a series of preset closed questions, resembling an in‐person survey. A semi‐structured interview will set out an overall topic and questions to be answered. This format is more flexible than a structured interview where an evaluator can deviate from the questions as the discussion develops. An unstructured interview would have a major theme to be addressed but no specific questions to be followed. In general, for evaluating outcomes, a middle way (i.e., semi‐structured interview) can be a suitable option, as it allows an in‐depth exploration of a given theme while responding to a key set of questions (Daymon & Holloway, 2010). Interviews are used in most evaluations of government communication initiatives, often as a complement to other methods, such as surveys and focus groups.

Experiments An experiment is a procedure that aims to establish a causal relationship between two variables (Stacks & Bowen, 2013). A true experiment seeks to have a controlled environment to measure the difference between those exposed to a given activity and those not and therefore is rarely

410

Glenn O’Neil

used in evaluating communication outcomes (Stacks & Michaelson, 2010). However, quasi‐ experiments are used more frequently, such as in the evaluation of attitude‐behavior campaigns (Rice & Atkins, 2001). For example, a campaign was launched in a community on attitudes toward the disabled. Evaluators surveyed randomly people both before and after in the community and a similar community where no campaign was held. They were then able to show that those who were exposed to the campaign more significantly changed their attitudes than those who were not exposed to it (Valente, 2001). However, such a method is challenging to implement, notably for the issue of “contamination” given that communication activities often seek a multiplying effect, making it difficult to isolate a community from potential exposure to a campaign (Flay & Cook, 1981).

Ethnographic Studies Ethnography involves observation and sometimes participation. It is a qualitative research methodology that uses various tools and techniques of cultural anthropologists and sociologists to obtain a better understanding of how individuals and groups function (Stacks & Bowen, 2013). Tools and techniques used include fieldwork, interviews, participant observation, and content analysis. Although it has been lamented that ethnographic studies are not used enough in evaluating communication (Daymon & Holloway, 2010; Jelen, 2008), examples have been seen in using these methods to evaluate multimedia projects at the community level (Lennie & Tacchi, 2013) or consumers’ experiences with products or services (Daymon & Holloway, 2010). A stated limitation of ethnographic studies are the time it takes, given the focus on extensive field work in order to understand and analyze individuals or groups (Daymon & Holloway, 2010; Lennie & Tacchi, 2013). Solutions are suggested, such as using a number of evaluators to carry out ethnographic studies (Lennie & Tacchi, 2013).

Observation Studies Observation studies involve the systematic noting and recording of events and behaviors of a given public (Daymon & Holloway, 2010). What distinguishes an observation study from an ethnographic study is that an ethnographic study is an approach or methodology, whereas an observation study is a single method. Observation studies can be part of ethnographic studies, case studies, action research, and other research approaches. Observation studies can be quantitative (e.g., the counting of a given behavior) or qualitative (e.g., listening and analyzing discussions) (Tharenou et al., 2007). Observation studies are underutilized in evaluating communication (Daymon & Holloway, 2010; Jelen, 2008), but examples have been seen where observation studies have been used to evaluate staff behavior in relation to internal communication or interactions online between individuals (Daymon & Holloway, 2010). Observation studies are usually defined by two key parameters; (a) the degree of structure in the actual observations and (b) the degree to which the evaluator participates in what is being observed (Tharenou et al., 2007).

Case Studies Case studies, when analyzed systematically and critically, provide an in‐depth, detailed insight into an issue, organization, event, or campaign (Stacks & Bowen, 2013; Tharenou et al., 2007). A case study is more of an approach or methodology than a single method in that it often involves multiple methods (e.g., interviews, observation, focus groups, etc.) (Daymon & Holloway, 2010). Examples of how case studies have been used in evaluation of communication outcomes includes understanding the effectiveness of sponsorship as a communication tactic, exploring health promotion and social change, or identifying success strategies for crisis situations (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).

Measuring and Evaluating Audience Awareness, Attitudes, and Response

411

Tracking Mechanisms Several tracking mechanisms are available to track and log changes seen in the behavior of individuals and organizations (Reisman, Gienapp, & Stachowiak, 2007). For example, a tracking mechanism could be used to log the number of people signing up to support a government health campaign, the number of favorable changes made by organizations in applying a new policy, or the number of organizations supporting a given issue and their type of support (Reisman et al., 2007). A tracking mechanism would normally be part of a larger monitoring system to assess progress toward achieving the objectives of a given communication initiative (Watson & Noble, 2007).

Web Metrics Web metrics is a popular method to measure online activity on the internet and social media (Gonçalves & Ramasco, 2008; Stacks & Bowen, 2013). Web metrics is facilitated by software on websites and social media that automatically track how people are using the given web or social media. Often used for measuring outputs, such as the number of people visiting a website and their preferences, web metrics can also be useful for measuring online behaviors, such as “engagement” on a given issue, i.e., number and type of comments made and extent of sharing or referral of an issue raised by a communication campaign (Stacks & Bowen, 2013). Perhaps the most exciting development is the potential that web metrics will have to predict both online and offline behavior (Siegel, 2013).

Other Methods The above nine methods have been highlighted as examples of methods for evaluating communication outcomes. Several other methods are worth mentioning in brief as follows: • Panel studies consist of surveying the same individuals over time, for example, to assess their change in attitudes or knowledge (Stacks & Bowen, 2013). • Process tracing and contribution analysis are both qualitative methods to assess the cause, contribution, and changes to outcomes and are particularly useful in evaluating practice and policy changes of organizations (Beach & Pedersen, 2013; Mayne, 2001). • Action research is a participatory approach where the research and action is combined, for example, by a staff member researching how campaigning works in their organization and proposing recommendations for improvement (McNiff & Whitehead, 2011; Watson & Noble, 2007). • Social network analysis is a method that analyzes how people or units relate to each other. For example, this method could be useful in showing how a campaign’s network of partners has grown (Scott, 2012). • Creative and visual methods, such as storytelling, photo‐voice, video diaries, drawing, and painting techniques should also be considered, for example, in investigating in‐depth changes at the outcome level of specific types of audiences (e.g., children or rural communities) (Lennie & Tacchi, 2013; Skovdal & Cornish, 2015).

Analysis The analysis of the data and information on communication outcomes is a key step to measuring communication outcomes. Regardless of whether the data is qualitative, quantitative, or a mix, this involves sorting, arranging, and processing the data to “make sense” of it (Tharenou et al., 2007; Weiss, 1998). In analyzing data, a distinction should be made in its

412

Glenn O’Neil

actual analysis and writing up or reporting the findings (Richards, 2014; Weiss, 1998). The actual analysis involves using appropriate analytical techniques for the given data. For example, the analysis of quantitative data would often involve using both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses to show trends and draw conclusions on the given audiences (Stacks & Michaelson, 2010; Weisberg et al., 1996). The analysis of qualitative data would often involve using various methods to sort, code, and group text‐based data and draw conclusions on the given audiences (Daymon & Holloway, 2010; Richards, 2014). As most studies at the outcome level will involve multiple methods, the importance of triangulating the data has to be highlighted. The advantage of collecting multiple sets of data is that it allows the evaluator to consider different perspectives, creating more confidence in the findings (Skovdal & Cornish, 2015).

Reporting The next step in terms of writing up the findings is probably one of the most challenging. Here, the evaluator must return to their original research questions and answer them to the best of their abilities based on what the data analysis reveals. In measuring communication outcomes, this could seem relatively straightforward. Take the example from Table  26.1. The simple question to answer would be: Do the survey results show 80% of citizens sampled were aware of issue X, and how does the focus group findings show they were supportive of the issue? Through looking at the survey and focus group data, this should emerge clearly. However, often it may be needed to know more to improve future communication initiatives which would involve digging further into the data: Which tactics were the most effective in increasing awareness? How did audiences actually show support for the issue? What were any other influences of changing awareness? In more complex situations, the evaluator will need to make a judgment as to what extent the given outcomes were achieved based on the data and its analysis, stating any limitations (such as access to audiences or incomplete data). This can be done if the quality criteria of reliability and validity are applied and explained (Weiss, 1998). In presenting the findings in written form, a standard format would be a report describing the communication initiative and expected outcomes, the evaluation methodology, the findings (using supporting charts, tables, highlight boxes, and quotes), conclusions, and recommendations with annexes usually including the tools used (e.g., survey questions, interview guide, etc.) and the persons and documents consulted (Broom & Dozier, 1990; Weiss, 1998). When a Table 26.3  Summary Chart Assessing Outcomes. Outcome

Rating

Raise awareness of environmental and personal benefits of using natural resources wisely. Encourage people to think about consumption habits and their consequences. Help to trigger changes in consumption patterns and behavior in recycling and resource use. Encourage stakeholders and opinion leaders to adopt and promote environmentally friendly actions.

4 3 2 4

Legend: 5 = fully achieved, very few or no shortcomings 4 = largely achieved, despite a few shortcomings 3 = only partially achieved; benefits, and shortcomings finely balanced 2 = very limited achievement, extensive shortcomings 1 = not achieved

Measuring and Evaluating Audience Awareness, Attitudes, and Response

413

report focuses on the evaluation of communication outcomes, a useful visual tool can be a summary chart showing the evaluator’s assessment of the progress toward achieving the set outcomes, as seen in Table  26.3, taken from an evaluation of a communication campaign on resource use and recycling.

Conclusion This chapter has described the range of methods available to evaluate communication outcomes and their applicability for the public sector. Ultimately, the evaluation of communication outcomes can be an extremely valuable exercise for communication practitioners and scholars alike of the public sector to show what has been achieved and what can be improved. With a greater focus on evaluating outcomes and impact, increased accountability and greater interaction with the citizens they serve, the public sector will continue to be challenged to show how the outcomes it sets for communication are being achieved.

Case Study 26.1  Evaluation of a Local Health Communication Project Women aged 50–74 years of age are the most susceptible to breast cancer. However, in Australia, women from the fast‐growing Indian and Sri Lankan communities have among the lowest rates of breast screening (mammograms)—the primary recommended strategy for early detection and treatment of breast cancer. To address this challenge, in the state of New South Wales (NSW), the NSW Multicultural Health Communication Services (MHCS), part of the NSW Ministry of Health, launched a one‐year project in 2014–2015 to increase awareness and rates of breast screening among Indian and Sri Lankan women aged 50–74 in NSW (with the support of AUS $100,000 grant from the Cancer Institute NSW). To support the project, MHCS engaged a team of researchers from the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), led by Professor Jim Macnamara, to conduct formative and evaluative research to guide and report on the project. The formative research supported the project to adopt a bottom‐up community‐led approach that included a range of activities, such as: establishing community partnerships; identifying “community champions”; creating a website and Facebook page; designing a pledge for women to have a breast screen and/or encourage others to do so; launching of a fashion show, photo exhibition, forums, and events. Through a collaborative community process, a “Pink Sari” logo was created that served as a central anchor for all activities. The project was evaluated by the UTS team at the output, outcome, and impact levels using community group reporting (e.g., event attendance rates, volunteer contributions, sponsorships, etc.), website statistics, social media content analysis, and tracking of breast screening rates. The evaluation showed that over 10,000 women from Indian, Sri Lankan, or other Asian backgrounds attended Pink Sari events during the 12 months of the project; 99.5% of media coverage was positive in city, local, and ethnic press. Importantly, increases were seen in the number of women from the target audiences having a breast screen in the 12‐month period—for example, an 8% increase for Indian and Sri Lankan women aged 50–69 living in NSW and an 8% increase for women of this group having a breast screen for the first time. No other interventions specifically targeting these audiences were conducted during the period of the project indicating the key contribution of the project to the changes seen. The

414

Glenn O’Neil

success of the project was also demonstrated through it attracting further funding, ongoing community support and through its replication elsewhere, such as amongst Muslim women as the “Pink Hijab” project in the neighboring state of Queensland. The research‐led approach provided vital information and insights to create a community‐ led and sustainable approach to engaging with the target audiences on a sensitive issue. The consequent evaluation provided hard evidence on the project’s results meeting reporting requirements and helped to secure future funding. Macnamara, J. (2016). Evaluation case studies: Putting theory into practice. Sydney, NSW: University of Technology Sydney.

Case Study 26.2  Evaluation of a pan‐European Anti‐Smoking Campaign There are currently 28 million smokers aged 24–35 in the 28 member states of the European Union. To help reduce the burden of tobacco‐related diseases and death across Europe, in 2011 the European Commission launched an “Ex‐Smokers Are Unstoppable” three‐year campaign across Europe targeted at young people. The campaign emphasized the benefits of becoming an ex‐smoker and moved away from the negative messages on the health dangers of smoking. The campaign used multiple channels, including print, video, media, web, events, and partnerships. Central to the campaign was a mobile phone app “iCoach” that provided daily tips and practical help to quit smoking. Following the completion of the campaign, the European Commission commissioned an evaluation of the campaign that was carried out by Coffey International Development (the team included the author of this chapter, Glenn O’Neil). The purpose of the evaluation was to carry out a retrospective assessment of the campaign, focusing on short‐ and medium‐term outcomes and potential improvements in view of future communication actions to combat smoking. The study used a variety of evaluation methods, including surveys, panel studies, online focus groups, and interviews. The evaluation was also able to draw on the monitoring data collected by the campaign team, notably on the usage of the phone app, web metrics for the campaign website, and social media and media monitoring. The evaluation showed that the campaign was seen by around 20% of the EU population. Monitoring data indicated that 480,000 people registered on the iCoach app with some one third of those registering reporting that they had stopped smoking. The range of data and information collected by the evaluation provided the European Commission with detailed feedback and an analysis of the effectiveness of the channels used and their success in the different EU countries. The evaluation was supported by the “evaluability” of the campaign goal—to engage with smokers and encourage them to stop smoking. The evaluation could show the extent to which smokers had been exposed to and engaged with the campaign and what was its contribution to them stopping smoking. Through interviews and discussions with smokers, further insights could be gained on the campaign’s strengths and weaknesses. DG Health and Food Safety (2015). Scoping study on communication to address and prevent chronic diseases: Final Report. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/health/major_chronic_diseases/docs/2015_ chronic_scopingstudy_en.pdf

Measuring and Evaluating Audience Awareness, Attitudes, and Response

415

References AMEC. (2015). Barcelona Principles: The development and the detailed changes. Retrieved from: https:// amecorg.com/wp‐content/uploads/2015/09/Barcelona‐Principles‐2.0‐development‐and‐detailed‐ changes.‐7‐September‐2015.pdf. Beach, D., & Pedersen, R. B. (2013). Process‐tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Broom, G., & Dozier, D. (1990). Using research in public relations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Coffman, J. (2003). Lessons in evaluating communications campaigns: Five case studies. Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved from http://www.hfrp.org/content/download/1114/48619/file/ lessons_comm_campaigns.pdf Communications Consortium Media Center. (2004). Guidelines for evaluating non‐profit communications efforts. Retrieved from http://www.researchtoaction.org/2013/03/guidelines‐for‐evaluating‐ nonprofit‐communications‐efforts Daymon, C., & Holloway, I. (2010). Qualitative research methods in public relations and marketing communications. New York, NY: Routledge. Dietz, G., & Hartog, D. N. D. (2006). Measuring trust inside organisations. Personnel Review, 35(5), 557–588. DG Health and Food Safety (2015). Scoping study on communication to address and prevent chronic diseases: Final Report. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/health/major_chronic_diseases/ docs/2015_chronic_scopingstudy_en.pdf Dozier, D. M. (1993). Image, reputation and mass communication effects. In Image und PR (pp. 227– 250). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Fairchild, M. (2003). IPR toolkit: Media evaluation edition. London, United Kingdom: Institute for Public Relations. Flay, B., & Cook, T. (1981). Evaluation of Mass Media Prevention Campaigns. In R. Rice & W. Paisley (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (pp. 239–264). London, United Kingdom: Sage. Gonçalves, B., & Ramasco, J. (2008). Human dynamics revealed through web analytics. Physical Review, 78, 1–7. Gregory, A., Morgan, L., & Kelly, D. (2005). Patterns of PR in Britain’s ‘most admired’ companies and public sector organisations. Leeds: Leeds Business School for Eloqui Public Relations. Grunig, J. E. (1997). A Situational Theory of Publics: Conceptual History, Recent Challenges and New Rresearch. In D. Moss, T. MacManus, & D. Verčič (Eds.), Public relations research: An international perspective (pp. 348). London, UK: International Thomson Business Press. Hood, C., & Peters, G. (2004). The middle aging of new public management: Into the age of paradox? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 267–282. Hornik, R. (2002). Public health communication. Evidence for behaviour change. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jelen, A. (2008). The Nature of Scholarly Endeavours in Public Relations. In B. van Ruler, A. Tkalac‐ Verčič, & D. Verčič (Eds.), Public relations metrics (pp. 36–59). New York, NY: Routledge. Lazarsfeld, P. (1948). Communication Research and the Social Psychologist. In W. Dennis (Ed.), Current trends in social psychology (pp. 218–273). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Lennie, J., & Tacchi, J. (2013). Evaluating communication for development: A framework for social change. New York, NY: Routledge. Likely, F., & Watson, T. (2013). Measuring the Edifice: Ppublic Relations Measurement and Evaluation Practices Over the Course of 40 Years. In K. Sriramesh, A. Zerfass, & J.‐N. Kim (Eds.), Public relations and communication management: Current trends and emerging topics (pp. 143–162). New York, NY: Routledge. Lindenmann, W. (2003). Guidelines and standards for measuring the effectiveness of PR programs and activities. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/ wp‐content/uploads/2002_MeasuringPrograms.pdf Macnamara, J. (2014). The ‘toe bone to the head bone’ logic model to connect public relations and corporate communication to organisation outcomes. Prism, 11(1), 1–15. Retrieved from: http://www. prismjournal.org/fileadmin/11_1/Macnamara_2014.pdf Macnamara, J. (2015). Breaking the measurement and evaluation deadlock: A new approach and model. Journal of Communication Management, 19(4), 371–387.

416

Glenn O’Neil

Macnamara, J. (2016). Evaluation case studies: Putting theory into practice. Sydney, NSW: University of Technology Sydney. Mayne, J. (2001). Addressing attribution through contribution analysis: Using performance measures sensibly. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 16(1), 1. Mayne, J. (2007). Best practices in results‐based management: A review of experience: A report for the United Nations Secretariat, Volume 1: main report, July 2007. Retrieved from http://www.focusintl.com/ RBM043‐2007%2007%20UN%20Best%20Practices%20in%20Results‐Based%20Management.pdf McNiff, J., & Whitehead, J. (2011). All you need to know about action research. London, UK: Sage. Michaelson, D., & Macleod, S. (2007). The application of ‘best practices’ in public relations measurement and evaluation systems. Public Relations Journal, 1(1), 1–14. O’Neil, G. (2013). Evaluation of international and non‐governmental organizations’ communication activities: A 15‐year systematic review. Public Relations Review, 39, 572–574. Pandey, S. K., & Garnett, J. L. (2006). Exploring public sector communication performance: Testing a model and drawing implications. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 37–51. Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Reisman, J., Gienapp, A., & Stachowiak, S. (2007). A handbook of data collection tools: Companion to a guide to measuring advocacy and policy. Baltimore, MD: Organisational Research Services. Retrieved from http://orsimpact.com/wp‐content/uploads/2013/08/a_handbook_of_data_collection_tools.pdf Rice, R., & Atkins, C. (Eds.) (2001). Public communication campaigns (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Richards, L. (2014). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Rogers, E., & Storey, D. (1987). Communication Campaigns. In C. Berger & H. Chaffee (Eds.), Reader in public opinion and mass communication (3rd ed., pp. 419–445). New York, NY: Free Press. Scott, J. (2012). Social network analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Siegel, E. (2013). Predictive analytics: The power to predict who will click, buy, lie, or die. New York, NY: Wiley. Skovdal, M., & Cornish, F. (2015). Qualitative research for development. Warwickshire, United Kingdom: Practical Action Publishing. Smith, R. (2013). Strategic planning for public relations. New York, NY: Routledge. Stacks, D., & Bowen, S. (2013). Dictionary of public relations measurement and research (3rd ed.). Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. Stacks, D., & Michaelson, D. (2010). A practitioner’s guide to public relations research, measurement and evaluation. New York, NY: Business Expert Press. Tharenou, P., Donohue, R., & Cooper, B. (2007). Management research methods. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Valente, T. (2001). Evaluating Communication Campaigns. In R. Rice & C. Atkins (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (pp. 105–124). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Watson, T., & Noble, P. (2007). Evaluating public relations: a best practice guide to public relations planning, research & evaluation (2nd ed.). London, United Kingdom: Kogan Page. Weisberg, H., Krosnick, J. A., & Bowen, B. D. (1996). An introduction to survey research, polling, and data analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Weiss, C. H. (1998). Evaluation: Methods for studying programs and policies (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

27

Aligning and Linking Communication with Organizational Goals Ansgar Zerfass and Sophia Charlotte Volk

Introduction With recent decades’ rapid expansion in the communication industry, rising budgets, and an increasing number of communication channels, communication practitioners are being pressured to give a detailed account of how communication activities benefit organizational goals (Watson, 2012). In today’s competitive and increasingly transparent political environment, managers of public sector organizations, authorities, and politicians demand decisions based on “hard facts” rather than on intuition or experience when they invest in communication (Melkers & Willoughby, 2005). Proving accountability and increasing internal efficiency and effectiveness have become ongoing challenges for the public sector at large (Taylor, 2009). Measurement and evaluation enable communication practitioners to demonstrate the value of their activities to their organization (Stacks & Michaelson, 2014; Watson & Noble, 2014). However, despite more than 40 years of widespread discussion and intense cross‐industry collaboration, practitioners have not yet achieved consensus on the basic measures and best tools for evaluating communication performance (Macnamara, 2018). The question of how to portray the value created through communication continues to be rated the most important issue by communication managers working in all types of organizations (Zerfass, Verčič, Verhoeven, Moreno, & Tench, 2015). In fact, linking communication to organizational goals, hence showing the contribution of communication to organizational outcomes, remains among the most critical challenges in communication practice (Macnamara, Lwin, Adi, & Zerfass, 2015; O’Neil, 2013; Zerfass et al., 2015). This is also the case for public sector organizations that have to deal with numerous stakeholders, including citizens, politicians, or employees, as well as intermediates such as journalists, opinion leaders, or social media influencers. They use a variety of communication channels, such as press and media relations, events, or social networks, and they pursue widely varying goals, ranging from analyzing public opinion to building trust or a favorable reputation for the public sector or securing organizational legitimacy. The great variety of goals and instruments makes it difficult to verify the contribution of communication to public value creation and to assess the success of particular communication activities. Doing so is, however, absolutely essential if communication managers wish to achieve sustained influence and participate in

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

418

Ansgar Zerfass and Sophia Charlotte Volk

strategic decision‐making p ­ rocesses at the level of public managers or politicians within their organization (Zerfass, 2010). Since the completion of the Excellence study, public relations scholars have argued for the inclusion of the communication function in strategic management to achieve organizational excellence (Grunig, 2006, pp. 158–162). Grunig, Grunig, and Dozier (2002) pointed out the need to measure communication impact against previously set goals and objectives. These objectives, in turn, have to be linked with organizational objectives to determine the value that communication contributes to an organization (Gregory, 2001, p. 174; Lindenmann, 1993). In spite of intense discussions, particularly during the past decade, the question of how to align communication and organizational goals has hitherto been only marginally addressed by researchers (Volk, 2016). This chapter posits that the challenge of linking communication activities with organizational goals starts with creating the necessary structural preconditions by establishing a systematic communication controlling system in public sector organizations. Following this, another key prerequisite for communication departments is to depict correctly the entirety of communication effects and to develop methods to measure communication impact throughout the whole communication process. To document the value contribution of communication to an organization, it is necessary to align all the communication activities with the overarching goals and to measure communication impact on organizational outflows, which are the core meaning of strategic communication (Hallahan, Holtzhausen, van Ruler, Verčič, & Sriramesh, 2007; Zerfass, Verčič, Nothhaft, & Werder, 2018). To address this challenge, this chapter (i) reflects on the theoretical concept of communication management and “communication controlling”; (ii) introduces a multilevel framework of communication effects; (iii) explains how to link communication with organizational goals through the use of value link models and scorecards; (iv) reports on the application of evaluation and measurement practices of public service organizations in contrast to private sector companies based on empirical insights across several countries; (v) illustrates a best‐practice case of how communication and organizational strategy can be aligned in practice; and (vi) reflects on critical aspects and questions for future research.

Communication Management and Communication Controlling The question of how communication supports organizational goals has been the subject of conceptualizations at the edge of public relations and communication scholarship on the one hand and management theory, controlling, and accounting research on the other. Although scholars have predominantly investigated value creation through communication within corporations from a business viewpoint, the challenge of aligning, managing, and steering communication activities purposefully applies to all organizational types, including those in the public sector. Instead of generating economic profit, typical goals of public ­sector organizations include improving the quality of their services, enhancing their interactions with citizens, supporting public policy projects, or reducing costs and increasing internal efficiency. It is largely agreed that communication creates value for organizations both directly and indirectly (Volk, 2016); communication adds direct value to an organization when it supports the ongoing provision of services through enabling operations and building intangible values such as reputation, public trust, or employee commitment. It further adds indirect value when it reduces costs through preventing risks, solving problems, or anticipating future innovation opportunities. Therefore, communication generates long‐term support potentials and secures organizational legitimacy, which is essential for the survival of any organization (Zerfass, 2008a, pp. 66–70).

Aligning and Linking Communication with Organizational Goals

419

For communication actually to contribute to value creation, certain preconditions need to be fulfilled on several levels, ranging from (i) structural settings on the level of the communication function to (ii) personal prerequisites at the level of communication staff and, ultimately, (iii) recognition of the communication function at the level of public management. At the structural level, any organization striving to document communication impact should direct its efforts in the first instance toward the implementation of intelligent communication management and controlling systems. However, case studies of public sector organizations indicate that despite the growing importance of performance measurement systems, public organizations still have difficulties during their implementation, oftentimes because they lack management expertise and particularly a rational‐managerial measurement culture (Jääskeläinen & Sillanpää, 2013; Melkers & Willoughby, 2005; Taylor, 2009). In contrast to private sector companies, public sector organizations face the additional challenge that their end products and goals are oftentimes undefined and their stakeholders have conflicting needs and interests (Rantanen, Kulmala, Lönnqvist, & Kujansivu, 2007). Against this background, establishing productivity and effectiveness thinking among employees and public management in the first place is key for a successful implementation of a communication controlling system.

Communication Management The processes of planning, organizing, and evaluating communication are collectively described as communication management. The typical phases of communication management – and therefore also the typical stages in the value creation process – are the analysis of citizens and stakeholders, issues, public opinion, and the organization’s own capabilities; the planning and implementation of communication strategies, programs, campaigns, or individual measures; and, finally, the evaluation and measurement of results (Smith, 2013). It is the duty of communication management to supervise the overall communication strategy and monitor the whole communication process by tracking critical milestones and catching and dealing with any unforeseen changes (Bentele & Nothhaft, 2014; Zerfass, 2008a, p. 90). From this perspective, communication management has a double task. In part, it concerns the management of communication – that is, the question of initiating communication processes with the aim of conveying the organization’s point of view and influencing citizens and stakeholders (outbound communication). As a result, the concrete objectives of value creation should be supported, such as an increase in trust or support or, alternatively, cost‐cutting efforts. However, the feeding of citizens’ and stakeholders’ interests into the organizational decision‐making process (inbound communication) and the monitoring of critical issues in the organizational environment are an equally important function that it performs (Röttger & Preusse, 2009, pp. 175–177).

Communication Controlling Communication controlling supports the process of communication management by providing appropriate methods, structures, and metrics for planning, steering, and evaluating communication. These methods bring transparency to how strategic decisions are taken, how results relate to expenditure, whether resources are used efficiently, and which results are achieved. The notion of “controlling” is a specific one and must not be confused with the traditional concepts of measurement or evaluation of communication; it is closely connected to the concept of controlling and management accounting in management theory. According to this view, controlling is a complementary and overarching supporting function to communication management. Hence, the discussion of communication controlling attempts to bridge the gap between the management and communication disciplines (Zerfass, 2008a, p. 89; Zerfass, 2010, p. 947).

420

Ansgar Zerfass and Sophia Charlotte Volk

In contrast to traditional approaches to evaluating communication effectiveness in retrospect, the focus of communication controlling is on providing transparency for both communication leaders and managers of public sector organizations in respect of strategy, process, result, and finance issues for retrospective, diagnostic, and prospective purposes (Figure 27.1). Accordingly, communication controlling carries both a strategic and an operational dimension that distinguishes it from traditional concepts. The task of strategic communication controlling is to create and maintain communication management’s potential for success. Its main focus is the effectiveness of the overall communication policy and its infrastructure (“Are we doing the right things?”). Operational communication controlling is concerned with the provision of methods and information that facilitate the optimal exploitation of the potentials for successes that are created by communication management and communication strategy. Its main focus is the efficiency of the communication policy (“Are we doing things right?”) (Zerfass, 2010, p. 947).

Strategic Communication Controlling First of all, strategic communication controlling involves rationality assurance for the steering and monitoring of the communication strategy. This precisely concerns the interlocking of the organizational strategy and the communication strategy and the creation of value through communication (Pfannenberg & Zerfass, 2010). For example, a public organization responsible for advancing a city’s energy infrastructure should define precisely which goals can be fostered by communication and how this can be measured. This helps to focus on core activities – and not on typical “nice to have” activities like sponsoring local events that are not really linked to the overall mission. Although this issue is very often discussed, methods that document the value contribution of communication to the overall organizational success are seldom implemented in practice (Argenti, 2013; Steyn, 2006; Zerfass, 2005). Additionally, standardized methods for the assessment of intangible values driven by communication, such as trust or reputation, are relevant here.

ORGANIZATION STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Overall responsibility for organizational strategy and creating value steering and monitoring supporting value creation

establishing

analyzing

COMMUNICATION MANAGEMENT Focus on results

COMMUNICATION CONTROLLING Focus on transparency

Integration and coordination of interests through communication (inbound and outbound):

Providing methods for defining objectives and for measurement:

Analyzing → Planning → Executing → Evaluating

Audits, key performance indicators, media/stakeholder analysis, reporting

monitoring

steering and monitoring

analyzing

COMMUNICATION Internal communication | External communication influencing

STAKEHOLDERS

Figure 27.1  Communication controlling as a supporting function for management.

monitoring

Aligning and Linking Communication with Organizational Goals

421

Furthermore, strategic communication controlling includes rationality assurance for the structures and processes of communication management. Through audits, analyses of organizational structures, and staffing of communication departments, as well as internal workflows and interfaces with agencies and service providers, the infrastructure of communication management can be evaluated and optimized. In the public sector, it is relatively easy for organizations to benchmark themselves against similar entities in other regions or communities, as most organizations are not directly competing with each other and there are no antitrust regulations or other restrictions on collaboration. Through using these methods, authorities, and leaders of communication departments can ensure the existence of the potential necessary for an effective communication infrastructure that will contribute to organizational performance.

Operational Communication Controlling Communication controlling at the operational level concerns the rationality assurance of communication programs and campaigns and evaluation routines. In the case of programs and campaigns, one must ensure, for example, that they have been set up stringently and consistently and that financial resources have been allocated in the most efficient manner possible. With the aid of program analyses, checklists, and concept evaluations, it is possible to steer and supervise the performance of individual programs. In the same way, complex procedures like issue management, environmental monitoring, and other forms of scanning should be examined for consistency. Finally, operational communication controlling relates to the rationality assurance of communication instruments and activities. It includes, for example, methods for evaluating media relations, employee and citizen magazines, and events or online communication. This is the classic domain of retrospective, summative evaluation research (Smith, 2013; Stacks & Michaelson, 2014; Watson & Noble, 2014). Here, the question to be asked concerns the instrumental effects of communication activities and the (potential) effects on relevant citizens and stakeholders. To measure the benefits – a task that is always performed retrospectively – a multitude of proven methods is available, from opinion polls to media analyses and reputation measurement (Paine, 2007; Pfannenberg & Zerfass, 2010; Watson & Noble, 2014). As a whole, the goal of operational communication controlling is to improve cost efficiency, service quality, the production of messages, and the performance of instruments.

Implementing Structures and Routines Communication controlling creates the basis on which the strategic planning, implementing, and monitoring of communication management occur. The particular focus of strategic communication controlling is to ensure that organizational strategy and communication strategy are aligned optimally and to steer the entire process of value creation through communication. Communication controlling hence enables the executive level and communication heads to provide what is necessary to implement a rational, value‐adding communication policy (Zerfass, 2008b). Establishing a sophisticated communication controlling system is thus a critical structural precondition if communication management is to be organized in such a way that it achieves the objectives of public value creation. Nevertheless, although the concept of communication controlling has been recognized as an “encouraging effort” for the purpose of moving beyond retrospective measurement to align communication and organizational strategies (Likely & Watson, 2013, p. 157), the approach has received little attention from the international scientific community engaged in evaluation and measurement research (Volk, 2016). This is interesting and contradictory, since the interlocking of communication and organizational goals has consistently been listed as a key challenge for research in communication practice worldwide.

422

Ansgar Zerfass and Sophia Charlotte Volk

The necessity of systematic communication controlling, however, has become an object of intense discussion in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (Pfannenberg & Zerfass, 2010). Case studies have shown that while communication controlling is the responsibility of communication managers, to remain successful on a sustained basis in practice, support, and legitimization at the level of public management and employees are required (Sanderson, 2001; Taylor, 2009). Communication controlling has to be organized above all in house, but it may be partially supported by consultants or researchers, who draw up and implement individual management methods or indices (Zerfass, 2008a, p. 91).

Evaluating and Measuring Communication Effects Besides the establishment of the necessary infrastructure for documenting the public value created through communication, a key prerequisite for communication departments of public sector organizations is to understand communication processes and depict communication impact throughout all phases of communication effects. In contrast to the case of research on the strategic alignment of communication and organizational goals (Volk & Zerfass, 2018), extensive discussions have taken place regarding the question of evaluation and measurement of communication effects for more than 40 years (Likely & Watson, 2013; Volk, 2016). Many researchers and practitioners argue that the impact of communication needs to be analyzed through the typical stages or levels of communication processes – starting with the communication activities conducted by an organization, passing through different phases of media and stakeholder effects, and ending with the potential impact on the focal organization and its goals (Watson & Noble, 2014). Over time, a number of models have been offered, including, for example, Cutlip, Center, and Broom’s (1985) preparation, implement, impact (PII) model, the pyramid model of PR research (Macnamara, 1992), the continuing model of evaluation (Watson, 1997), or the unified evaluation model (Noble & Watson, 1999) (Watson & Noble, 2014, pp. 55–72; Macnamara, 2018). Lindenmann (1993, 2003) introduced a popular approach to public relations evaluation, speaking of “PR outputs,” “PR outtakes,” “PR outcomes,” and “business outcomes.” Other authors have modified this approach and introduced slightly different stages and different terminology. For instance, some models have defined four or more stages of communication evaluation in the form, for example, of including the measurement of inputs–outputs–outtakes–outcomes– results (e.g., see the Public Relations Institute of Australia [PRIA] Model, 2014) or the measurement of objectives–inputs–activities–outputs–out‐takes–outcomes–impact (see Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication [AMEC’s] new Integrated Evaluation Framework, 2016). Others have suggested new approaches to distinguish between measurement and evaluation activities and to better depict how insights gained from data analysis may inform strategic planning (see the MAIE model proposed by Macnamara, 2015). In spite of the aforementioned differences, commonalities across the suggested models relate foremost to the terms inputs, outputs, and outcomes, while the terms used to refer to the final stage differ from model to model and include words or phrases such as impact, organizational/ business outcomes, organizational/business results, or outflows.

A Multilevel Framework for Communication Controlling A multilevel framework of communication effects that has proven to be particularly fruitful is the so‐called DPRG/ICV framework for communication controlling. The lively debate on the concept of communication controlling in German‐speaking countries has resulted in a growing call for a common framework that standardizes the dimensions of communication effects (Rolke & Zerfass, 2010). Academics, professional associations, communication managers, and management

423

Aligning and Linking Communication with Organizational Goals

controllers jointly developed this new framework in response to calls for approved standards (Watson & Noble, 2014, pp. 170–181; Zerfass, 2010). The concept was adopted in spring 2009 by the German Public Relations Association (DPRG) and the International Controlling Association (ICV) as an industry standard and has been accepted by other professional organizations such as the Kommunikationsverband (Communication Association). To evaluate the target achievement of communication from initiation right through to impact, the framework conceptualizes evaluation and measurement activities in four clusters: inputs, outputs, outcomes, and outflows. The term outflows is equivalent to impacts or organizational/ business outcomes in other models. While all stages are important, demonstrations of the value of communication are more transparent if they are performed at the outcome and outflow levels (German Public Relations Association [DPRG] and International Controlling Association [ICV], 2011). The framework distinguishes several starting points for measurement (Figure 27.2): • • • • • •

Input. What expenditures are being devoted to communication? Internal output. What is being achieved by the organization itself? External output. What means of contact are being developed? Direct outcome. How are citizens’ and stakeholders’ perception and knowledge changed? Indirect outcome. How strongly are opinions and intentions being influenced? Outflow. Which organizational goals have been achieved?

The framework has reached a considerable level of acceptance in German‐speaking scientific and practitioner communities, since its analytical approach is particularly useful for visualizing the entirety of communication effects and defining exemplary measures to evaluate all the stages in the communication process (Likely and Watson, 2013, p. 157). By itself, however, this ana-

Outflow Value Creation

Outcome

Output

Level of impact

Direct Outcome

Indirect Outcome

Perception Utilization

Opinion Attitude Emotion

Knowledge

Internal Output

External Output

Process efficiency Quality

Coverage Content

Indicators (examples) Focal object of measurement

Impact on tangible and/or intangible assets (Capital accumulation)

Input Resources

Measurement range

Behavioral disposition Behavior

Impact on strategic and/or financial targets (Business performance)

Employee assignment Financial expenses Personnel costs Outsourcing costs ...

Budget compliance Failure rate Readability Satisfaction of internal clients ...

ORGANIZATION Initiation of communication processes Low impact on value creation Strong influence of communication mangement

Clippings Visits Downloads Impact ratio Share of voice ...

MEDIA/CHANNELS

Awareness Session length Reader per issue Recall Recognition ...

Reputation change Brand image Strategic awareness of employees Purchase intention Leads Innovative ideas ...

STAKEHOLDERS Communication processes

Sales Number of project agreements Cost reduction Reputation capital Brand value Employee knowledge ...

ORGANIZATION Results of communication processes

High impact on value creation Weak influence of communication management

Figure 27.2  The DPRG/ICV framework for communication controlling. Source: © Ansgar Zerfass. Reproduced from Zerfass (2010, p. 958); see also DPRG & ICV (2011, p. 13).

424

Ansgar Zerfass and Sophia Charlotte Volk

lytical framework is insufficient for strategically managing the performance of communication, as it does not fully describe the complex process of value creation and the cause‐and‐effect chains among different effect levels. To date, practice and academic discussions have focused largely on exploring measurement at the output or outcome level but have laid little emphasis on investigating communication impact at the outflow level (Volk, 2016). Hence, it comes as little surprise that communication practice faces difficulties when demonstrating the value created through communication if the communication investments and results are not evaluated appropriately and the interdependencies among communication effects are neglected. This observation is alarming, because one‐dimensional approaches to measuring communication effects fail to provide a satisfactory description of how communication activities contribute value to organizations. Instead, such approaches merely evaluate the effectiveness of communication activities  –  but they may not prove whether the goals of the organization as a whole have been achieved and whether the communication ­activities have supported this process (Zerfass, 2008b, p. 139).

Aligning Communication and Organizational Goals To document communication impact at the outflow level, it is necessary to align all communication activities with overarching organizational goals (Volk & Zerfass, 2018). Although strategy congruence and the addition of value through communication constitute the core meaning of strategic communication, communication activities are seldom linked with specific goals on a consistent basis in practice, and hence frequently remain an end in themselves. Linking an organization’s communication strategy with its overall strategic goals requires communication practice to cross the borders of organizational functions and adopt management paradigms (DPRG & ICV, 2011). This means that any communication strategy devoted to value contribution must be derived from the overarching organizational strategy and then broken down into individual communication activities. Once the totality of communication activities is aligned with organizational goals, adequate methods must be implemented to measure the entire goal‐achievement process from input to outflow.

Value Link Models The link between communication activities and organizational goals needs to be shown as value links. Such value links identify functional chains between value drivers, which are influenced by communication. Value link models provide a means of visualizing the way in which communication effects contribute to organizational goals throughout the entire communication process, from the initiation of communication to its impact on financial targets and intangible resources (Zerfass, 2010). As is exemplified in Figure 27.3, the establishment of professional media relations in the public sector (an input) may result in favorable media coverage (an output), which may then increase the awareness of relevant citizens and stakeholders (a direct outcome), possibly resulting in a higher level of trust in the public sector organization (an indirect outcome). This, in turn, may lead to a desired behavior such as the utilization of a specific service (outflow), which then ensures long‐term service demand and public legitimacy for the organization. The transparency of these cause‐and‐effect chains allows communication departments and the public management level to recognize the contribution of communication to goal accomplishment and, ideally, to recognize its associated implications for the organization’s success (Zerfass, 2010). Value links must be derived from the actual organizational strategy and hence need to be developed in an organization‐specific manner. The identified value links are then supplemented with indicators: these ratios or indices condense measurement information into meaningful

OUTCOME

OUTFLOW

Aligning and Linking Communication with Organizational Goals

425

Value creation Operative excellence

Freedom to act

Service demand

Support of organization

Utilization of services

Trust in the organization

Behavioral dispositions

Reputation

OUTPUT

Knowledge about the organization

Publicity

Awareness

INPUT

Media coverage and presence

Media relations

Figure 27.3  Example of a generic value link model for media relations. Source: Adapted from Pfannenberg, 2010, p. 71.

figures and may thus indicate variances of the measured effects. Therefore, indicators provide transparency and enable goal‐oriented monitoring and steering. The greatest challenge in practice is to identify the most relevant and conclusive value drivers of communication while considering reciprocal interdependencies between cause‐and‐effect chains and to match them with appropriate indicators (Zerfass, 2008b). To counter the dilemma of a “missing link” between communication and organizational goals, scholarship within the area of strategic communication controlling has devoted increasing efforts to the development of generic value link models for the main areas of communication (e.g., internal communication and external relations) (Pfannenberg, 2010). The framework has subsequently been supplemented by generic value links and typical indicators for individual communicative value drivers at each stage. In this way, the entire process of value creation through communication is made transparent (DPRG & ICV, 2011).

Communication Scorecards Value link models are typically depicted and integrated into scorecards that are used to plan and monitor overall communication activities. In fact, the use of value link models originated from management research and became popular with Kaplan and Norton (1996) that introduced the balanced scorecard (BSC), an indicator‐based strategic performance and management system. Originally developed for value‐based management, the purpose of a scorecard is to show how an organization generates value. In a BSC, organizations, and processes are analyzed from four perspectives (financial, customer, processes, and potential). Organizational goals are derived

426

Ansgar Zerfass and Sophia Charlotte Volk

from the organization’s strategy (e.g., through the use of strategy maps) and concretized in the form of both financial and nonfinancial indicators. The strategic goals are interlinked in the four scorecard perspectives by explicit cause‐and‐effect relationships (Fleisher & Mahaffy, 1997; Kaplan & Norton, 1996; Pfannenberg, 2010). Communication scorecards enable public sector organizations to picture the value links between communication targets and organizational objectives, name specific key performance indicators (KPIs), and measure both the input (costs) and the outflow (tangibles/intangibles) of communication. In this way, scorecards allow for multidimensional steering of communication strategies and/or communication activities based on measurable indicators (Pfannenberg, 2010; Zerfass, 2008b). Public sector scorecards can be used as a higher‐order organization‐wide system for controlling the overall strategy (see Chapter 28); they can also be used to control communication strategy and measures. In any case, tailor‐made solutions are necessary, and since organizational strategies are subject to constant changes, scorecards, and indicators must be updated and readjusted on a regular basis (Zerfass, 2008b).

Input–Outflow Evaluation Apart from the identification of organization‐specific value drivers and appropriate indicators and their integration into a multiperspective communication scorecard, the challenge is to combine different measurement methods to determine spending and evaluate results. While a variety of empirical social research methods is available for measuring communication output (e.g., media analysis, usability tests, or surveys) and for performing communication audits to analyze internal structures and processes, methods for evaluating input and expenditures in communication have been tested and applied less often. Here, business administration approaches with a focus on cost accounting, capital expenditure budgeting, or project management are employed  –  for example, progress evaluation on the basis of milestones and budget targets. However, clear deficits in input measurement remain to be tackled by interdisciplinary research and the joint efforts of practitioners. To evaluate the outflow level, management research and managerial practice provide general methods for evaluating operational results (e.g., sales and profits), material assets (e.g., fixed assets and working assets), and intangible assets (e.g., brands and reputation). The measurement of intangible values in particular poses a major obstacle to communication practice, since the current approaches have yet to be standardized (Zerfass, 2009). A combination of scorecards, evaluation methods for intangible values, and traditional evaluation methods can be utilized to assess the performance of communication departments in the public sector. These methods need to be brought together in comprehensive systems of communication controlling and then developed further. Hence, instead of developing new methodological procedures and formulas, more efforts should be devoted to the systematic application and linking of well‐known management concepts and evaluation methods. Such efforts frequently fail, however, because of the different concepts and paradigms of the individual disciplines (Zerfass, 2010, p. 956).

Empirical Insights into Communication Evaluation Empirical studies on the practice of evaluation and measurement of communication in organizational contexts have a considerable history, starting with the first inquiries in the United States in the early 1980s (Likely & Watson, 2013; Volk, 2016). To date, insights into measurement practices are available for the United States (e.g., Hon, 1997; Lindenmann, 1990; Wright, 1998), Canada (Piekos & Einsiedel, 1990), Australia (e.g., Macnamara, 1992, 2002; Walker, 1994; Xavier, Mehta, & Gregory, 2006), Europe (e.g., Baskin, Hahn, Seaman, & Reines, 2010; Invernizzi & Romenti, 2009; Matilla & Marca, 2012; Zerfass, Tench, Verhoeven, Verčič, & Moreno, 2010), and, more recently, Asia (e.g., Huang, 2012; Macnamara et al., 2015). Most of

Aligning and Linking Communication with Organizational Goals

427

these studies do not differentiate between organizational types. As a result, there is relatively scarce evidence concerning the current measurement practices in the public sector specifically (e.g., see O’Neil, 2013). Two recent surveys shed light on the current state of the art of evaluation and measurement practices in communication departments across more than 60 countries in Europe, Southeast Asia, Australia, and New Zealand with more than 2,500 respondents (Macnamara et al., 2015; Zerfass et al., 2015). The European online survey was conducted in March 2015 and generated responses from 1,601 communication professionals, while the Asia Pacific survey was conducted in August 2015 and surveyed 901 professionals. Professionals working in communication departments of public service and governmental organizations, nonprofit organizations, and companies were asked in an online survey how their organizations evaluate and measure communication. A key finding is that communication departments across public sector organizations, companies, and nonprofits in Europe and Asia‐Pacific do not yet employ adequate methods to measure communication processes. Measuring output through clippings and media responses is still the main activity in any type of organization across Europe (82.4%) and Asia Pacific (85.6%) (Zerfass, 2016). At the same time, organizations neglect both costs (inputs) and impacts on organizational targets or resources (outflows). In fact, only 56.1% of the respondents in the Asia Pacific region and 35.6 in Europe evaluated the impact of communication on intangible or tangible resources (outflows). The low implementation level of effect measures at the outcome and outflow levels is extremely interesting and contradictory, considering that the major value‐adding contribution of communication to organizational objectives is typically described as building intangible assets such as brands, reputation, and organizational culture. Alarmingly, public sector and governmental organizations in Europe have a lower implementation rate for effect measures overall in comparison to nonprofit entities and companies. They less frequently measure the impact of communication on intangible/tangible resources (M = 2.57 on a 5‐point Likert scale) than joint stock companies do (M = 3.22). Moreover, public sector and governmental organizations calculate personnel costs for projects at the input level (M  =  2.88) less often than, for instance, nonprofit entities (M = 3.22) and private companies (M = 3.39) do. This might be caused by the facts that leaders in the public sector exert less pressure to prove the success of communication activities and that cultures of continuous improvement and management audits are less prevalent in this field. However, the overall trend toward greater transparency will probably force the public sector to document communication effectiveness in a more advanced way in the future (Zerfass, Verčič, & Volk, 2017). Worldwide, many studies have shown that professionals often neglect the necessity of tracking communication processes from their initiation to their potential economic impact (Gregory & Watson, 2008, p. 345; Likely & Watson, 2013, p. 156; see, e.g., Wright Gaunt, Leggetter, Daniels & Zerfass, 2009). The insights for Europe and Asia Pacific hence support the previous studies: communication departments care less about the resources used to initiate communication processes, the stakeholders addressed by communication activities, and, most importantly, any results that they produce for the achievement of organizational goals. The fact that different communication activities are only seldom linked to financial targets is decisive and alarming. Value‐based communication is still not feasible in most organizations across the world, and a systematic application and linking of well‐known management concepts and evaluation methods in public sector organizations remains a critical challenge in practice (Zerfass et al., 2017). With regard to the benefits of measurement and evaluation, communication departments across Europe and the Asia‐Pacific region often do not integrate measurement insights for advancing and managing future communication activities. Communication departments most often use measurement data in a traditional, retrospective way for evaluating the success of their activities, both in the Asia Pacific countries (72.8%) and in Europe (66.0%) (Zerfass, 2016). Evaluation data are less often integrated for prospective purposes such as planning upcoming activities (68.5% in Asia Pacific; 62.9% in Europe) or for leading communication teams or steering agencies (58.5% in Asia‐Pacific; 43.3% in Europe). In line with the findings above, public sector and governmental

428

Ansgar Zerfass and Sophia Charlotte Volk

organizations in Europe integrate insights to evaluate the success of communication activities (M  =  3.61 on a 5‐point Likert scale) less often than joint stock companies (M  =  3.98) do. Furthermore, they utilize measurement data to reflect the goals and directions of communication strategies (M = 3.35) less frequently than joint stock companies (M = 3.72) do (Zerfass et al., 2017). Overall, the prospective power of data for managing communication and adjusting strategy seems to be overlooked by many communication departments today (Macnamara, 2015). The premature use of measurement insights, along with the lack of measurement expertise of communication staff and the low implementation level of valuation methods worldwide, may play a major role in explaining why documenting the value of communication has remained such an important issue for communication management over so many years. This is particularly disturbing, as linking organizational strategy and communication strategy continues to be among the important issues for communication management worldwide (Zerfass et al., 2015, pp. 38–43). Public sector organizations particularly appear to lag behind in comparison with companies and nonprofit entities, indicating a considerable need for them to catch up in the fields of measurement skills, implementation, and utilization of evaluation insights (Zerfass et al., 2017).

Case Study 27.1  Linking Communication to Organizational Goals at the German Society for International Cooperation In practice, communication controlling systems can be developed and implemented in quite different ways. The choice depends on the particular conditions of each organization: previous experiences with evaluation methods play just as great a role as organizational culture and the rootedness of modern management methods in the organization do. In general, communication controlling can only contribute to value creation when it is developed on an organization’s own authority (Zerfass, 2010, p. 959). One best‐practice example of a successful interlocking of communication and organizational strategy and the subsequent target‐ oriented implementation of communication programs is the German Society for International Cooperation (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit; GIZ). As a public‐benefit federal enterprise, GIZ provides services worldwide in the field of international cooperation for sustainable development, including economic development and employment, energy and the environment, and peace and security. GIZ is fully owned by the Federal Republic of Germany, which is represented as the shareholder by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and the Federal Ministry of Finance. Although GIZ is a federal enterprise with the legal form of a limited liability company, it is recognized as a public‐benefit organization with a focus on promoting the common good within the scope of its corporate purpose (GIZ, 2018c). With a workforce of more than 19,500 employees operating in over 120 countries around the globe, its turnover was around 2.6 billion euros in 2017 (GIZ, 2018a). For GIZ to uphold its success as a service provider in the field of international cooperation, it is essential to provide evidence of the effectiveness and high quality of its work (GIZ, 2018b). An important goal for GIZ is to assure commissioning parties and the general public that it is making a real contribution to sustainable development. Hence, projects and programs are regularly reviewed and monitored to assess their quality and effectiveness (GIZ, 2018b). This also applies to the GIZ communication function, which went through a restructuring process in 2009 and subsequently set itself the objective of enhancing and visualizing the alignment of communication activities with overall effectiveness and quality in terms of service provision. The main goal was to develop a clear and comprehensive target system for communication management that would earn lasting acceptance within the organization and be capable of demonstrating the value contribution of communication (Bansbach, Hutter, & Lautenbach, 2009).

Aligning and Linking Communication with Organizational Goals

429

Faced with this challenge, the communication department chose a top‐down method for depicting the value contributed through communication during all the phases of the value‐ creation process chain. First of all, long‐term organizational goals and additional annual targets were analyzed and discussed. On this basis, the overarching strategic communication objectives were deduced from the top down in a participatory, dialogic process with communication personnel. GIZ then utilized a stakeholder mapping approach to identify and cluster the five most relevant stakeholder groups based on the involvement of all the organizational divisions: customers and public clients; cooperation, partners, and alliances; employees and the labor market; the general public and multiplicators; and shareholders and public authorities. By applying the value link modeling method and adapting the aforementioned framework, the organizational goals were broken down into specific individual communication objectives and assigned to each stakeholder group. For each stakeholder group, the objectives were then underpinned with tailor‐made communication activities and instruments at the operational level, including suitable indicators and KPIs. For instance, one communication objective was to reinforce the image of GIZ as a competent and productive cooperation partner with regard to customers and public clients. This objective was supplemented with specific communication activities, such as an increase in media relations to achieve a stronger media presence, indicated by an increase in the share of voice in the media. This procedure allowed the GIZ to depict complete value links and prioritize communication goals with regard to the relevance of certain stakeholders and, hence, to allocate resources and budgets more purposefully (Bansbach et al., 2009). The value link models were ultimately integrated into communication scorecards, which were specifically developed and implemented for each communication division and communication management at the executive level as part of a communication controlling system. This enabled GIZ to evaluate and monitor continuously the goal achievement of the strategic and operational communication objectives across all the communication divisions following an indicator‐based approach. At the same time, the central compilation of measurement data and condensation within scorecards facilitated the steering process of communication management, and particularly of communication divisions operating outside Germany (Bansbach et al., 2009). A critical success factor concerning the development and future adjustment of the target system for communication management was the active participation of both national and international communication personnel. Through the inclusion of communication staff operating all around the globe in a dialogic process, consistent understanding and awareness of the strategic and operational targets worldwide were promoted. By making the link between the operative communication activities and the associated overarching strategic goals more transparent and comprehensible, the daily practice of communication became more performance oriented. Targets that had previously remained abstract and scarcely related to real‐ world fulfillment were transferred into concrete guidelines for action. Communication employees at all levels were enabled to understand their personal contribution to the accomplishment of communication goals and, ultimately, organizational success. This also improved the internal reputation and acceptance of the entire communication department within GIZ, since the value‐adding contribution of the communication function was made transparent to other divisions. In fact, other organizational departments from across the world requested to utilize the stakeholder map (Bansbach et al., 2009). Since then, GIZ has continuously analyzed and adjusted the value link models to align communication objectives with changes in the overarching organizational strategy and to adjust the prioritization of stakeholder groups to environmental changes.

430

Ansgar Zerfass and Sophia Charlotte Volk

Challenges and Misunderstandings Although the introduction of controlling systems may boost the performance of communication departments, one must not overlook the potential negative consequences (Röttger & Preusse, 2009; Zerfass, 2005, pp. 218–219, Zerfass, 2008b, pp. 150–151). The first problem area, which can be traced back to a lack of experience, is the improper design of scorecards and indicator systems. This risk is familiar from strategic management and marketing controlling. A typical application error is that communication controlling is only set up for specific communication channels or departments, without a clear connection with the overall organizational goals having been established either in advance or at least subsequently. Without continuous value chains, many well‐intentioned approaches to evaluation and optimization degenerate into “rituals of verification” (Power, 1997). At this point, the exchange of experiences between practitioners, consultants, and researchers plays an important role. Learning the best practices helps in avoiding typical application errors and in employing meaningful value chains or indicators. A second challenge is the seeming objectivity of indicator systems, measurement results, and numbers. Power (1997, pp. 142–143) points out that these elements are not at all as effective and neutral as is generally assumed. The context of justification involving methods and indicators is rarely questioned, however. Therefore, communication instruments that are already well established and can be easily measured are often favored. Creative and new communication instruments, which are important sources of sustained competitive advantages, take a back seat in the same way as the “inbound” or input functions of communication management, particularly its contribution to strategy adjustment based on issues monitoring and listening to citizens and stakeholders (Röttger & Preusse, 2009, pp. 175–177; Zerfass, 2005, p. 218). In addition, communication leaders should be aware of the risk that controlling data could be taken advantage of to serve political purposes – for example, to downsize communication departments in order to meet the pressure of reducing internal costs. Third, the discussion of communication controlling is frequently based on two misleading assumptions: the idea that citizens and stakeholders can be influenced unidirectionally and a belief in the controllability of communication processes by organizations. Both assumptions are inadequate when confronted with the findings of modern organizational sociology and communication science (Röttger & Preusse, 2009, pp. 170–174). In particular, as outlined above, an often‐overlooked issue is that communication activities (stimuli) do not inevitably lead to changes in the attitudes and behavior (responses) of the recipients, since the success and the result of social interactions are always influenced by the interests and strategies of all the participants. To this extent, effects models should not be misunderstood as mechanistic, empirically demonstrable, and calculable models. Rather, these are frameworks that are meant to depict patterns of causality and to serve as a foundation for discussion and discursive planning for communication professionals (Rolke & Zerfass, 2010). Finally, communication controlling inevitably includes a systematic depiction of stakeholder relations, value chains, and communication processes. This can lead to a situation in which changes in the organization and in the organizational environment fail to be perceived in time. As an interface with political, social, and regulatory interests, communication managers in public sector organizations need to react very flexibly and to adjust the department’s structures, processes, and measures promptly (Röttger & Preusse, 2009, pp. 174–175). This flexibility is at risk when controlling systems prevent, for example, the reallocation of budgets. This might be the case if new communication tools still lack standardized indicators and evaluation methods. At this point, it becomes clear that communication controlling, as is the case with overall organization controlling, must continually be supplemented by undirected strategic scanning (Steinmann & Schreyögg, 2005). It is the task of the executive level to supervise critically and adjust the tools in use (Zerfass, 2010, p. 962).

Aligning and Linking Communication with Organizational Goals

431

The challenges mentioned above do not call into question the meaningfulness of communication controlling. Rather, thorough grappling with the theoretical foundations is necessary to avoid incorrect interpretations.

Directions for Future Research Broad fields of action are being opened up for research into strategic alignment and communication controlling at the edge of communication science, management science, and public administration (for an overview see Volk & Buhmann, 2019). In terms of theory development, among the most pressing challenges that researchers currently face is the development of a conclusive, holistic theory of value creation through communication. We advocate future research into the theoretical foundations of communication processes and effects, particularly at the nexus of communication theory and business administration (accounting and auditing). Research to date has predominantly considered building and measuring intangible values as the ultimate goal of communication, but it has seldom discussed how communication may reduce costs (Volk, 2016). High priority should be given to further explication of the indirect and hidden value‐adding contributions of communication and the definition of suitable indicators, specifically for the prevention of crises through monitoring or the identification of innovation potentials through listening to relevant citizens and stakeholders (Volk, 2016). In terms of research into the profession, international comparative research projects or best practice case studies appear to be just as promising as transferring the concepts outlined here to other countries and organization types. Against the background of studies on evaluation and measurement practice, the key issue for communication departments of public sector organizations is to reach an understanding of how communication contributes to value‐based management; the ability to align communication with organizational goals and to conduct robust performance measurement is a crucial prerequisite for communication leaders (Rantanen et al., 2007; Berger & Meng, 2014, p. 298). Future research should explore the barriers that hinder the successful implementation of communication controlling systems and meaningful strategic alignment in the public sector (Zerfass et al., 2017). A challenging issue for the profession is educating communication staff in finance, operations, and management so that they provide better strategic advice to public management and authorities and link communication strategies with organizational objectives (e.g., Yeo & Sriramesh, 2009). Practitioners would benefit from training on how to develop organization‐specific measurement models and define adequate performance measures (e.g., Laborde & Pompper, 2006). Another key issue is to meaningfully utilize the insights generated through communication controlling and integrate measurement data into communication management to adjust communication strategies. Overall, the increased exchange of knowledge between scholars from the communication discipline, management research, and public administration appears to be vital for the progress of research on communication controlling. Regarding the professionalization of evaluation practice, industry bodies and education facilities could take a leading role to foster the wider distribution of exemplars of innovative controlling and alignment approaches.

References AMEC (Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication) (2016). Integrated evaluation framework. London, UK: AMEC. https://amecorg.com/amecframework Argenti, P. (2013). Corporate communication (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Bansbach, C., Hutter, D., & Lautenbach, C. (2009). Strategiefokussierung der weltweiten GTZ‐ Unternehmenskommunikation mit dem Zielbaum. http://www.lautenbachsass.de/files/m_091027_ gtz_fallbeispiel_communicationcontrolling.pdf

432

Ansgar Zerfass and Sophia Charlotte Volk

Baskin, O., Hahn, J., Seaman, S., & Reines, D. (2010). Perceived effectiveness and implementation of public relations measurement and evaluation tools among European providers and consumers of PR services. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 105–111. Bentele, G., & Nothhaft, H. (2014). Konzeption von Kommunikationsprogrammen. In A. Zerfass & M. Piwinger (Eds.), Handbuch Unternehmenskommunikation (2nd ed., pp. 607–632). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer Gabler. Berger, B. K., & Meng, J. (2014). Public relations leaders as sensemakers. A global study of leadership in public relations and communication management. New York, NY: Routledge. Cutlip, M., Center, A., & Broom, G. (1985). Effective public relations (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Fleisher, C. S., & Mahaffy, D. (1997). A balanced scorecard approach to public relations management assessment. Public Relations Review, 23(2), 117–142. German Public Relations Association [DPRG] & International Controlling Association [ICV] (2011). Position paper communication controlling  –  How to maximize and demonstrate the value creation through communication. Berlin/Gauting, Germany: DPRG/ICV. GIZ. (2018a). Quality, results and evaluation. https://www.giz.de/en/aboutgiz/quality_results_evaluation. html. GIZ. (2018b). Profile. https://www.giz.de/en/aboutgiz/profile.html. GIZ. (2018c). Questions and answers about GIZ. https://www.giz.de/en/press/9785.html. Gregory, A. (2001). Public relations and evaluation: Does the reality match the rhetoric? Journal of Marketing Communication, 7(3), 171–189. Gregory, A., & Watson, T. (2008). Defining the gap between research and practice in public relations programme evaluation – Towards a new research agenda. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(5), 337–350. Grunig, J. E. (2006). Furnishing the edifice: Ongoing research on public relations as a strategic management function. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(2), 151–176. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. (2002). Excellent organisations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hallahan, K., Holtzhausen, D., van Ruler, B., Verčič, D., & Sriramesh, K. (2007). Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(1), 3–35. Hon, L. (1997). What have you done for me lately? Exploring effectiveness in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9(1), 1–30. Huang, I. C. (2012). Gauging an integrated model of public relations value assessment (PRVA): Scale development and cross‐cultural studies. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(3), 243–265. Invernizzi, E., & Romenti, S. (2009). Institutionalization and evaluation of corporate communication in Italian companies. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3(2), 116–130. Jääskeläinen, A., & Sillanpää, V. (2013). Overcoming challenges in the implementation of performance measurement: Case studies in public welfare services. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 26(6), 440–454. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Laborde, E. J., & Pompper, D. (2006). Public relations program evaluation and encroachment effect in the for‐profit sector. Public Relations Review, 32(1), 77–79. Likely, F., & Watson, T. (2013). Measuring the edifice: Public relations measurement and evaluation practice over the course of 40 years. In K. Sriramesh, A. Zerfass, & J. Kim (Eds.), Public relations and communication management: Current trends and emerging topics (pp. 143–162). New York, NY: Routledge. Lindenmann, W. K. (1990). Research, evaluation and measurement: A national perspective. Public Relations Review, 16(2), 3–16. Lindenmann, W. K. (1993). An “effectiveness yardstick” to measure public relations success. PR Quarterly, 38(1), 7–9. Lindenmann, W. K. (2003). Guidelines for measuring the effectiveness of PR programs and activities. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. Macnamara, J. (1992). Evaluation of public relations: The achilles heel of the public relations profession. International Public Relations Review, 15(2), 19–25. Macnamara, J. (2002). An international perspective on priority issues in public relations. Paper presented to the IPRA World Congress, Cairo, Egypt.

Aligning and Linking Communication with Organizational Goals

433

Macnamara, J. (2015). Breaking the measurement and evaluation deadlock: A new approach and model. Journal of Communication Management, 19(4), 371–387. Macnamara, J. (2018). A review of new evaluation models for strategic communication: Progress and gaps. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(2), 180–195. Macnamara, J., Lwin, M. O., Adi, A., & Zerfass, A. (2015). Asia‐Pacific communication monitor 2015/16. The state of strategic communication and public relations in a region of rapid growth. Survey results from 23 countries. Hong Kong, China: APACD. Matilla, K., & Marca, G. (2012). The accountability gap: The use of preliminary and evaluative research in Spain. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 825–830. Melkers, J., & Willoughby, K. (2005). Models of performance‐measurement use in local governments: Understanding budgeting, communication, and lasting effects. Public Administration Review, 65(2), 180–190. Noble, P., & Watson, T. (1999). Applying a unified public relations evaluation model in a European context. Paper presented to the Transnational Communication in Europe: Practice and Research Congress, Berlin, Germany. O’Neil, G. (2013). Evaluation of international and non‐governmental organizations’ communication activities: A 15 year systematic review. Public Relations Review, 39(5), 572–574. Paine, K. D. (2007). Measuring public relationships. Berlin, NH: KD Paine. Pfannenberg, J. (2010). Strategisches Kommunikations‐Controlling mit der Balanced Scorecard. In J. Pfannenberg & A. Zerfass (Eds.), Wertschöpfung durch Kommunikation (pp. 61–83). Frankfurt, Germany: Frankfurter Allgemeine Buch. Pfannenberg, J., & Zerfass, A. (2010). Wertschöpfung durch Kommunikation (2nd ed.). Frankfurt, Germany: Frankfurter Allgemeine Buch. Piekos, J. M., & Einsiedel, E. F. (1990). Roles and program evaluation techniques among Canadian public relations practitioners. In J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig (Eds.), Public relations research annual (Vol. 2, pp. 95–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Power, M. (1997). The audit society. Rituals of verification. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. PRIA (Public Relations Institute of Australia) (2014). Principles on best practice research, measurement, and evaluation in public relations. Sydney, NSW, Australia: PRIA. Retrieved from www.pria.com.au/ documents/item/6726 Rantanen, H., Kulmala, H. I., Lönnqvist, A., & Kujansivu, P. (2007). Performance measurement systems in the Finnish public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 20(5), 415–433. Rolke, L., & Zerfass, A. (2010). Wirkungsdimensionen der Kommunikation: Ressourceneinsatz und Wertschöpfung im DPRG/ICV‐Bezugsrahmen. In J. Pfannenberg & A. Zerfass (Eds.), Wertschöpfung durch Kommunikation (pp. 50–60). Frankfurt a. M., Germany: Frankfurter Allgemeine Buch. Röttger, U., & Preusse, J. (2009). Communication controlling revisited. Annotations to a consolidation of the research agenda on planning and controlling communication management. In A. Rogojinaru & S. Wolstenholme (Eds.), Current trends in international public relations (pp. 165–184). Bucharest, Romania: Tritonic. Sanderson, I. (2001). Performance measurement, evaluation and learning in ‘modern’ local government. Public Administration, 79(2), 297–313. Smith, R. D. (2013). Strategic planning for public relations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Stacks, D. W., & Michaelson, D. (2014). A practitioner’s guide to public relations research, measurement, and evaluation (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Business Expert. Steinmann, H., & Schreyögg, G. (2005). Management: Grundlagen der Unternehmensführung (6th ed.). Wiesbaden, Germany: Gabler. Steyn, B. (2006). Contribution of public relations to organizational strategy formulation. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 137–172). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Taylor, L. (2009). Strengthening the link between performance measurement and decision making. Public Administration, 87(4), 853–871. Volk, S. C. (2016). A systematic review of 40 years of public relations evaluation and measurement research: Looking into the past, the present, and future. Public Relations Review, 42(5), 962–977. Volk, S.C., & Buhmann, A. (2019). New avenues in communication evaluation and measurement (E&M). Towards a research agenda for the 2020s. Journal of Communication Management, 23(3), 162–178.

434

Ansgar Zerfass and Sophia Charlotte Volk

Volk, S. C., & Zerfass, A. (2018). Alignment: Revisiting a key concept in strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(4), 433–451. Walker, G. F. (1994). Communicating public relations research. Journal of Public Relations Research, 6(3), 141–161. Watson, T. (1997). Measuring the success rate: Evaluating the PR process and PR programs. In P. Kitchen (Ed.), Public relations principles and practices (pp. 283–299). Boston, MA: International Thomson Business Press. Watson, T. (2012). The evolution of public relations measurement and evaluation. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 390–398. Watson, T., & Noble, P. (2014). Evaluating public relations (3rd ed.). London, UK: Kogan Page. Wright, D., Gaunt, R., Leggetter, B., Daniels, M., & Zerfass, A. (2009). Global survey of communications measurement 2009 – Final report. London, UK: AMEC. Wright, D. K. (1998). Validating credibility measures of public relations and communications: Interviews with senior level managers and executives from other corporate disciplines. Journal of Communication Management, 3(2), 105–118. Xavier, R., Mehta, A., & Gregory, A. (2006). Evaluation in use: The practitioner view of effective evaluation. PRism, 4(2), 1–11. Yeo, S. L., & Sriramesh, K. (2009). Adding value to organizations: An examination of the role of senior public relations practitioners in Singapore. Public Relations Review, 35(4), 422–425. Zerfass, A. (2005). Rituale der Verifikation? Grundlagen und Grenzen des Kommunikations‐Controlling. In L. Rademacher (Ed.), Distinktion und Deutungsmacht. Studien zu Theorie und Pragmatik der Public Relations (pp. 181–220). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Zerfass, A. (2008a). Corporate communication revisited: Integrating business strategy and strategic communication. In A. Zerfass, B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Eds.), Public relations research. European and international perspectives and innovations (pp. 65–96). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. Zerfass, A. (2008b). The corporate communications scorecard – A framework for managing and evaluating communication strategies. In B. van Ruler, A. Tkalac Verčič, & D. Verčič (Eds.), Public relations metrics: Research and evaluation (pp. 139–153). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge. Zerfass, A. (2009). Immaterielle Werte und Unternehmenskommunikation – Herausforderungen für das Kommunikationsmanagement. In K. Möller, M. Piwinger, & A. Zerfass (Eds.), Immaterielle Vermögenswerte: Bewertung, Berichterstattung und Kommunikation (pp. 23–47). Stuttgart, Germany: Schäffer‐Poeschel. Zerfass, A. (2010). Assuring rationality and transparency in corporate communications. Theoretical foundations and empirical findings on communication controlling and communication performance management. In M. D. Dodd & K. Yamamura (Eds.), Ethical issues for public relations practice in a multicultural world, 13th international public relations research conference (pp. 947–966). Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. Zerfass, A. (2016). Value‐contribution and measurement in strategic communication: An international comparison. Paper presented at the 8th International Forum on Public Relations and Advertising (PRAD), Wellington, New Zealand, January 2016. Zerfass, A., Tench, R., Verhoeven, P., Verčič, D., & Moreno, A. (2010). European communication monitor 2010: Status quo and challenges for public relations in Europe. In Results of an empirical survey in 46 countries. Brussels, Belgium: EACD/EUPRERA. Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., Nothhaft, H., & Werder, K. P. (2018). Strategic communication: Defining the field and its contribution to research and practice. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(4), 487–505. Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., Verhoeven, P., Moreno, A., & Tench, R. (2015). European communication monitor 2015. Creating communication value through listening, messaging and measurement. Results of a survey in 41 countries. Brussels, Belgium: EACD/EUPRERA/Helios Media. Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., & Volk, S. C. (2017). Communication evaluation and measurement: Skills, practices and utilization in European organizations. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 22(1), 2–18.

28

New Developments in Best Practice Evaluation: Approaches, Frameworks, Models, and Methods Jim Macnamara

Introduction While evaluation in some fields of public communication in both the public and private sector has been in “stasis” (Gregory & Watson, 2008) or “deadlock” (Macnamara, 2015) with no consistent standards emerging despite 40 or more years of intensive focus (Likely & Watson, 2013), there have been a number of significant developments and advances recently that warrant close attention by scholars and practitioners. This chapter reviews the “state of play” in evaluation of public sector communication and examines emerging developments and trends that inform the future with a particular focus on applications for public sector communication. This is particularly relevant now, as public sector organizations come under increasing pressure for accountability and transparency as well as budget restraint—two of the key characteristics of public sector organizations identified by the editors in the introduction. For example, in 2016 the UK government announced 25–30% cuts across most major government departments, including those offering vital public services such as the Department of Health. The incoming government following the controversial decision by the UK to leave the European Community (EU) eased financial restraint somewhat, but maintained a tough stance on government spending and increased demands for accountability to citizens for expenditure. EU countries face tough budget pressures in the face of large‐scale humanitarian immigration and economic recession faced by a number of member countries. Even in countries such as Australia that largely escaped the global financial crisis of 2008–2009, there is growing demand to rigorously evaluate government programs to justify as well as improve them. In addition, the issues of values and expectations loom large in contemporary societies, with changing public attitudes toward politics and government. Whereas previous generations bestowed a great deal of faith in government, institutions, media, and traditional systems of politics such as political parties and voting, young citizens are increasingly skeptical and disengaged from traditional forms of political participation and citizenship (Bennett, 2008; Bennett, Wells, & Freelon, 2011; Carpentier, 2011; Coleman, 2013; Dalton, 2011). Traditional media, once mainstream channels for public sector communication, have declined substantially as sources of

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

436

Jim Macnamara

information for many citizens, particularly the young. In addition to increasingly relying on social media for news and information, many youth today are “actualizing” rather than “dutiful” citizens (Bennett et al., 2011; Schudson, 2003) engaged in new forms of “maximalist” and micro (grassroots) political expression and participation (Carpentier, 2011, pp. 17–18). These range from protest marches to major movements such as Occupy (Deluca, Lawson, & Sun, 2012) and the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong (Jenkins, 2015). Societies also have become more diverse through multiculturalism and globalization. Public sector organizations are finding that they need to find new ways to communicate with and engage citizens, particularly those in marginalized and socially and culturally diverse communities. Therefore, they need to refine and expand their evaluation strategies, particularly in the context of the three‐stage approach d ­ iscussed here. As noted by the editors in the introduction, public sector communication incorporates ­elements of and overlaps with a number of other practices including public relations (PR), public affairs, corporate communication, political communication, administration communication within public administration, as well as the evolving fields of government communication and what is broadly referred to as strategic communication and/or communication management. In examining new developments and future directions, this chapter will draw from all of those fields, arguing that there are significant benefits in taking a transdisciplinary approach.

The Status Quo of Evaluation It is useful to briefly draw together other chapters in this section and summarize the status quo of public communication evaluation as a comparison point for discussing recent developments and future directions. Analysis of 40 years of discussion about evaluation of public communication in academic journal articles, books, and industry publications reveals 10 key factors and limitations shaping the evaluation landscape. It is important to call these out, as barriers and limitations need to be addressed before new ideas can take hold. 1 Focus on outputs Numerous studies have shown that evaluation in PR, corporate communication, strategic communication, and related fields of practice is predominantly focused on outputs, rather than outcomes or impact of communication (Macnamara, Lwin, Adi, & Zerfass, 2015; Wright, Gaunt, Leggetter, Daniels, & Zerfass, 2009; Wright & Hinson, 2012; Zerfass, Verčič, Verhoeven, Moreno, & Tench, 2015). As discussed in the following, contemporary approaches shift the focus of evaluation to outcomes and impact. 2 Assumptions about effects Preoccupation with outputs with comparatively little critical attention paid to outcomes and impact is largely based on lingering assumptions about media effects. As is well‐documented in media and communication literature, belief in strong and direct effects of mediated communication dominated thinking for much of the twentieth century influenced by transmissional models of communication (Berlo, 1960; Shannon & Weaver, 1949) and propaganda studies in the period of the two World Wars. As many scholars point out, direct effect theories of media and communication have been dismantled (e.g., Gauntlett, 2005) in favor of understandings of communication as transactional, contextual, and contingent. Therefore, evaluation is essential, whereas it is not seen to be as important or even necessary at all when effects are assumed. Deeper knowledge about human communication and the challenges of attitude and behavior change are key to avoiding assumptions and instead taking a social science approach. 3 Focus on measurement vs. evaluation Discussion in fields such as advertising, PR, government communication, strategic communication, and communication management is largely focused on measurement rather than evaluation (e.g., Carroll & Stacks, 2004; CIPR, 2011; IAB, 2009; IPR, 2016; PRSA, 2014; Wright

New Developments in Best Practice Evaluation

437

et al., 2009). Some articles, books, and manuals use both “measurement” and ­“evaluation” (e.g., Likely & Watson, 2013), but the key difference in these processes is often ignored. While measurement (the taking of measures) is necessary and a precursor to evidence‐based evaluation, the latter involves “making a judgment” about the value or significance of something (“Evaluation,” 2016). Evaluation is more specifically defined as “the process of gathering information about the merit or worth of a program for the purpose of making decisions about its effectiveness or for program improvement” (Owston, 2007, p. 606). Thus, measurement is only half of the process for assessing effectiveness and value. The models and frameworks discussed in this chapter highlight evaluation, not only measurement. 4 Lack of formative, process, and summative approaches There is also a widespread misunderstanding of evaluation as limited to post‐program assessment. While some researchers argue for four or even five stages of evaluation, most emphasize that there are at least two key stages of evaluation—formative and summative—or some prefer to apply three stages—formative, process, and summative evaluation (Sixsmith, Fox, Doyle, & Barry, 2014; Valente, 2001; Valente & Kwan, 2013). Formative evaluation undertaken before programs are implemented is essential to understand existing audience awareness levels, perceptions, interests, needs, and preferred channels to inform planning, to provide benchmarks for later comparison, and for pretesting messages and concepts. Process evaluation monitors progress and allows fine‐tuning and adjustment of programs if necessary, while summative evaluation conducted after programs identifies outcomes and impact. Output‐oriented approaches focus on process evaluation, ignoring important steps such as pretesting and failing to provide evidence of the effects of programs. The models and frameworks discussed in this chapter illustrate the importance of a progressive approach with considerable emphasis on formative evaluation. 5 Excuses for not doing evaluation Lack of evaluation is justified in a number of ways. The three most commonly cited reasons for not doing or skimping on evaluation are (i) cost and lack of budget (Lindenmann, 2001; Wright et al., 2009); (ii) lack of time (Wright et al., 2009); and (iii) lack of demand by employers and clients (Baskin, Hahn, Seaman, & Reines, 2010). Lindenmann (2001) and others have pointed out that there are low‐cost and even no‐cost methods for evaluation and that evaluation is scalable from quick basic methods to rigorous social research (Macnamara, 1992, 2005, 2012). Recent mandating of evaluation by major public sector organizations such as the UK Cabinet Office (GCS, 2015) illustrates that there is demand. Other reasons cited for lack of evaluation are a lack of standards (Michaelson & Stacks, 2011; Ragan/NASDAQ OMX, 2013) and a search for a “silver bullet” (Gregory & White, 2008; Likely & Watson, 2013). With standards in development and the search for a single solution widely dismissed by leading evaluation specialists such as Bauman and Nutbeam (2014) and Likely and Watson (2013), these so‐called reasons for lack of evaluation are revealed to be largely excuses. 6 Invalid and spurious methods The advertising and PR industries and some areas of corporate communication and communication management have been criticized for decades for the use of invalid and spurious methods of evaluation. The advertising industry has long relied on audience reach and recall of messages. Critics point out that simply reaching people with messages, and even recall of ads or messages, does not mean audiences were influenced by them. The PR industry has notoriously used so‐called advertising value equivalents (AVEs), which are condemned as spurious and misleading on a number of grounds, as noted by Gregory in this section and many other authors (e.g., Lindenmann, 2003; Macnamara, 2000; Weiner & Bartholomew, 2006). In 2017, the International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC) launched a campaign to eradicate use of AVEs, which has been supported by professional organizations worldwide. The models and taxonomy of evaluation presented in this chapter identify a range of valid metrics and methods for evaluation.

438

Jim Macnamara

7 Media‐centricity A further limitation and barrier to effective evaluation particularly prevalent in the advertising and PR industries is a preoccupation with media evaluation Watson and Noble (2014). The International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC) was originally formed as the Association of Media Evaluation Companies, but soon realized that evaluation of communication involves much more than examining media content. But even the progressive evaluation of the UK Government Communication Service (GCS, 2015) continues to feature dashboards mainly showing media metrics based on content analysis and social media tracking. Contemporary models and frameworks for evaluation are designed to apply to a range of communication activities including Web communication, events, stakeholder and community engagement, and can even be applied to specialized public sector communication such as public consultation. 8 Disciplinary siloes In tracing the history of evaluation of public communication and trying to establish standards, the US Task Force on Standardization of Communication Planning and Evaluation Models identified fragmentation in approaches to evaluation across practices such as advertising, PR, digital marketing, health communication, development communication, and other fields. Critical comparative analysis of literature showed that even closely related fields of practice are largely siloed and oblivious to knowledge, models, methods, and tools in other disciplines. Members of the task force called for a transdisciplinary approach and for the public communication sector to engage with fields such as program evaluation in public administration (Macnamara, 2017). 9 Lack of research knowledge and skills In contrast with what are described here as “excuses” for not doing evaluation, the preceding point and a number of other studies reveal that lack of knowledge and skills in relation to research is a key limitation in seeking better evaluation of public communication. In the first edition of their book on evaluation, Watson and Noble employed Dozier’s (1992) ­categorization of communication practitioners as “technicians” focused on production and outputs versus “managers” focused on strategy and results to conclude that “it would appear that a generation of better‐educated practitioners is needed to break the technician mold” (Watson & Noble, 2007, p. 46). 10 Quantitative bias—the Modernist obsession with metrics A further limitation noted by this author in an address to the 2014 AMEC Summit on Measurement (the title is a further example of the focus on measurement rather than evaluation) is a dominance of quantitative thinking based on Modernist philosophies that privilege the “scientific method” as well neoliberal tendencies to reduce all activities to metrics, especially financial metrics. Many researchers specializing in evaluation call for more qualitative research (e.g., Pawson & Tilley, 2001; Valente & Kwan, 2013). For example, in discussing political communication, Karpf, Kreiss, and Neilsen recommend that to understand citizens’ concerns, interests, needs, and views, in‐depth qualitative methods of research are required such as “first‐hand observation [ethnography], participation, and interviewing in the actual contexts where political communication occurs” (2014, p. 44). As shown in the following sections, contemporary approaches highlight a range of both quantitative and qualitative methods for evaluation.

Recent Developments and Advances Against this background, a number of significant developments have taken place in recent years, some of which have been mentioned in preceding chapters and some of which address the limitations described. These are briefly reviewed, particularly the most recent ones that offer hope for breakthroughs in the “stasis” and “deadlock” that has plagued evaluation research in public communication for decades.

New Developments in Best Practice Evaluation

439

Table 28.1  The original Barcelona Principles of 2010 and the Barcelona Principles 2.0 (AMEC, 2015). Barcelona Principles 2010

Barcelona Principles 2.0 (2015)

1.

Importance of goal setting and measurement.

2.

Measuring the effect on outcomes is preferred to measuring outputs. The effect on business results can and should be measured where possible. Media measurement requires quantity and quality. AVEs are not the value of public relations. Social media can and should be measured.

Goal setting and measurement are fundamental to communication and public relations. Measuring communication outcomes is recommended versus only measuring outputs. The effect on organizational performance can and should be measured where possible. Measurement and evaluation require both qualitative and quantitative methods. AVEs are not the value of communication. Social media can and should be measured consistently with other channels. Measurement and evaluation should be transparent, consistent and valid.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Transparency and replicability are paramount to sound measurement.

The Barcelona Principles A starting point for reform in evaluation of public communication for the public and private sectors was the declaration of the Barcelona Principles in 2010, so called because they were agreed by more than 200 delegates from 33 countries at an AMEC International Summit on Measurement in Barcelona. In many ways, the Barcelona Principles are basic “home truths.” However, they were a tipping point for a series of further developments, including a major revision of the principles in 2015. Table 28.1 presents the Barcelona Principles as agreed in 2010 and the Barcelona Principles 2.0, which were jointly developed by AMEC; the International Communication Consultants Organization (ICCO); the Institute for Public Relations (IPR) in the US; the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) in the UK; the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA); and the Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management1 (AMEC, 2015). The Barcelona Principles 2.0 represent a necessary improvement on the original principles in a number of respects: • Principle 1 is broadened beyond PR to “communication.” • Principle 3 is broadened from “business results” to “organizational performance,” which is more inclusive of the work of public sector and third sector organizations. • Principle 4 is broadened beyond “media measurement.” • Replicability is removed from Principle 7, as this is applicable to quantitative research only. However, there is still room for improvement in the Barcelona Principles 2.0. For instance: • Principle 2 refers to “measuring communication outcomes,” but does not specify evaluation of impact, which is a stage beyond communication outcomes in most models. This will be further discussed under “New evaluation frameworks and models.” • Principle 3 is broadened beyond a narrow focus on business, but it remains restricted to evaluating the effect on organizational performance and does not give any attention to impact on stakeholders or social impact. • The terms measurement and measuring are used extensively and evaluation is often not mentioned.   The Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management is a confederation of professional communication organizations representing 160,000 practitioners and academics worldwide (www. globalalliancepr.org).

1

440

Jim Macnamara

The March to Standards Notwithstanding their weakness and generic nature, the Barcelona Principles provided a framework for what several industry commentators called the “march to standards” (Marklein & Paine, 2012). Two significant initiatives between 2010 and 2014 were as follows: • In 2011, the Coalition for Public Relations Research Standards was established by AMEC, the IPR, and the Council of Public Relations Firms (CPRF) to collaboratively develop standards for measurement and evaluation of PR within the framework of the Barcelona Principles. In 2012, the Coalition released Proposed Interim Standards for Metrics in Traditional Media Analysis (Eisenmann et al., 2012), which included definitions of key media content analysis terms such as “items,” “impressions,” “mentions,” “tone,” and “sentiment,” and described how these should be used. • In 2012 the Conclave on Social Media Measurement Standards, known as the #SMMstandards Conclave or simply “the Conclave” for short, was established. The Conclave involved ­collaboration by 11 professional communication organizations worldwide, as well as consultation with five media and advertising industry bodies and eight companies representing employer perspectives. This was an important step in trying to achieve consistent terminology and compatibility of metrics across the public communication field. At the fourth European Summit on Measurement in Dublin in 2012 the Coalition for Public Relations Research Standards released three documents as the first stage of social media measurement standards: Valid Metrics for Social Media (Daniels, 2012) and The Sources and Methods Transparency Table and Social Media Standard Definitions for Reach and Impressions produced by the Conclave (2011) in consultation with the Digital Analytics Association. Subsequently, between 2011 and 2013, The Conclave developed standards for “content and sourcing,” “reach and impressions,” “engagement and conversation,” “influence,” “opinion and advocacy,” and “influence and impact” (Conclave, 2011/2013). Despite enthusiasm and much hard work by those involved, the “standards” developed by these groups mainly comprise a set of definitions. These are a useful contribution, but do not comprise a set of standards for evaluation of public communication. Also, some so‐called standards are superficial and contrary to established research literature. For example, engagement, which is a multidimensional concept described in organizational psychology as involving cognitive, affective, and conative dimensions (Macey & Schneider, 2008; Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001), and as “two‐way… give and take” between organizations and their stakeholders and publics (Taylor & Kent, 2014, p. 391), is described as including likes, comments, shares, retweets, and video views in social media. Furthermore, the initiatives reveal a continuing focus on media, on business outcomes, and Americentrism, with most members of these groups being Americans and all client organizations involved in these projects being US corporations.

The Standards Movement Mark II A further initiative designed to move beyond definitions to more complete standards and to broaden focus internationally was the establishment in 2015 of the Task Force on Standardization of Communication Planning and Evaluation Models. Chaired by Canadian evaluation consultant Fraser Likely, the task force includes academics and professional researchers specializing in evaluation from Australia (including this author) and Europe as well as the US, along with members of the IPR, including some members of its Measurement Commission (http://www. instituteforpr.org/ipr‐measurement‐commission). This task force is attempting to synthesize myriad models of evaluation with a view to identifying approaches and methods that are theory‐ based and best practice, and therefore capable of being a standard.

New Developments in Best Practice Evaluation

441

Return to Fundamentals One of the first papers published by members of the Task Force on Standardization of Communication Planning and Evaluation Models already cited reviewed evaluation models published in PR and corporate communication literature from the early 1980s to the early 2000s compared with program theory, program theory evaluation (PTE), and theory of change models developed in the same period (Macnamara & Likely, 2017). The paper noted that some models of evaluation of PR and corporate, marketing, organizational, and government communication broadly followed the stages and processes of program logic models, but often modified or “bastardized” these. For example, instead of the commonly used stages of inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impact advocated in widely used models such as those of the Kellogg Foundation (2004, 2010), United Way of America (Hatry, Houten, Plantz, & Greenway, 1996), and the University of Wisconsin Extension Program (UWEX) model (Taylor‐Power & Henert, 2008), communication practitioners and evaluation service providers have created new terms such as outgrowths and outflows. A number of service providers also use black box methods of evaluation based on proprietary algorithms. The paper argued for a focus on fundamental knowledge about evaluation as outlined in program theory (Weiss, 1972; Wholey, 1987), PTE (Rogers, Petrosino, Huebner, & Hacsi, 2000), theory of change (Anderson, 2005; Clark & Taplin, 2012), program logic models (Funnell & Rogers, 2011; Julian, 1997; Knowlton & Phillips, 2013; McLaughlin & Jordan, 1999), and other systematic, outcome, and impact‐oriented approaches such as realist evaluation (Pawson & Tilley, 1997). Also, Macnamara and Likely (2017) and other extended reviews of evaluation (e.g., Macnamara, 2017) have criticized simplistic reductions of communication and information ­processing theory, such as illustrated in the AIDA (awareness, interest, desire, action) model still widely used in planning and evaluating advertising. Such models recognize and address only some of the steps in communication identified by communication theorists and social psychologists such as W. J. McGuire, who initially identified six steps (McGuire, 1985), but later expanded this to 13 steps (McGuire, 2001).

New Evaluation Frameworks and Models Since 2015 a number of new frameworks and models for evaluation of public communication in and by public as well as the private sector organizations have been developed based on transdisciplinary knowledge drawn from fields such as program evaluation and other systematic approaches (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004; Wholey, Hatry, & Newcomer, 2010). These offer insights into best practice as well as application of theory‐based evaluation and, not insignificantly in the context of this text, a number of these initiatives are in the public sector.

The UK Cabinet Office Evaluation Framework Following considerable focus on evaluation of communication within the EU government (European Commission, 2014; Henningsen et al., 2014), the UK Government Communication Service (GCS) mandated evaluation for all UK government departments and agencies referred to in Britain as arm’s‐length bodies (ALBs) in 2014 and set quite demanding standards for reporting. Two supporting initiatives gave credibility and validity to the GCS initiatives. First, it established an Evaluation Council made up of independent consultants, professional researchers, and academics with the role of advising GCS and the Cabinet Office on evaluation of public communication and reviewing proposals for major campaigns. Second, GCS introduced a major professional development program for government communicators across the UK civil service. This offers workshops and online materials to advance staff from an introduction to systematic

442

Jim Macnamara

evaluation to “evaluation champions.” The professional development program is supported and guided by GCS Evaluation Capability Standards based on surveys of communication staff to monitor and improve knowledge and skills. Through the advice of its evaluation council and also direct consulting with academic researchers, the UK GCS Evaluation Framework introduced in 2015 reflected the key concepts and principles of program logic models and communication and information processing theory such as that of McGuire (2001). This framework was updated in 2016 to further reflect these bodies of knowledge about evaluation, although as shown in Figure 28.1, the GCS (2016) evaluation framework opted to retain the stage of outtakes introduced to PR evaluation models by Fairchild (1997) in the UK and then Lindenmann (2003) in the US. However, importantly, it shows the process of planning and evaluating programs beginning with communication objectives and these being clearly linked to organizational objectives. The processes of evaluation of UK government communication are based on a five‐stage program logic model, with findings from formative, process, and summative evaluation used as feedback to fine‐tune and adjust programs if necessary (shown in the dotted lines and arrows). Many of the traditional barriers to evaluation referred to previously in this chapter, such as using invalid methods, lack of formative evaluation, and excuses were overcome in the UK GCS through the rollout of extensive training in evaluation as part of the GCS professional development program, the cultivation of evaluation champions, and also a senior management decision to mandate evaluation. Major campaigns need to be submitted to the GCS Evaluation Council and are not approved unless rigorous evaluation is included.

The New South Wales Government Communication Evaluation Framework In 2015, this author was engaged on a contract research project to review methods of evaluating advertising and other public communication undertaken by the state government of New South Wales (NSW), Australia’s largest state with its capital in Sydney. The NSW government spends more than AUD$100 million (almost US$80 million) a year of public communication excluding staff salaries, so accountability for this expenditure and effectiveness are important. Figure 28.2, which is described as a framework rather than a model because it is a broad outline of approach, closely follows classic program logic models such as that of the Kellogg Foundation (1998/2004, 2010), but customizes the inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impact stages to public communication such as advertising, media publicity, Web communication, social media, events, and community engagement projects. Under that, it also lists typical evaluation methods appropriate to each stage (see Figure 28.2). There are three important features of this framework that are particularly applicable to public sector organizations. First, in addition to linking outcomes and impact to government or agency objectives, it recognizes that communication objectives and inputs to planning should take into account the views, needs, and interests of stakeholders, publics, and society generally – not only those of the organization. Second, it shows that while the activities and outputs stages of communication involve information flow from the organization to stakeholders, publics and society, outcomes should be evaluated in terms of response and reactions from stakeholders and publics. Third, impact should be evaluated from the perspective of both the organization and stakeholders, publics and society. This two‐way focus is missing in most evaluation frameworks and models that are organization‐centric in terms of their objectives and intended outcomes and impact. Recognition of the need to evaluate outcomes and impact from the perspective of stakeholders and publics as well as the organization aligns with program evaluation theory and program logic models (Kellogg Foundation, 1998/2004; Taylor‐Power & Henert, 2008; Wholey et al., 2010) and with Excellence Theory of PR, which calls for evaluation to be conducted at (a) program level; (b) functional level (e.g., department or unit); (c) organizational level; and (d) societal

Organization/Policy Objectives Communication Objectives

Campaign evaluation and further insight to inform future planning Ongoing insight to inform delivery and future planning

Inputs

Stages

Things you need to do, track, and/or achieve

Metrics & milestones Methods

Outtakes

Outputs

Outcomes

Organizational impact

What you do before and during the activity (e.g.)

What is delivered / target audience reached (e.g.)

What target audience think, feel, do to make a decision (e.g.)

The result of your activity on the target audience (e.g.)

The quantifiable impact on the organization goals/KPIs (e.g.)

• • • •

• Distribution • Exposure • Reach

• • • • • •

• Impact • Influence • Effects – Attitude – Behaviour

• Revenue • Cost reduction • Complying actions

Planning Preparation Pre-testing Production

Awareness Understanding Interest Engagement Preference Support

Select the right metrics from the framework to help you measure and evaluation the performance of your integrated communication activities Use a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods (e.g., surveys, interviews, focus groups, social media analytics, tracking)

Figure 28.1  The UK Government Communication Service evaluation framework (GCS, 2016).

(attitude/behaviour change)

• Retention • Reputation

Selection the right business KPIs to track performance of your integrated communication activities against your organizational goals

444

Jim Macnamara Government Agency

Organization goals and objectives

Communication

Feedback loops to adjust strategy and inform future planning

Objectives Target audiences

INPUTS

Program Theory Theory of Change

ACTIVITIES

OUTPUTS

Formative research (audience insights, channel preferences, etc.) Baseline data collection (e.g., existing awareness, perceptions, or compliance)

Strategic planning Creative design Pre-testing Production Media buying Journalist relations

Paid advertising Media publicity Publications (e.g., newsletters, reports) Websites Social media posts Events Sponsorships Community projects

Literature review (existing research) Pre-surveys Focus groups Interviews Database records

Pre -test panels Stakeholder consultation Costeffectiveness analysis

Media metrics (reach, impressions, OTS, TARPs, etc.) Content analysis Website data Social media statistics Reader surveys

Preparation

Production

OUTCOMES

Short Medium Long-term

Distribution Exposure / Reception

Recall Awareness Interest Engagement Preference Attitude change Satisfaction Trust Intentions Advocacy Surveys Interviews Social media qual analysis (e.g., shares, tags, etc.) Ethnography Net Promoter Score Repsonse

IMPACT Complying behavior (e.g., drive safely, get fit, stop smoking, etc.) Inquiries or registrations Revenue (e.g., tourist arrivals) Customer retention Quality of life / well-being Cost savings Behavior tracking (e.g., databases) Surveys CBA / ROI Well-being metrics Results

Stakeholders, Publics, Society

Figure 28.2  The NSW government evaluation framework (DPC, 2016).

level (Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2002, pp. 91–92). This is an important component of ­evaluation to move beyond organization‐centric approaches.2

The AMEC Integrated Evaluation Framework In mid‐2016, the International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC) launched a major revision of its former Valid Metrics Framework. This also uses a program logic model approach, albeit it uses a six‐stage model—inputs, activities, outputs, outtakes, outcomes, and impact. In other words, it uses a classic five‐stage program logic models as used in other fields, but adds “outtakes” as PR‐oriented evaluators frequently do. Whether practitioners will be able to differentiate outtakes from outcomes is a question that only time will tell. It may only add to the confusion discussed in the following section. Nevertheless, the AMEC Integrated Evaluation Framework (AMEC, 2016) was developed with considerable input from AMEC’s Academic Advisory Group, of which I have been pleased to be the inaugural chair, as well as a committee of evaluation specialists led by Richard Bagnall, CEO of Prime Research in the UK. It takes its name from its integration of evaluation theory and academic research, existing industry matrices and models, and its capability to evaluate integrated communication involving paid, earned, shared, and owned channels.

  Within one month of its development, the NSW government evaluation framework for advertising and communication was applied to evaluating an anti‐drugs campaigns targeting youth and the evaluation project won the Gold Award for “best use of a measurement framework” in the 2016 AMEC Global Communication Effectiveness Awards.

2

445

New Developments in Best Practice Evaluation Objectives

Inputs

START HERE Outputs

1

Activities

2

3 Outcomes

Outtakes

4 Organizational impact

5 Click on submit button to review your content in the Integrated Evaluation Framework by AMEC.

6

Submit

Figure 28.3  The interface of the AMEC Integrated Evaluation Framework interactive online tool (AMEC, 2017).

Some features do particularly set the AMEC Integrated Evaluation Framework apart and advance the field of practice considerably. The first is that the AMEC framework is an interactive online tool, not a static diagram (http://amecorg.com/amecframework). This means that users can input data into the various steps and stages, including organization objectives and communication objectives, and then progressively add inputs, outputs, and so on. Thus, it is a working tool. A second key feature of the AMEC framework that advances evaluation considerably for communication practitioners is that the framework is supported by a range of resources to guide practitioners through the process of evaluation. These include guidelines for setting SMART objectives; links to the Dictionary of Public Relations Measurement and Research (Stacks & Bowen, 2013); and a number of downloadable case studies that provide samples of the framework in use. One of the key resources in terms of using the framework is a taxonomy of evaluation, as discussed in the following section (Figure 28.3).

A Taxonomy of Evaluation While these broad frameworks are useful, there is still the question of what is done when in terms of doing evaluation. In their leading PR textbook, Cutlip, Center, and Broom note repeatedly in editions from 1985 to the late‐2000s that “the common error in program evaluation is substituting measures from one level for those at another level” (1985, p. 295; 1994, p. 414; Broom, 2009, p. 358). This warning has been echoed by emeritus professor of public relations Jim Grunig, who said that many practitioners use “a metric gathered at one level of analysis to show an outcome at a higher level of analysis” (Grunig, 2008, p. 89). More broadly, the UWEX guide to program evaluation similarly says that “people often struggle with the difference between outputs and outcomes” (Taylor‐Power & Henert, 2008, p. 19). In working with the Task Force on Standardization of Communication Planning and Evaluation Models and the AMEC team developing its Integrated Evaluation Framework, a key step was synthesizing a wide range of literature that identifies the inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impact of public communication and the methods applicable to evaluating them. This enabled production of a taxonomy of evaluation for communication.

446

Jim Macnamara

The term taxonomy is used in preference to typology as, even though the terms are often used interchangeably, a taxonomy categorizes empirical entities based on evidence, whereas a typology is typically a conceptual construct (Bailey, 1994, p. 6). The taxonomy of evaluation of communication identifies four levels in each of up to six stages of communication (inputs, activities, outputs, outtakes, outcomes, and impact). Under each stage (the macro level); the taxonomy lists key steps required in that stage (meso level); then lists typical milestones and metrics for showing achievement of those steps (micro level); and then lists typical methods to demonstrate milestones or generate metrics required for that stage. By adding this detail, frameworks evolve toward a working model of evaluation for public communication. This taxonomy also clearly draws attention to the fact that outputs are barely halfway to achieving outcomes and impact. It points to the need to go beyond distribution, exposure, and even reception of information by audiences to gaining attention; creating awareness and understanding; generating interest or liking; creating engagement and participation and, even further, consideration, which AMEC and some other models refer to as outtakes and some refers to as short‐term outcomes. Furthermore, based on McGuire’s (2001) steps of information processing, communication needs to go even further, sometimes to learning or creating new knowledge in audiences, attitude change, satisfaction, trust, preference, intention (e.g., to buy or act), and advocacy (urging others to buy or act). Ultimately, impact is identified in terms of complying action or other results such as positive reputation, relationships, organization change, or public/social change. Key milestones and metrics as well as typical methods to generate these metrics and demonstrate milestones are also listed for each of these stages and steps. The taxonomy shown in Table 28.2 arranges key steps, milestones and metrics, and evaluation methods in six stages to match the AMEC framework (Macnamara, 2016). However, a complete version of this taxonomy similarly arranges key steps, milestones and metrics, and methods for five‐stage, four‐stage, and even three‐stage (inputs, outputs, outcomes) logic models. In a five‐stage framework, outtakes are reclassified as “short‐term outcomes” in line with classic logic models, with outcomes being “intermediate” and “long‐term outcomes.” In a four‐stage framework (inputs, outputs, outcomes, and impact), outtakes are arranged as above (i.e., as short‐ term outcomes) and inputs are combined with activities. In a three‐stage framework (inputs, outputs, outcomes), impact is renamed “long‐term outcomes,” as well as the other combined stages listed above (Macnamara, 2018). These options recognize that there is unlikely to be a single standard evaluation framework or model. Nor is it possible to have a single evaluation method, given that different communication activities and campaigns have different objectives. Rather, most industries and sectors establish standards (plural)—a range of practices that conform to key principles that are agreed and formalized in manuals, guides, and other publications. The work of the IPR Measurement Commission, the Task Force on Standardization of Communication Planning and Evaluation Models, and evaluation frameworks developed by the UK Government Communication Service (GCS, 2016), the NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet for the NSW government advertising and communication (DPC, 2016), and AMEC (2016) are likely to be ongoing for some time. However, they represent significant advances in thinking about and applying evaluation.

The Quo Vadis of Evaluation Having started by summarizing the status quo over the past few decades, and then looking at recent developments, it is appropriate to end by asking the question quo vadis (Latin for “where are you going?”). Some of the important future developments will be fine‐tuning and evolution of leading frameworks such as that of AMEC and the evaluation frameworks used by government in the EU and the UK. Greater use of qualitative research is also recommended by a number of evaluation

Table 28.2  A taxonomy of Communication Evaluation Stages, Key Steps, Milestones and Metrics, and Methods (Macnamara, 2016). Stages Macro‐level Short definition Key steps Meso‐level

Inputs

Activities

Outputs

What you need in preparation for communication • Objectives • Budget • Resources (e.g., staff, agencies, facilities, partnerships)

Things you do to plan and produce your communication • Formative research • Planning2 • Production (e.g., design, writing, media buying, media relations, media partnerships, etc.) • Baselines/ benchmarks (e.g., current awareness) • Audience needs, preferences, etc. • Strategic plan • Evaluation plan • Pretest data (e.g., creative concepts) • Content produced (e.g., media releases, Websites) • Media relations

What you put out that is received by target audiences • Distribution • Exposure • Reception3

Example • SMART Metrics & objectives Milestones • Benchmarks/ Micro‐level baseline data • Targets/key performance indicators (KPIs)

Methods of evaluation

• Internal analysis • Metadata analysis • Environmental (e.g., past research scanning and metrics)

• Advertising TARPs5 • Audience reach • Impressions/ opportunities to see (OTS)6 • Cost per thousand impressions (CPM) • Clickthroughs • Publicity volume • Share of voice • Tone/sentiment/ favorability • Messages placed • Posts, tweets, etc. • E‐marketing volume • Event attendance • Media metrics (e.g., audience statistics, impressions, CPM)

Outtakes Short‐term outcomes

Outcomes Intermediate

Impact Long‐term

What audiences do with and take out of your communication • Attention • Awareness • Understanding • Interest/liking • Engagement • Participation • Consideration • Unique visitors • Views • Response (e.g., follows, likes, tags, shares, retweets) • Return visits/views • Recall (unaided, aided) • Positive comments • Positive response in surveys, etc. • Subscribers (e.g., Really Simple Syndication (RSS), newsletters) • Inquiries

Effects that your communication has on audiences • Learning/knowledge4 • Attitude change • Satisfaction • Trust • Preference • Intention • Advocacy • Message acceptance • Trust levels • Statements of support or intent • Leads • Registrations (e.g., organ donor list) • Brand preference • Trialing • Joining • Reaffirming (e.g., staff satisfaction)

The results that are caused, in full or in part, by your communication1 • Compliance/ complying actions • Reputation • Relationships • Organization change • Public/social change

• Web statistics (e.g., views, downloads)

• Social media analysis (qual)

• Database records (e.g., blood donations, health outcomes, membership)

• Public/s support • Meet targets (e.g., blood donations; cancer screening membership, etc.) • Sales increase • Donations increase • Cost savings • Staff retention • Customer retention/ loyalty • Quality of life/ wellbeing increase

(Continued)

0004486685.INDD 447

12/10/2019 9:08:05 PM

Table 28.2  (Continued) Stages Macro‐level

Inputs

Activities

Outputs

• Feasibility analysis • Risk analysis

• Market/audience research (e.g., surveys, focus groups, interviews) • Stakeholder consultation • Case studies (e.g., best practice) • SWOT analysis (or PEST, PESTLE, etc.)7 • Pretesting panels • Peer review/expert review

• Media monitoring • Media content analysis (quant) • Media content analysis (qual) • Social media analysis (quant and qual) • Activity reports (e.g., events, sponsorships)

Outtakes Short‐term outcomes

Outcomes Intermediate

• Social media analysis • (qual – e.g., comments) • • Feedback (e.g., comments, letters) • • Ethnography (observation) • Netnography (online • • ethnography) • Audience surveys (e.g., re awareness, • understanding, • interest) • Focus group (as above) • • Interviews (as above)

Database statistics (e.g., identifying sources) Ethnography (observation) Netnography (online ethnography) Opinion polls Stakeholder surveys (e.g., re satisfaction, trust) Focus groups (as above) Interviews (as above) Net Promoter Score (NPS)8

Impact Long‐term • • • • • • •

Sales tracking Donation tracking CRM data Staff survey data Reputation studies Cost/benefit analysis Return on Investment, ROI (if there are financial objectives) • Econometrics9 • Quality of life scales and wellbeing measures

  Causation is very difficult to establish in many cases, particularly when multiple influences contribute to impact (results), as is often the case. The three key rules of causation must be applied: (i) the alleged cause must precede the alleged effect/impact; (ii) there must be a clear relationship between the alleged cause and effect (e.g., there must be evidence that the audience accessed and used information you provided); and (iii) other possible causes must be ruled out as far as possible. 2   Some include planning in inputs. However, if this occurs, formative research (which should precede planning) also needs to be included in inputs. However, most program evaluation models identify formative research and planning as key activities to be undertaken as part of the communication program. Inputs are generally pre‐campaign/program. 3   Reception refers to what information or messages are received by target audiences and is slightly different to exposure. For example, an audience might be exposed to a story in media that they access, but skip over the story and not receive the information. Similarly, they may attend an event such as a trade show and be exposed to content, but not receive information or messages (e.g., through inattention or selection of content to focus on). 4   Learning (i.e., acquisition of knowledge) is not required in all cases. However, in some public communication campaigns and projects it is. For example, health campaigns to promote calcium‐rich food and supplements to reduce osteoporosis among women found that, first, women had to be “educated” about osteoporosis (what it is, its causes, etc.). Similarly, combatting obesity requires dietary education. Whereas understanding refers to comprehension of messages communicated, learning refers to the acquisition of deeper or broader knowledge that is necessary to achieve the objectives. 5   TARP is target audience rating points. 6   OTS is an abbreviation of “opportunities to see,” usually calculated the same as impressions or gross audience reach. 7   WOT stands for strengths, weakness, opportunities, threats. PEST is a planning formula that assesses political, economic, social, and technological factors. PESTLE adds environmental and legal factors as planning considerations. 8   Net promoter score is a score out of 10 based to a single question: “How likely is it that you would recommend [brand] to a friend or colleague?” Scores of 0–6 are considered “detractors”/ dissatisfied; scores of 7–8 are satisfied but unenthusiastic; and scores of 9–10 are those considered loyal enthusiasts, supporters, and advocates. (See https://www.netpromoter.com/know). 9   Econometrics is the application of mathematics and statistical methods to test hypotheses and identify the economic relations between factors based on empirical data. 1

0004486685.INDD 448

12/10/2019 9:08:05 PM

New Developments in Best Practice Evaluation

449

specialists (Pawson & Tilley, 2001; Valente & Kwan, 2013). In addition, there are a number of sophisticated new methods designed to cope with changing societal conditions, expectations, and cultural practices. Two examples are briefly introduced, further illustrating the opportunities ­available through transdisciplinary approaches to draw on the methods and expertise of other fields.

Behavioral Insights Behavioral insights, also referred to as behavioral economics, draw on social psychology and economics to “explain why people behave in ways that deviate from rationality as defined by classical economics” (Marteau, Ogilvie, Roland, Suhrcke, & Kelly, 2011, p. 223). The focus of behavioral insights is understanding the influences – triggers, if you will – that shape people’s choices in relation to certain behaviors and then manipulating those influences to create the desired behaviors (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008, p. 6). Because behavioral insights are gained in order to stimulate desired behaviors in people, the field has become known colloquially as nudge communication, also referred to as nudge marketing, a term created by the pioneers of this field of practice, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein (2008) in their book Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Several governments have adopted behavioral economics/behavioral insights including the UK government, which pioneered application of Thaler and Sunstein’s concept in setting up a behavioral insights team in the Cabinet Office in 2010 before spinning it off as a social purpose company (www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk) headed by British psychologist David Halpern. The Institute for Government in the United Kingdom also has advocated the application of behavioral insights, although its focus has been mainly on the development and implementation of public policy rather than evaluation of communication, as highlighted in a 2010 report MINDSPACE: Influencing Behaviour Through Public Policy (Dolan, Hallsworth, Halpern, King, & Vlaev, 2010). In the US, Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government has established the Behavioral Insights Group (BIG), and the White House set up a Nudge Unit in 2014 (Nesterak, 2014). In Australia the state government of NSW has established a Behavioral Insights Community of Practice (http://bi.dpc.nsw.gov.au) to share knowledge across departments and agencies. Behavioral insights inform evaluation by identifying the “triggers” to attitude and behavior change. However, given that these include strategic use of incentives and appeals to emotions, ego, subconscious cues, norms, and default behaviors, as well as restrictions such as regulation and legislation (see Table  28.3), it is important that behavioral insights are applied ethically. Thaler and Sunstein believe that it is appropriate for governments and public sector organizations to use behavioral insights and nudge techniques in a spirit of what they call libertarian paternalism (Sunstein & Thaler, 2003, p. 1160). Table 28.3  The MINDSPACE Checklist of Influences on Human Behavior. Influence

Description

Messenger Incentives

We are heavily influenced by who communicates information. Our responses to incentives are shaped by predictable mental shortcuts such as strongly avoiding losses. We are strongly influenced by what others do. We “go with the flow” of preset options. Our attention is drawn to what is novel and seems relevant to us. Our acts are often influenced by subconscious cues. Our emotional associations can powerfully shape our actions. We seek to be consistent with our public promises, and reciprocate acts. We act in ways that make us feel better about ourselves.

Norms Defaults Salience Priming Affect Commitments Ego

Source: Dolan et al. (2010).

450

Jim Macnamara

Behavioral insights‐based approaches are also relevant to evaluation because they involve c­ontinual evaluation. Every step in a program aimed at changing behavior is evaluated and ­compared with other alternative approaches to achieve the objective and only the most effective activities are continued. See Thaler and Sunstein (2008) for more information.

Sensemaking Methodology Another recently developed and advanced method of planning, implementing, and evaluating public communication is sensemaking methodology (SSM). Four key features of SSM are pertinent for research, including evaluation, as follows: 1 SMM avoids categorizing people in advance of research, such as by demographics or psychographics, instead allowing them to speak for themselves and describe who they are and how they feel (referred to in SSM as verbing rather than nouning because it focuses on what people do and say rather than naming them and putting labels on them). In the words of the developers of SMM, participants in SMM research are “theorists of their own worlds” (Dervin & Foreman‐Wernet, 2013, p. 158). 2 SMM uses more qualitative than quantitative research to probe deeply into people’s perceptions, attitudes, interests, desires, fears, beliefs, and so on. 3 In implementing research, SMM allows participants time for reflection. SMM typically uses focus groups and discussion forums. In these, a particular SMM technique is sensemaking journaling in which participants are asked to write down their reactions to subjects being discussed, reflect on them, and prepare their thoughts before answering questions or expressing their views. Dervin and Foreman‐Wernet say that traditional interviewing and surveys put people on the spot to give an answer, whereas in journaling “space is opened for what is usually left unsaid” (2013, p. 155). 4 A fourth key principle that makes SSM fundamentally different to other top‐down and expert‐led approaches to research and evaluation is that the methodology is based on an understanding and acceptance that “both organizations and constituencies have expertise to share, common struggles to ponder, and capacities to teach and learn from each other” (Dervin & Foreman‐Wernet, 2013, p. 160). Dervin and her co‐author state frankly: “In SMM public communication is defined as the means to not merely change constituencies but to change organizations” (p. 160).

Conclusions Effective evaluation to inform future planning and strategy as well as provide accountable, transparent reporting is available, but requires: (i) increased focus on outcomes and impact of communication, including on stakeholders and publics as well as the organization; (ii) recognition and implementation of formative, process, and summative evaluation; (iii) greater use of qualitative research; (iv) adoption of contemporary frameworks and models based on program evaluation theory and specifying systematic methods of evaluation; and (v) considering innovative approaches such as SMM and behavioral insights. The tools are available. The key to implementation is increasing knowledge and skills among practitioners to deploy these strategies. With responsibilities to communicate with citizens effectively and use public funds wisely, public ­sector communicators should be at the forefront of these developments.

References AMEC (Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication) (2015). Barcelona principles 2.0. London, UK: Author. http://amecorg.com/barcelona‐principles‐2‐0

New Developments in Best Practice Evaluation

451

AMEC (Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication) (2016). Integrated evaluation framework. London, UK: Author. http://amecorg.com/amecframework Anderson, A. (2005). The community builder’s approach to theory of change: A practical guide to theory and development. New York, NY: The Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change. Bailey, K. (1994). Typologies and taxonomies: An introduction to classification techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Baskin, O., Hahn, J., Seaman, S., & Reines, D. (2010). Perceived effectiveness and implementation of public relations measurement and evaluation tools among European providers and consumers of PR services. Public Relations Review, 36, 105–111. Bauman, A., & Nutbeam, D. (2014). Evaluation in a nutshell: A practical guide to the evaluation of health promotion programs (2nd ed.). North Ryde, Australia: McGraw‐Hill. Bennett, W. (2008). Changing citizenship in the digital age. In W. Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online (pp. 1– 24). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bennett, W., Wells, C., & Freelon, D. (2011). Communicating civic engagement: contrasting models of citizenship in the youth web culture. Journal of Communication, 61(5), 835–856. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1460‐2466.2011.01588.x Berlo, D. (1960). The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt/Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Broom, G. (2009). Cutlip & Center’s effective public relations (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. Carpentier, N. (2011). Media and participation: A site of ideological‐democratic struggle. Chicago, IL: Intellect/University of Chicago Press. Carroll, T., & Stacks, D. (2004). Bibliography of public relations measurement. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. http://www.instituteforpr.org/wp‐content/uploads/PRM_Bibliography.pdf CIPR (Chartered Institute for Public Relations). (2011). Research, planning and measurement toolkit. www.cipr.co.uk/sites/default/files/Non‐member%20excerpt%202_0.pdf. Clark, H., & Taplin, D. (2012). Theory of change basics: A primer on theory of change. New York, NY: Actknowledge. Coleman, S. (2013). How voters feel. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Conclave on Social Media Measurement Standards. (2011/2013). The standards. http://smmstandards. wixsite.com/smmstandards. Cutlip, M., Center, A., & Broom, G. (1985). Effective public relations (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐Hall. Cutlip, S., Center, A., & Broom, G. (1994). Effective public relations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Dalton, R. (2011). Engaging youth in politics: Debating democracy’s future. New York, NY: Idebate Press. Daniels, M. (2012, June). Valid metrics framework. Presentation to the 4th European Summit on Measurement, Dublin, Ireland. http://amecorg.com/downloads/dublin2012/Valid‐Metrics‐ Framework‐Mike‐Daniels.pdf Deluca, K., Lawson, S., & Sun, Y. (2012). Occupy wall street on the public screens of social media: the many framings of the birth of a protest movement. Communication, Culture & Critique, 5(4), 483–509. Dervin, B., & Foreman‐Wernet, L. (2013). Sense‐making methodology as an approach to understanding and designing for campaign audiences. In R. Rice & C. Atkin (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (4th ed., pp. 147–162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dolan, P., Hallsworth, M., Halpern, D., King, D., & Vlaev, I. (2010). MINDSPACE: Influencing behaviour through public policy. London, UK: Institute for Government. www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/ our‐work/better‐policy‐making/mindspace‐behavioural‐economics Dozier, D. (1992). The organizational roles of communications and public relations practitioners. In J. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 327–356). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DPC (Department of Premier and Cabinet) (2016). NSW government evaluation framework for advertising and communication. Sydney, Australia: NSW Government. Eisenmann, M., Geddes, D., Paine, K., Pestana, R., Walton, F., & Weiner, M. (2012). Proposed interim standards for metrics in traditional media analysis. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. http://www. instituteforpr.org/topics/proposed‐interim‐standards‐for‐metrics‐in‐traditional‐media‐analysis European Commission. (2014, August). Measuring the European Commission’s communication: Technical and methodological report. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/communication/about/evaluation/index_en.htm

452

Jim Macnamara

Evaluation. (2016). Merriam‐Webster dictionary. http://www.merriam‐webster.com/dictionary/evaluate. Fairchild, M. (1997). How to get real value from public relations. London, UK: ICO. Funnell, S., & Rogers, P. (2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theory of change and logic models. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. Gauntlett, D. (2005). Moving experiences: Media effects and beyond. Eastleigh, UK: John Libbey Publishing. GCS (Government Communication Service) (2015). Government communications plan 2015/16. London, UK: Cabinet Office. https://communication.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/government‐comms‐plan GCS (Government Communication Service) (2016). GCS evaluation framework. London, UK: Cabinet Office. https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/wp‐content/uploads/2015/11/GCS_GCS‐Evaluation‐framework_ A4‐_191115.pdf Gregory, A., & Watson, T. (2008). Defining the gap between research and practice in public relations programme evaluation: towards a new research agenda. Journal of Marketing Communications, 24(5), 337–350. Gregory, A., & White, T. (2008). Introducing the Chartered Institute of Public Relations initiative. In B. van Ruler, A. Verčič, & D. Verčič (Eds.), Public relations metrics: Research and evaluation (pp. 307– 317). New York, NY: Routledge. Grunig, J. (2008). Conceptualizing quantitative research in public relations. In B. van Ruler, A. Verčič, & D. Verčič (Eds.), Public relations metrics, research and evaluation (pp. 88–119). New York, NY: Routledge. Grunig, L., Grunig, J., & Dozier, D. (2002). Excellent organizations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hatry, H., Houten, T., Plantz, M., & Greenway, M. (1996). Measuring program outcomes: A practical approach. Alexandria, VA: United Way of America. Henningsen, A., Traverse Healy, K., Gregory, A. Johannsen, A., Allison, R., Bozeat, N., & Domaradzki, L. (2014, August). Measuring the European Commission’s communication: Technical and methodological report. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/communication/about/evaluation/index_en.htm IAB [Interactive Advertising Bureau] (2009) Audience reach measurement guidelines. New York, NY. Available at http://www.iab.net/guidelines/508676/guidelines/audiencemeasurement IPR (Institute for Public Relations). (2016). IPR Measurement Commission. http://www.instituteforpr. org/ipr‐measurement‐commission Jenkins, N. (2015). Crowds gather to remember Hong Kong’s umbrella revolution, one year on. Time, (September 28). http://time.com/4051543/hong‐kong‐occupy‐central‐anniversary Julian, D. (1997). The utilization of the logic model as a system level planning and evaluation device. Evaluation and Program Planning, 20(3), 251–257. Karpf, D., Kreiss, D., & Nielsen, R. (2014). A new era of field research in political communication. In L. Lievrouw (Ed.), Challenging communication research (pp. 43–57). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Kellogg Foundation (2004). Logic model development guide. Battle Creek, MI: Author. http://www. smartgivers.org/uploads/logicmodelguidepdf.pdf (Original work published 1998) Kellogg Foundation (2010). W. K. Kellogg foundation evaluation handbook. Battle Creek, MI: Author. https:// www.wkkf.org/resource‐directory/resource/2010/w‐k‐kellogg‐foundation‐evaluation‐handbook Knowlton, L., & Phillips, C. (2013). The logic models guidebook: Better strategies for great results (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Likely, F., & Watson, T. (2013). Measuring the edifice: public relations measurement and evaluation practice over the course of 40 years. In K. Sriramesh, A. Zerfass, & J. Kim (Eds.), Public relations and communication management: Current trends and emerging topics (pp. 143–162). New York, NY: Routledge. Lindenmann, W. (2001). Research doesn’t have to put you in the poorhouse. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/research‐savings Lindenmann, W. (2003). Guidelines for measuring the effectiveness of PR programs and activities. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. http://www.instituteforpr.org/wp‐content/uploads/2002_ MeasuringPrograms.pdf. (Revised version of original work publishd 1997) Macey, W., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(1), 3–30. Macnamara, J. (1992). Evaluation of public relations: the Achilles heel of the public relations profession. International Public Relations Review, 15(2), 19–25.

New Developments in Best Practice Evaluation

453

Macnamara, J. (2000). The ad value of PR. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 2(1), 90–103. Macnamara, J. (2005). Jim Macnamara’s public relations handbook (5th ed.). Sydney, Australia: Archipelago Press. Macnamara, J. (2012). Public relations theories, practices, critiques. Sydney, Australia: Pearson. Macnamara, J. (2015). Overcoming the measurement and evaluation deadlock: a new approach and model. Journal of Communication Management, 19(4), 371–387. Macnamara, J. (2016). A taxonomy of evaluation: Towards standards [web site]. London, UK: Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication. http://amecorg.com/amecframework/ taxonomy.html Macnamara, J. (2018). Evaluating public communication: Exploring new models, standards, and best practice. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Macnamara, J., & Likely, F. (2017). Revisiting the disciplinary home of evaluation: new perspectives to inform PR evaluation standards. Research Journal of the Institute for Public Relations, 3(2), 1–21. http://www.instituteforpr.org/research‐journal Macnamara, J., Lwin, M., Adi, A., & Zerfass, A. (2015). Asia Pacific communication monitor 2015/16: The state of strategic communication and public relations in a region of rapid growth. Survey results from 23 countries. Asia Pacific Association of Communication Directors (APACD) and Helios Media. www. communicationmonitor.asia Marklein, T., & Paine, K. (2012, June). The march to standards. Presentation to the 4th European Summit on Measurement, Dublin, Ireland. http://amecorg.com/downloads/dublin2012/The‐March‐to‐ Social‐Standards‐Tim‐Marklein‐and‐Katie‐Paine.pdf Marteau, T., Ogilvie, D., Roland, M., Suhrcke, M., & Kelly, M. (2011). Judging nudging: can nudging improve population health? British Medical Journal, 342(d228), 263–265. McGuire, W. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 233–346). New York, NY: Random House. McGuire, W. (2001). Input and output variables currently promising for constructing persuasive communications. In R. E. Rice & C. K. Atkin (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (3rd ed., pp. 22–48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McLaughlin, J., & Jordan, J. (1999). Logic models: a tool for telling your program’s performance story. Evaluation and Program Planning, 22(1), 65–72. Michaelson, D., & Stacks, D. (2011). Standardization in public relations measurement and evaluation. Public Relations Journal, 5(2), 1–22. Nesterak, E. (2014). Head of White house ‘nudge unit’ Maya Shankar speaks about newly formed social andbehaviouralsciencesteam.ThePsychReport.http://thepsychreport.com/current‐events/head‐of‐white‐ house‐nudge‐unit‐maya‐shankar‐speaks‐about‐newly‐formed‐us‐social‐and‐behavioral‐sciences‐team Owston, R. (2007). Models and methods for evaluation. In J. Spector, D. Merrill, J. van Merriënboer, & M. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 605–617). New York, NY: Routledge. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London, UK: Sage. Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (2001). Realistic evaluation bloodlines. American Journal of Evaluation, 22, 317–324. PRSA (Public Relations Society of America). (2014). Measurement resources. http://www.prsa.org/ intelligence/businesscase/measurementresources Ragan/NASDAQ OMX Corporate Solutions (2013). PR measurement. Chicago, IL: Author. http://bit. ly/PRMeasureWPPR Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: the contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 825–836. Rogers, P., Petrosino, A., Huebner, T., & Hacsi, T. (2000). Program theory evaluation: practice, promise, and problems. In P. Rogers, A. Petrosino, T. Hacsi, & T. Huebner (Eds.), Program theory evaluation: Challenges and opportunities (Vol. 87, pp. 5–13), New Directions for Evaluation). San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. Rossi, P., Lipsey, M., & Freeman, H. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Schudson, M. (2003). Click here for democracy: a history and critique of an information‐based model of citizenship. In H. Jenkins & D. Thorburn (Eds.), Democracy and new media (pp. 49–60). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

454

Jim Macnamara

Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Sixsmith, J., Fox, K., Doyle, P., & Barry, M. (2014). A literature review on health communication campaign evaluation with regard to the prevention and control of communicable diseases in Europe. Stockholm, Sweden: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Stacks, D., & Bowen, S. (Eds.) (2013). Dictionary of public relations measurement and research. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/dictionary‐of‐public‐relations‐ measurement‐and‐research Sunstein, C., & Thaler, R. (2003). Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. University of Chicago Law Review, 70(4), 1159–1202. Taylor, M., & Kent, M. (2014). Dialogic engagement: clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384–398. Taylor‐Power, E., & Henert, E. (2008). Developing a logic model: Teaching and training guide. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin. http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/pdf/lmguidecomplete. pdf Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Valente, T. (2001). Evaluating communication campaigns. In R. Rice & C. Atkin (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (3rd ed., pp. 105–124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Valente, T., & Kwan, P. (2013). Evaluating communication campaigns. In R. Rice & C. Atkin (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (4th ed., pp. 83–97). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Watson, T., & Noble, P. (2007). Evaluating public relations: A best practice guide to public relations planning, research and evaluation (2nd ed.). London, UK: Kogan Page. Watson, T., & Noble, P. (2014). Evaluating public relations: A best practice guide to public relations planning, research and evaluation (3rd ed.). London, UK: Kogan Page. Weiner, M., & Bartholomew, D. (2006). Dispelling the myth of PR multipliers and other inflationary audience measures. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. http://www.instituteforpr.org/ wp‐content/uploads/Dispelling_Myth_of_PR_Multiplier.pdf Weiss, C. (1972). Evaluation research: Methods of assessing program effectiveness. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wholey, J. (1987). Evaluability assessment: developing program theory. In L. Bickman (Ed.), Using program theory in evaluation (Vol. 33, pp. 77–92), New Directions for Evaluation). San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. Wholey, J., Hatry, H., & Newcomer, K. (Eds.) (2010). Handbook of practical program evaluation (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. Wright, D., & Hinson, M. (2012). Examining how social and emerging media have been used in public relations between 2006 and 2012: a longitudinal analysis. Public Relations Journal, 6(4), 1–40. Wright, D., Gaunt, R., Leggetter, B., Daniels, M., & Zerfass, A. (2009). Global survey of communications measurement 2009 – Final report. London, UK: Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication. http://amecorg.com/wp‐content/uploads/2011/08/Global‐Sur vey‐Communications_ Measurement‐20091.pdf Zerfass, A., Verčič, D., Verhoeven, P., Moreno, A., & Tench, R. (2015). European communication monitor 2015. Brussels, Belgium: European Association for Communication Directors (EACD) and European Public Relations Education and Research Association (EUPRERA) in association with Helios Media, Berlin. http://www.zerfass.de/ECM‐WEBSITE/media/ECM2015‐Results‐ChartVersion.pdf

Part VI

Conclusion

29

Conclusion: A Vision of the Future of Public Sector Communication María‐José Canel and Vilma Luoma‐aho

Introduction Research on public sector communication takes an interest in interactions between public sector entities and citizens, as communication is at the core of democracy. Public sector organizations balance the communication aims of engaging citizens with organizational and institutional ­contingencies and goals. Public sector organizations are being challenged to incorporate a “communicative intelligence” in their management within a new public sphere in which people need and take information from multiple sources. Across the world, there is frustration with public sector performance and a lack of understanding of the need for strategic communication, and the logic behind citizen involvement and engagement is changing. Previous research has highlighted the impact of public sector organizations on democracy and welfare within societies, yet communication is often taken for granted in this context. The aim of this handbook is to provide a comprehensive look at public sector organizations’ strategic communication by covering its societal role, environment, aims, practices, and development. Through an international and interdisciplinary approach, this handbook has described and ­analyzed the contexts, policies, aims, issues, questions, and practices that shape public sector communication today. At first, we were tempted to conceptualize this handbook in a traditional manner, using a structure that covered theoretical overviews, research paradigms, contexts, methodological underpinnings, practices, training requirements, comparative perspectives, and the future. But in line with the latest understandings of public sector communication, this handbook was ultimately constructed in such a way that citizen welfare is taken as the ultimate goal of public sector communication, and thus we decided to identify topics centered on the five following relevant aspects: society, organizations, practices, citizens, and measurements. As we stated in the Introduction to this handbook, each chapter’s concern is to explore how its specific conceptual topic both is shaped by and shapes public sector communication. For each topic, contributors were asked to look at its relevant theories, concepts, contexts, methods, practices, critiques, and challenges. They were also asked to place citizen welfare and communication practices at the  heart of their chapters, providing readers with a clear focus on the aims of public sector communication.

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

458

María‐José Canel and Vilma Luoma‐aho

In this concluding chapter, we present reflections on the whole book and some notes on the future of communication for public sector organizations.

The Pervasiveness of Communication in the Public Sector A reading of all the preceding chapters should reveal a consideration common to all the topics dealt within this volume: communication is at the core of the public sector. We defined public sector communication as “goal‐oriented communication inside organizations and between organizations and their stakeholders that enables public sector functions, within their specific cultural/political settings, for the purpose of building and maintaining the public good and trust between citizen and authorities” (see the Introduction of this handbook and Canel & Luoma‐ aho 2018, p. 33), and we argue in this final chapter that the different elements of this definition (goals, actors, structures, processes, functions, settings, and purposes) both shape and are shaped by communication. As the chapters in this volume show, various arguments account for this pervasiveness of ­communication in the public sector. Part 1 takes a societal perspective, and it argues that communication is important to society, as is public opinion, since those in power need to have some sense about people’s opinions in order to respond accordingly in their decision‐ making. In Part 2, the organizational perspective prioritizes communication in the sense that public sector organizations are required to involve stakeholders, and also because communication is essential for the establishment, configuration, design, and maintenance of organizations’ operations. Part 3 looks at different practices (such as management of performance, change, reputation, crises, and campaigns) in relation to which adequate communication management may prove to be the difference between success and failure. The focus of Part 4, the interaction between public sector organizations and citizens, cannot be addressed without considering communication. And finally, Part 5 claims that finding the right frameworks and measures for communication evaluation is crucial in helping the public sector to undertake its different challenges. Overall, there is an underlying theme in all chapters that has to do with a changing context, and it is argued in this handbook that communication is not only a consequence of change but also a potential driver of it.

Disciplines, Topics, and Research Methods Which disciplines have addressed the different topics that this handbook covers? The predominant ones are mass communication, social psychology, public relations, and administration ­studies, and the contributions contained in the volume combine several established streams of literature, including the following: public relations, organizational communication, political communication, marketing, government communication, public affairs, strategic communication, and administrative communication. Topics for the chapters were selected based on the criterion of up‐to‐datedness, and the handbook has addressed these topics that we set out in the overall classification provided in the Introduction (see Figure 3.1 in Chapter  1). Table  29.1 shows a full list of topics covered in the different parts of the book. While we are aware that this is not an exhaustive list of the topics that come into play when looking at public sector communication, we would argue that there is no fixed list of topics that must be covered. Since communication pervades the public sector in a changing context, new realities are emerging alongside change, and they need new names. In this respect, this

Conclusion: A Vision of the Future of Public Sector Communication

459

Table 29.1  Topics Dealt Within This Handbook. PSC and society

PSC and organizations

Democracy Legitimacy Trust Transparency Politics Policy

Intangible assets Public value Bureaucracy Social exchange relationships Coproduction Change communication Mediatization

PSC and practices

PSC and citizens

PSC and measures

Performance management Change management Reputation Risk and crisis communi­cation Strategic communication campaigns

Citizen engagement Dialogue Citizen Expectations Social media Reliability Diversity communication

Fundamentals Media evaluation Awareness, attitudes, and responses Communication controlling Evaluation frameworks

­ andbook has dealt with evolving topics such as change management, public sector reputah tion, global c­ itizenship, participatory communication, citizen and community engagement, diverse communication, communication controlling, and coproduction, to name just a few. This range of topics indicates the need for flexible approaches that leave behind the d ­ ominance of linear communication in order to take an open and inclusive approach to the evolution of the public sector. Regarding the methodologies deployed in public sector communication research, the methods that the chapters describe include surveys (both quantitative and qualitative), polls, focus groups, interviews, experiments, case studies, ethnographies (observations, role playing), tracking mechanisms, big data analytics, and Web metrics. Several chapters claim that, in a context in which numbers and mathematics dominate, the world of human relationships (to which public sector communication belongs) should combine quantitative methods with qualitative ones to advance our understanding of people’s awareness, attitudes, emotions, beliefs, and behaviors about the public sector.

Recurring Issues Based on the definition of public sector communication that we provided (“goal‐oriented communication inside organizations and between organizations and their stakeholders that enables public sector functions, within their specific cultural/political settings, for the purpose of building and maintaining the public good and trust between citizen and stakeholders”), we will now highlight three issues that recurrently emerge throughout the different chapters. First, as relationship building, public sector communication is being challenged to establish fruitful interaction between organizations and stakeholders. All the chapters look at the interactions that come into play between the different actors as public sector organizations perform their duties. Those interactions take a wide variety of forms, from the most microlevel ones (e.g., those between employees and supervisors) to more general ones (e.g., interactions between ­citizens and the state). A core argument that cuts across this handbook is that more direct ways for citizens to be meaningfully involved in the public sector’s decisions should be explored. When citizens are directly involved in every stage of the policy process, interactions become crucial both for the development of the public sector and for how it is perceived. This leads to a second issue, that of the complex interconnection between reality (how the public sector performs) and perception (how people judge that performance). This handbook

460

María‐José Canel and Vilma Luoma‐aho

reports on research that shows that this complexity is often caused by gaps between doing and telling. Its chapters provide clues from different perspectives to explore the causes of gaps that exist between real performance, messages, and perceived performance. For example, in Part 1, some chapters argue that such gaps are due to organizations’ focus on reputation over legitimacy, to miscommunication between public servants and the public whom they serve, to ­corruption, and to the problematic intersection of the policy process and politics. Part 2’s chapters point out the inability of public sector communicators to create and maintain relevant and accurate accounts of organizations’ activities and results; public managers’ myopia when it comes to identifying, creating, and maintaining the intangible public value that public organizations can provide to society; and failed interactions between employees and supervisors. In Part 3, a disproportionate reliance on negative information over positive information and the importance of citizens’ own prior beliefs when they evaluate public sector performance are identified to account for the gaps described. Finally, the contributors to Part 4 take the view that a lack of expectations management, misunderstandings in terms of the meaning of diverse communication, and faulty dialogical processes might act as causes for gaps between public performance, ­messages, and people’s perceptions. Several authors in this handbook assume that trust guarantees the successful functioning of the public sector, and thus most of the chapters link the issue on which they focus with trust. Topics such as legitimacy, reputation, crisis, signaling, transparency, post‐truth, reliability, and corruption are linked with trust, in many cases on a cause‐and‐effect basis.

Challenges, Further Research, and Still‐Unanswered Questions The Ethical Challenge Throughout this handbook, unanswered questions relating to the ethics of the study and p ­ ractice of public sector communication have been identified. The potential manipulative use of governmental data, unethical expectations management, devious spinning in governmental messages, the deployment of technologies for digital surveillance, the need to elaborate transparency ­policies that balance privacy rights with citizens’ right to know, or the use of social media to manipulate public opinion to spread hate speech are just some of the issues that indicate a need for more clear ethical guidance.

Developing New Concepts, Theories, Models, and Frameworks In the world of human relations to which public sector communication belongs, methodological and theoretical integrations are needed to better understand how interactions between public sector organizations and society can be enriched. Different chapters have dealt with very diverse areas, such as customer satisfaction, interpersonal communication, or expectancy violation ­theory. There is a need for future research that addresses the task of communication‐based value creation with theories and models that occupy a common ground but also embrace the diversity of different approaches and fields.

The Everlasting Challenge of Interdisciplinarity and Multidisciplinarity Communication pervades the public sector, and hence the issues at stake can only be addressed by cutting across disciplinary boundaries. This volume has suggested many areas for additional exploration within the context of public sector communication, and it is our hope that future research will continue to integrate perspectives from different fields to better understand the dynamics of the interaction between public sector organizations and stakeholders. The challenge for researchers is to build comprehensive theoretical models that also offer explanations of the phenomena that arise alongside public sector communication.

Conclusion: A Vision of the Future of Public Sector Communication

461

Understanding Better the Role of Social Media in Communicating about the Public Sector’s Aims and Activities Of course, one key question is how public sector communication shapes and is shaped by social media. Hard to believe as it is, the literature on this matter is still scarce. The development of social media is requiring public sector organizations to undertake communication on a round‐the‐clock basis, change the ways in which they use language, modify their organizational layouts, redefine their functions and tasks, increase their efforts to coordinate messages, and craft broader strategies. The digital divide, the polarization of public opinion, the ambivalent potential of algorithms, and the aspects of social interaction that are still not fully understood are just some of the issues that have been pointed out throughout this handbook. The development of social media poses both conceptual and practical challenges, and it prompts questions for future research: How accurately are different publics represented in social media debates? What are the characteristics of digital publics, and how can research focused on them be conducted? How can public sector organizations undertake processes that facilitate open discussions online and bring together all sides’ feedback? To what extent does social media ultimately foster democracy?

Exploring the Role of Communication as a Cause and Consequence of Change Scholars should develop research that combines the micro‐, meso‐, and macrolevels to explore contexts, processes, and outcomes and thus better understand the role of communication within the complex, multilayered phenomena of change in the public sector.

Developing Rich and Beneficial Interactive Processes This handbook makes it clear that in an era of technologically enabled citizens it is no longer an option to disregard society’s feedback in policy‐making. However, far too often controversy arises from what citizens see as a rhetoric of transparency, anticorruption, dialogic communication, or technological innovation. Citizens may think that public sector organizations become involved in projects focused on these areas for purely cosmetic reasons, and, frustrating as this might be, it is not uncommon for government projects of this kind to create citizens who are even more detached. To what extent do governmental programs focused on citizen engagement and coproduction actually create authentic citizen involvement? What are true motivations of public sector managers when they reach out to citizens? To what extent are public authorities really open to sharing their power with society? Undertaking truly participatory programs requires new education and training in skills that allow public administrators to become better equipped to listen to and process opinions and values from different groups.

Polishing Coproduction Experiences Several chapters introduced the idea of coproduction as a way of involving society in policy‐making. However, some research that indicates mixed findings in terms of coproduction’s efficiency and efficacy has also been referred to. Further research is needed to explore how strategic communication can help in motivating different actors, negotiating the risks entailed, profiling and assigning the different roles, and, ultimately, better meeting the goals and targets of these initiatives.

Exploring and Practicing the Notion of Dialogue Dialogue is a recurrent notion in this volume, yet further research is required on its conceptualization, processes, and measurement. A related topic is that of how public sector communication can address diversity, inclusion, and intersectionality to understand the multiple perspectives of the public sector’s stakeholders.

462

María‐José Canel and Vilma Luoma‐aho

More Comparative Research Comparative research is always a must in a list of “future research,” and this handbook indicates different possibilities in this regard. There is a lack of studies that compare public sector communication across times and places. Comparative studies across cultures and countries would provide insight into how political, economic, social, technological, and legal differences inform public sector communication practices. This challenge entails the requirement of finding comparable metrics, tools, models, and data, and in this respect, the potential of big data should be explored further. Moreover, comparisons between private and public sector operations, ­contexts, and processes should take into account a communication dimension.

Measuring, Measuring, Measuring One central challenge in public sector communication is its evaluation, an area thoroughly discussed in Part 5. Likewise, Section 3 takes this issue into account in the sense that the practices that the sections covered (such as reputation, legitimacy, or change management) need to be evaluated if processes aimed at improving them are to be formulated. And overall, the chapters of this handbook highlight the need for good measures for many other phenomena: trust, legitimacy, intangible assets, social‐exchange relationships, performance management, risk and crisis communication, expectations management, dialogue practices, transparency, change, and diversity communication. To a certain extent, these topics exist as realities (an organization that is trustful, legitimate, transparent, changed, and so forth) if they are evidenced by measures. The list of questions for research here is potentially never ending: How can public sector organizations be better oriented toward ongoing evaluation processes? How can objectives be measured? What are adequate methods (feasible and meaningful) to evaluate the value that is provided to different publics? How can consensus be built to develop objective indicators that are acceptable by all actors in the field? How should communication staff be educated and trained to link communication strategies with organizational objectives and to measure outcomes?

Suggestions for a Future Vision As artificial intelligence advances, bots, and algorithms take over public services, and a databased economy develops, expectations about how well public sector organizations listen to and understand citizen needs increase (Macnamara 2016). As citizens and stakeholders become more diverse yet also more individualistic in their needs, much of the impact of public sector communication depends on understanding the changes taking place. In fact, continuous monitoring of public sentiment and needs as well as expectation management will become central tools for public sector organizations that aim to maintain intangible assets such as public trust and citizen satisfaction (Olkkonen & Luoma‐aho, 2016). Organization‐centered communication should give way to tailored communication and ad hoc “nudging” (Thaler 2008) aimed at steering individuals toward the choices that are ideal for them and beneficial for the public good. One size will not fit all in future public sector communication. Instead, citizens will be able to select their ideal modes, channels, influencers, topics, issues, and even styles of public sector communication. As governments move from being providers of public services to being brokers of them, are similar changes occurring in communication? Who will establish the future narratives of public sector communication or tell the most influential stories? Many of the challenges that public sector organizations face are actually global, though many divides continue to exist between established and economically developed democracies and less developed ones. The current direction of development holds tremendous potential for democracy, but it may simultaneously become a tool for dictators. Given our view that public sector

Conclusion: A Vision of the Future of Public Sector Communication

463

communication is, as we have previously stated, “goal‐oriented communication inside organizations and between organizations and their stakeholders that enables public sector functions, within their specific cultural/political settings, for the purpose of building and maintaining the public good and trust between citizens and authorities,” the future may include changes in all of the elements contained in the definition, and so we will now go over these elements in turn.

Goals The changes in the goals that public sector organizations orientate themselves toward will change gradually. Overall, a change from standardized, large‐scale service provision to intelligent, ­individual‐needs‐based services is taking place. Many public sector organizations currently rely solely on their own expertise and that of policy makers when they set goals aimed at contributing to the public good, but as this expertise becomes supplemented by international data pools and artificial intelligence, the public sector will function on a more collective basis and involve not only citizen input but also cross‐sector collaboration. So far, many public sector services have been publicly funded, but the future direction may be toward outcome‐based funding. Accordingly, a much more strategic approach will be needed for public sector organizations and their communication. Citizen engagement and empowerment are merely the first steps of this change in the creation of new goals, as future public sector goals will be formulated in real time and based on citizen needs and desires. This means that public sector communication will increasingly become a testing bed for which strategies work and which do not, and goals will become individualistic. Public sector communicators may therefore feel as though the goalposts that they are aiming for are continually moving.

Organizations Many public sector organizations are already required to engage citizens and report on such engagement activity as part of their duties. It is possible that in the future the traditional forms of organizing in the public sector may become more akin to project‐based, ad hoc consortiums of different organizations and stakeholders that work together to solve emerging issues and challenges. This will enable a utilization of resources that are currently unavailable outside the public sector, and it will ensure that the most urgent needs are met. For public sector communication, this change will mean an increase in the creation, facilitation, and curating of dialogue between central stakeholders, as collaboration can only occur via communication. At the same time, project‐based work carried out by teams set up on an ad hoc basis can indicate a decline in the availability of resources and lead to conflicts between communication ­professionals from the various groups and organizations involved over whose voice and narrative are put on the public agenda. Ideally, such cross‐sectoral collaboration will open up new arenas for communication, with issues engaging individuals from different parts of society rather than political decision makers and public sector organizations’ employees alone. However, such combinations may result in a chaotic polyphony, and at worst communication challenges may inhibit fruitful collaborative work. It will be the future task of public sector communicators to lead the narratives of public services and public service provision in a way that enables collaboration and results in the public good.

Stakeholders Changes in stakeholders are of central importance. Public sector organizations can no longer function as the islands of political leadership that they have become in most areas of the world. Instead, they must increasingly plan their communication together and in close collaboration with citizens, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the media, influencers, and businesses

464

María‐José Canel and Vilma Luoma‐aho

related to their areas of activity. It will be increasingly difficult for public sector communicators to see things from the perspectives of the citizens and stakeholders of the future if they work alone. As citizens come to expect real‐time delivery of brief factual answers to their various ­queries via new media platforms, public sector communication will have to move from being organization optimized to being citizen optimized. For some organizations, citizens’ needs are clear and visible, but for most organizations, real change will require interdependent changes on the levels of attitudes, organizational cultures, policies, procedures, practices, skills, mentalities, and possibly even legislation. At the same time, citizens will increasingly take up novel roles in public sector operations and communication; they will go from being passive targets to being enabled and empowered individuals and groups as a result of artificial intelligence and massive volumes of experiential data, which will help them to solve the challenges that they and other citizens face and to influence policies.

Settings The change in settings is perhaps the most profound one. Many of the future challenges that public sector organizations will face cannot be anticipated. Moreover, they will most likely be intertwined. As challenges become more complex, public sector organizations will need to become increasingly antifragile in their communication (Canel & Luoma‐aho 2018). Antifragile communication is about strengthening the organization and its internal communication by building a unique, strong organizational culture that can ease the organization to adjust quicker to dynamic changes from the environment.

Crossing Over to the Dark Side? There are both promising and threatening facets to the future of public sector communication. This can already be seen in certain less‐democratic societies where citizens are increasingly digitally controlled and limited in their behaviors and beliefs. In the worst‐case scenario, new technology will be utilized to manipulate citizens and prioritize organizational agendas above the public good. In fact, there is a threat that future public sector communication will become not as we defined in the introduction but instead a “citizen‐spying, real‐time influence enabling government agendas within the dominant culture only ‐settings, with the purpose of building a predictive system that erases problematic citizens.” Such traits are already visible, for example, in China’s new citizen‐categorization system, which is a development that represents a departure from propaganda initiatives that weaponize information and influence citizens online—for instance, the 50 Cent Party in China or Russia’s troll factories. Will public sector communication enable the destruction of public value by taking the form of untrue online articles or other types of fake news that target a desired outcome, or even that of government‐controlled surveillance drones disguised as birds that scan citizens and their discussions? Almost all public sector change brings with it several ethical challenges related to communication. As public sector organizations collaborate with nonpublic stakeholders and become more influenced by other players from beyond the public sector, the emerging question is: Who defines the public agenda and decides that what is communicated represents a contribution to public value? Other major challenges relate to the responsibilities and rights of individuals when it comes to tailoring the communication that they receive from public sector organizations. For example, is it acceptable for individuals to only want public sector communication that is related to fire safety in their immediate environment and not, for example, communication that is related to their own behavior when driving or to their dietary choices, even though the latter two areas may present much greater risks for both the individual and society?

Conclusion: A Vision of the Future of Public Sector Communication

465

It may be that the future will have very different things in store for public sector organizations depending on the part of the world in which they are based. Public sector communicators, however, will be in key positions to make the impacts of change better or worse. Both the ethical responsibility and the honor that are part and parcel of occupying a position of high influence should guide the daily practices and decisions that will ultimately shape the overall strategic direction of public sector communication in the future.

References Canel, M., & Luoma‐aho, V. (2018). Public sector communication. Closing gaps between public sector organizations and citizens. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Macnamara, J. (2016). Organizational listening: The missing essential in public communication. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Olkkonen, L., & Luoma‐aho, V. (2016). Expectation Management. In The SAGE encyclopedia of corporate reputation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Thaler, R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Index

Page numbers in bold refer to Tables Page numbers in italics refer to Figures accountability, 2–3, 4, 4–5, 16, 97–98 best practice evaluation, 435, 450 bureaucracy, 119 change management, 198, 199, 207 citizen engagement, 280 democracy, 33 dialogue, 289, 298–299 HROs, 333–334, 335 intangible assets, 104, 107 measurement and evaluation, 361, 399, 413 NGOs, 269 organizational goals, 417 organizational legitimacy, 45, 50–51, 54 performance management, 185 politics and policy, 88, 89, 92 reputation, 215, 221 social exchange relationships, 130, 135 social media, 317–319, 320, 324 transparency, 72, 73 action research, 410, 411 activities, 438, 441–442, 443, 444, 444, 445, 446, 447–448 additional metatheoretical assumptions, 162 administrative communication, 6, 7, 10–11, 15, 362, 458 politics and policy, 84–86 advanced democracies, 28, 35–36, 42 advertising value equivalents (AVEs), 375, 397–398, 437 best practice evaluation, 437, 439 affective outcomes, 396

agenda‐setting, 11, 29, 86, 264 strategic communication campaigns, 251, 253 AmericaSpeaks, 41 analytical processing, 46, 47–48 apolitical communication, 88, 88 artifacts, 172 artificial intelligence, 462, 463, 464 attitudes, 16, 19, 27, 459 best practice evaluation, 435, 436, 446, 449 change communication, 155–157, 159 citizen engagement, 280, 283, 284 corruption, 75 dialogue, 293–297 interaction of officials and citizens, 61, 64 measurement and evaluation, 363, 405–407, 407, 408, 410–411 measurement fundamentals, 368, 371, 373, 378 media measurement, 394, 396 organizational goals, 430 performance management, 185–186, 190–191 strategic communication campaigns, 248–249, 249, 250–252, 253–254 austerity, 117, 121, 122 coproduction, 140, 143, 144 authority, 2, 31–33 autonomy, 142, 175, 255 reputation, 216, 220, 223 social exchange relationships, 127, 132

The Handbook of Public Sector Communication, First Edition. Edited by Vilma Luoma‐aho and María‐José Canel. © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2020 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

468

Index

awareness, 17, 19, 89, 446, 459 dialogue, 293, 299 diversity and inclusion, 346–347, 352, 356–357 HROs. 332, 338, 339 intangible assets, 102 measurement and evaluation, 363, 405–406, 407, 412, 412 measurement fundamentals, 371–372, 373, 373–374, 377–378 NGOs, 262 organizational goals, 424, 425 reputation, 217, 224 strategic communication campaigns, 249, 249–250 balanced scorecards (BSCs), 425 Barcelona Principles, 370, 374, 379, 405 best practice evaluation, 439, 439, 440 behavioral insights, 449–450 behavioral outcomes, 396 behavioral public administration, 127, 128, 133, 186 behavior change, 284, 352, 436 measurement and evaluation, 371–372, 373, 374, 378, 408, 408, 411 strategic communication campaigns, 249, 249–250, 252, 254 benchmarking, 51, 298, 307, 369, 378, 421 best practice evaluation, 437, 447 media measurement, 389–390, 391, 395, 395 performance management, 190, 193 social exchange relationships, 129, 131 Taylorism, 115 benefit‐cost ratio (BCR), 375 benefit diffusion, 46, 47, 48 best practice, 97–9 evaluation, 363, 435–450 organizational goals, 418, 428–429, 430–431 risk and crisis, 233, 236, 236 blame, 87, 149, 207, 215 performance management, 188–189, 192 risk and crisis, 230, 239 branding, 5, 11–12, 14, 85, 247 intangible assets, 103, 111 organizational legitimacy, 51–52 reputation, 218 social media, 320, 320 bribery, 71, 72–74 bullying and harassment 131, 134, 135 bureaucracy, 2, 14, 17, 19, 97, 98, 459 citizen engagement, 278–279 citizen expectations, 303 dialogue, 289 diversity and inclusion, 346, 351 intangible assets, 104 interaction of officials and citizens, 28–29, 59–61, 63–68

NGOs, 263–264, 266 politics and policy, 81–82, 85, 87–88, 90 reputation, 182–183, 219–224 social media, 319, 322, 324 street‐level, 59–61, 65–66, 68, 127 transparency, 73–76, 120 Weber, 115, 118–123 CALD COM project, 356–357 case studies for evaluation, 408, 410, 413–414 change communication, 153–164, 459 challenges, 161 definition, 154–155 exploring, 157–160 research, 155–157, 162–164 change management, 183, 197–210, 459, 459, 462 basic understandings and approaches, 201–206 communication as a process, 205–205 communication as a tool, 203–204, 205–206 emergent approach, 201, 204–206 future research, 209–210 idiosyncratic characteristics, 199–201 inherent challenges, 199, 206–208 orders of change, 201, 202, 202 rethinking services and structures, 198–199 transparency, 198–200, 207–210 chief executive communication, 11 citizen engagement 6, 10, 12, 14–15, 17, 18, 277–284 best practice evaluation, 438, 440, 446 civic, 279, 280 community, 279, 355, 438, 442, 459 coproduction, 281–283 critique, 283–284 customer, 279, 280–281 definition, 278–281 dialogue, 289, 292–293, 297–299, 353 diversity and inclusion, 347, 350, 353, 355 future vision, 457, 459, 459, 463 HROs, 329, 330 intangible assets, 108–112 media measurement, 399, 399 objectives, 371 public sector, 35, 37, 38, 38–41 public value, 105, 108, 109 social media, 315, 318, 320, 320–322, 324 citizen expectations, 1, 17, 17–19, 274, 303–312, 459, 462 best practice evaluation, 435, 449 challenges, 311–312 change communication, 157 coproduction, 140, 147–148 definition, 304–305, 306, 306 engagement, 277–278, 282–284 HROs, 331, 332, 340 interaction with officials, 61, 64–65, 309

Index management 148, 310–311 organizational legitimacy, 49–50 practical implications, 310–311 research, 304, 306–309, 311–312 risk and crisis, 234 taken into account, 310 theoretical relevance, 309–310 transparency, 74, 157, 160, 198, 305, 311 types, 304–305 citizen satisfaction, 12, 16, 17, 18, 303–312 best practice evaluation, 446 definition, 305–306, 306 intangible assets, 105, 110–111 measurement and evaluation, 378 media measurement, 386, 387 social media, 320, 321 class, 65, 67 clickthrough rate (CTR), 394, 395, 395 cocreation, 6, 206, 354–355 citizen engagement, 280, 282 coproduction, 122, 143, 143, 144–146, 148, 282 social media, 321, 323 cognitive legitimacy, 47, 51–55 cognitive outcomes, 396 commitment, 13, 41, 77, 247, 275, 281, 386 change communication, 159 change management, 204, 206 coproduction, 141, 143 dialogue, 289–290, 293, 296, 298, 352 employees, 131, 134–135, 418 global citizens, 347, 352, 355 HROs, 330, 339 interaction of officials and citizens, 60, 66 measurement and evaluation, 361, 378, 449 social media, 322 communication controlling, 419–420, 420, 459, 459 case studies, 428–429 multilevel framework, 422–423, 423, 424 operational, 421 organizational goals, 418–420, 420, 421–424, 426, 428–431 strategic, 420–421 communication management, 419, 436–437, 458 case studies, 428–429 organizational goals, 418–420, 420, 421–422, 423, 428–431 communication planning cycle, 369, 370 communication practices, 181–184 communication scorecards, 425–426, 430 communicative action, 37, 81, 86, 87 comparative research, 462 complexity, 12, 16, 183, 311, 375, 384, 460 change communication, 154–155, 162 change management, 183, 197–210 dialogue, 293, 297 HROs, 329, 330, 334–338

469

measurement and evaluation, 375, 384 risk and crisis, 231, 233, 239–240 compliance mechanism, 46, 47, 48 conceptual context, 182–184 Conclave on Social Media Measurement Standards, 440 confrontational communication strategies, 262, 267–268 containment, 399, 399 unexpected events, 331, 331, 334–335, 337, 339 content of communication, 128 context, 82, 181–184, 336, 426 change management, 198–200, 205 citizen expectations, 308, 309 measurement and evaluation, 370, 378 reputation, 183, 216–218, 222–224 coproduction, 98–99, 139–149, 459, 459, 461 case analysis, 139, 144–145 challenges, 147–148 citizen engagement, 112, 277–278, 281–283, 284 definition, 139–141 dialogue, 297 different understandings, 139, 143, 143–144 future research, 148–149 public sector reform, 139, 141–142 service delivery chain, 140–141, 146–147 social media, 315, 321, 323, 325 target groups, 140–141, 145–146 corporate communication, 9, 10–11, 12, 13–14 reputation, 216, 218–219, 222, 224 corporate social responsibility, 14, 84 corruption, 118, 133–134, 167, 305, 460 definition, 72 research, 76–77 transparency, 28, 71–77 cost‐effectiveness analysis (CEA), 375 cost per action (CPA), 389–390, 391, 392 cost per click (CPC), 389–391, 391 cost per engagement (CPE), 389–390 cost per impression (CPI), 389 cost per lead (CPL), 389–390, 390 cost per referral (CPR), 389–390 cost per thousand impressions (CPMs), 389, 390 coworkers, 153–157, 159–160, 161–163 put in the limelight, 162–163 creative and visual methods of evaluation, 411 crisis, 230–231, 341, 459, 460 approach to research, 232, 233 best practice, 233, 236, 236 change communication, 159 communication, 12, 15, 120, 183, 229–242 definition, 231, 232, 232 five core tasks, 238, 238 general perspective, 232–234, 234 global financial, 3, 133, 311, 361, 435

470

Index

crisis (cont’d) HROs, 332, 334, 338–341 informational perspective, 232–233, 234, 234–235, 235, 236–237, 239, 242 institutional perspective, 234, 234, 240–241, 241, 242 mediatization, 172 political perspective, 233–234, 234, 237–240, 240, 242 reputation, 215, 218, 220, 229, 233, 241, 241–242 social media, 320, 320 strategic communication campaigns, 252, 254 Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication Model (CERC), 234–235, 235, 236 crisis exploitation strategy, 239–240, 240 crowdsourcing, 35, 297, 315, 323 culture, 1–3, 5, 10–11, 16, 18–19, 231, 449 change management, 198, 202, 207 citizen engagement, 37, 283, 284 citizen expectations, 304, 307, 310 communication and society, 28 coproduction, 140, 141, 148–149 democracy, 32, 34, 37, 41 dialogue, 289, 291 diversity and inclusion, 346–352, 354–357 HROs, 329–331, 331, 333–338, 339, 339–341 intangible assets, 102, 108–111 interaction of officials and citizens, 64, 67 justness, 331, 333, 339, 340 learning, 333–334, 340 mediatization, 168–170 organizational goals, 419, 427, 428 organizational legitimacy, 48, 49 performance management, 189 pervasiveness, 458 policy‐making process, 34 reputation, 223 social exchange relationships, 133 social media, 317, 317, 322, 324–325 strategic communication campaigns, 247, 254 support, 49 transparency, 71–73, 76–77 Weber and Taylor, 119, 121, 122 see also multiculturalism cynicism, 5, 85, 156, 233 change management, 198, 208 dark networks, 134 decision‐making, 2, 10, 98, 458 bribery and corruption, 72–74, 76 change communication, 159 change management, 99, 200, 207–208, 208, 209 citizen expectations, 305 coproduction, 141–142 democracy, 35, 39, 40–41

dialogue, 289, 291, 297, 299, 354 diversity and inclusion, 348, 351–352, 354–355 HROs, 331, 332–333, 335, 341 intangible assets, 107, 110 interaction of officials and citizens, 59–61, 63–67 media measurement, 384 NGOs, 261, 263, 265 organizational goals, 418 performance management, 185, 189–190 politics and policy, 91 reputation, 220 risk and crisis, 238, 238 social exchange relationships, 127, 128, 132 social media, 318, 324 deference to expertise, 338–339, 339 HROs, 330, 332–334, 338–339, 339 definitions, 6, 7–9, 32–33 Deliberative Democracy Consortium (DDC), 40 democracy, 1–3, 5, 12, 18, 28–29, 31–34, 41–42, 457, 459 change communication, 157, 159–160, 162 change management, 198–200 citizen engagement, 283 citizen expectations, 306, 309 coproduction, 142–143, 143, 144 dialogue, 292–294, 297 diversity and inclusion, 351 measurement and evaluation, 361, 371, 376 objectives, 371 organizational legitimacy, 51–52, 54 performance management, 188 policy‐making process, 34–36 politics and policy, 81–82, 86–88, 92 public sector communication definition, 32–33 public sector engagement, 37–41 public value, 106–107 reputation, 216, 218 social media, 315, 320, 324 strategic communication campaigns, 246–247 transparency, 71, 73 dialogue, 16–17, 17, 29, 289–299, 459, 461 challenges, 298–299 change communication, 160, 163 change management, 203, 205–206 citizen engagement, 274–275, 277–280, 283–284 citizen expectations, 310 coproduction, 98, 104, 139–140, 143, 144, 146–148 definition, 290–294 democracy, 34, 36, 39–40 diversity and inclusion, 352–354, 355 intangible assets, 104–105, 107–109, 111–112 models and theories, 294–295 NGOs, 266

Index performance management, 191 politics and policy, 87, 90, 91 risk and crisis, 233, 237, 292 social exchange relationships, 134 social media, 289, 297, 322, 324, 353–354 transparency, 75, 76, 289, 297–299 understanding, 294–297 diffusion of innovations, 251, 253 dimensional approach, 181 directional goals, 190 disciplinary siloes, 438 discursive engagement, 35–36 discursive legitimation, 49 discursive participation, 31, 32, 37 disintermediation, 384 distributive justice, 27 diversity 2, 17, 348–351, 459 balancing ideals and realities, 354–355 case study, 356–357 definition, 345, 348 dialogue, 352–354 global citizens, 345–357 intangible assets, 104 interaction of officials and citizens, 63, 64 mediatization, 177 NGOs, 262 reputation, 219, 222, 348 DPRG/ICV framework, 422423, 423 dysfunctionality, 134–135 effectiveness, 1, 5, 27–29, 273–275, 376–377 assumptions, 436 best practice evaluation, 436–437 bureaucracy, 119–120, 122 change management, 183, 200, 203, 210 citizen engagement, 280–283 citizen expectations, 307, 311 coproduction, 140, 147 corruption, 76 democracy, 36, 38, 41–42 dialogue, 292–293, 295–296, 298 diversity and inclusion, 355, 356 HROs, 275, 329–334, 337, 339, 340 intangible assets, 103, 107, 109 measurement and evaluation, 361, 367, 369, 371, 373, 373, 375–378 mediatization, 168 NGOs, 206 organizational goals, 417, 419–421, 424 organizational legitimacy, 49, 52, 90 performance management, 186–187 problem anticipation, 332–333 public relations, 13 reputation, 219, 224 risk and crisis, 230, 233, 233–234, 236, 236, 238, 241

471 social exchange relationships, 127–128, 130–131, 133, 135–136 social media, 266, 321 strategic communication campaigns, 245–248, 250, 252, 254, 255 Weber and Taylor, 115, 119–120, 122

efficiency, 13, 15, 17, 89, 97–98, 274 change communication, 156, 162, 164 change management, 198, 200 citizen expectations, 307, 311 coproduction, 144 corruption, 76 HROs, 331, 339 intangible assets, 102–104 measurement and evaluation, 361, 367, 371 measurement of online media, 389, 390, 390–391, 391, 392, 392–393, 393 NGOs, 266 organizational goals, 417–418, 420–421, 423 organizational legitimacy, 47 performance management, 186, 287 reputation, 219 social exchange relationships, 130–131, 133, 136 social media, 317–318, 321 trustworthiness, 67 Weber and Taylor, 115–123 Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), 251, 253 emergent approach to change management, 201, 204–206 emergent changes, 154–155 empathy, 65–66, 296–398, 347, 352, 355 risk and crisis, 235, 236 employees, 2, 4, 4–5, 17, 19, 98–99, 181, 348 change communication, 153–160 change management, 198–199, 201–207, 210 citizen engagement, 281, 282, 284 citizen expectations, 308 democracy, 33, 39–40 HROs, 329, 334 intangible assets, 102 mediatization, 175 nonprofessionals, 130, 132 organizational goals, 418, 419, 422, 423 organizational legitimacy, 47, 52 outcomes, 135 performance management, 187 politics and policy, 88 professionals, 129, 130, 132, 135–136 reputation, 216 scientific management, 116–118 social exchange relationships, 127–135 social media, 318, 319 transparency, 75 Weber and Taylor, 116–118, 121

472

Index

empowerment, 15, 17, 19, 397, 463–464 citizen engagement, 278, 282, 283 coproduction, 143, 144, 146, 148 inclusion and participation, 350–352, 353, 357 risk and crisis, 235 social exchange relationships, 128, 129 social media, 318, 321 episodic changes, 154–155 equivalence framing, 188–189, 193 Eraikiz, Etorkizuna, 110–111 errors at HROs, 229–338, 340 ethics, 84, 255, 329, 460, 464 bureaucracy, 118, 119–120 citizen expectations, 309, 311 corruption, 72, 73 dialogue, 290, 294 performance management, 193 social media, 323, 325 ethnicity see race and ethnicity ethnographic studies for evaluation, 408, 410 ethos, 52, 157, 159–160 European Anti‐Fraud Office, 76 evaluating audience, 46, 47, 48 evaluation, 361–363, 405–414, 458, 459, 462 analysis, 411–412 barriers, 362 best practice, 435–450 case studies, 408, 410, 413–414, 428–429 communication planning cycle, 369, 370 definitions, 368–369 effectiveness, 375–377 empirical insight, 426–428 excuses for not doing, 437 formative, 250, 369–370, 413, 437, 442, 450 fundamentals, 367–379 input‐outflow, 426 invalid and spurious methods, 437 media, 383–401 methodologies, 377–378, 406–407, 408, 408–411 models, 372–373, 373, 374, 374–375 new frameworks, 438, 441–442, 443, 444, 444–445, 445 organizational goals, 417–420, 420, 421–431 outcomes, 406–407, 407, 408, 408, 411, 412, 412–413 qualitative measures, 378 quantitative method, 377–378 quo vadis, 446, 449–450 recent developments, 438–441 reporting, 412–413 SMART objectives, 370–372 standards, 439, 440 status quo, 436–438 taxonomy, 437, 445–446, 447–448 theoretical issues, 406 timing, 407–408

evaluation champions, 442 Everyday Democracy, 39 Excellence Theory, 292, 294, 295, 418, 442 expectancy disconfirmation model (EDM), 307–308 expectancy violation theory, 312, 460 experiments for evaluation, 408, 409–410 Extended Parallel Process Model, 252, 254 external communication, 10, 86, 148, 340, 420 change, 157, 160, 164 social media, 320 factual context, 182–184 failure at HROs, 330, 332–334, 337–338, 339, 340 preoccupation, 330, 337–338, 339, 340 fairness, 61, 63, 65–67 Fayol, Henri, 117 figurations, 170 financial return, 375–377 flow of communication, 128 focus groups, 408, 409, 412 formality, 133–134 social exchange relationships, 130–134, 136 formative evaluation, 250, 369–370, 413, 437, 442, 450 framing, 11, 86, 170, 175, 206 citizen expectations, 307, 311 coproduction, 143 dialogue, 294, 295 equivalence, 188–189, 193 message, 251, 253 performance management, 188–189, 193 risk and crisis, 233, 239, 242 frequency of communication, 128 functionality, 130–131, 132, 134–136 functions, 84, 85, 88, 89–91 funding, 2–3, 4, 4–5, 40, 414, 463 austerity, 117 citizen engagement, 280 mediatization, 176 NGOs, 261, 262, 267 social media, 322 gender equality, 261, 345, 348–350, 352 generic reputation theory, 216–218, 222 global citizens, 345–357 definition, 347–348 globalization, 345–348, 352, 361 best practice evaluation, 436 mediatization, 170, 176, 177 goal‐setting, 370–373, 439 governance, 27, 40, 97–98, 157, 254, 361 bureaucracy, 119–120 citizen engagement, 279 coproduction, 139, 142, 149 dialogue, 293

Index diversity and inclusion, 354, 356 interaction of officials and citizens, 60 mediatization, 167, 171, 173 politics and policy, 81–82, 86, 88, 89, 91–92 public value, 110 risk and crisis, 229, 238 social media, 324 transparency, 72, 209 government communication, 5, 9, 10–11, 12, 13, 14–15 politics and policy, 82–83, 83, 84, 84–86, 88, 90–92 propaganda, 74 research, 14–15 Government Communication Service (GCS), 297–298, 367, 370 best practice evaluation, 363, 437–438, 441–442, 443 government news management, 6, 7, 11 government public relations, 8, 10–11, 13 Habermas, Jürgen, 32, 54, 86–87, 168, 293 Health Belief Model, 252, 254 Heuristic Systematic Model, 251, 253 high‐reliability organizations (HROs), 275, 329–341 challenges, 339–341 defining principles, 330–331, 331, 332–334 principles and communication, 336–339. 339 research, 334–336, 339–341 honesty, 340, 353, 386 change management, 200, 208, 209 Hume, David, 27–28 Image Repair Theory, 252, 254 impact (outflow), 363, 372–375, 377, 386, 413, 436 best practice evaluation, 439, 441–442, 443, 444, 444, 445, 446, 447–448, 450 media relations, 396–399, 399, 400, 400–401 organizational goals, 418, 422–423, 423, 424 implementation of change, 204–205 inclusion, 17, 348–349, 350–351 balancing ideals and realities, 354–355 case study, 356–357 coproduction, 145 dialogue, 352–354 global citizens, 345–357 participatory communication, 351–352 informal leader‐member exchange (iLMX), 134 informational perspective on risk and crisis, 232–234, 234, 235, 235–237, 239, 242 information societies, 121, 245–246 innovation, 5, 18, 121, 203, 377, 461 bureaucracy, 118 coproduction, 144, 145, 147 democracy, 35

473

diversity, 348, 354 intangible assets, 103–104, 106, 108 organizational goals, 418, 423, 431 organizational legitimacy, 49 signaling, 64 social exchange relationships, 127, 134 social media, 315, 318–319, 321, 324 strategic communication campaigns, 245–246, 251, 253 inputs, 372–374, 374, 377–378, 426 best practice evaluation, 441–442, 443, 444, 444–445, 445, 446, 447–448 media measurement, 386, 392, 397 organizational goals, 422–423, 423, 425, 426–427, 430 insider and outsider organizations, 263–266, 268 institutional contingencies, 129, 130–131, 133 institutional logics, 234, 241, 241, 242 institutional perspective, 170–171 risk and crisis, 234, 234, 240–241, 241, 242 institutional transformations, 171–172 instrumental learning, 251, 253 intangible assets, 5, 6, 11, 98, 101–112, 459 citizen expectations, 305, 308, 312 constraints on management, 103–104 corporate communication, 13–14 definition, 103 illustrative example, 110–111 NGOs, 265 organizational goals, 418, 426, 427 public value, 101–112 reputation, 5, 102–104, 108, 110–111, 215 research, 102–103, 107–109, 111–112 strategic communication campaigns, 247 Integrated Evaluation Framework, 374, 444–445, 445 Integrated Model of Strategic Communication Messaging, 252, 254 integrative theory of behavior change, 252, 254 integrity, 89, 92, 120, 130, 175, 386, 406 change management, 200 intellectual capital, 13, 102–103, 108, 110–112 interactions of officials and citizens, 59–68, 459 consequences of misinterpretation, 65–67 information asymmetries, 60–61 signaling theory, 61–63 trustworthiness, 63–65, 67–68 interactive processes, 33, 233, 237, 461 interdisciplinarity, 460 internal communication, 5, 148, 410, 420, 464 change, 157, 160, 164, 207 social media, 319, 320 intersectionality, 350–351, 355 International Anti‐Corruption Academy (IACA), 76, 77

474

Index

International Association for Measurement and Evaluation of Communication (AMEC), 363, 438, 440, 446 AVEs, 397–398, 437 Barcelona Principles, 370, 374, 405, 439 Integrated Evaluation Framework, 374, 444–445, 445 International Association for Public Participation (IAP2), 40–41 INTERPOL, 76 interviews for evaluation, 408, 409 issue arenas, 141 Kettering Foundation, 39, 41 key performance indicators (KPIs), 397, 399, 401 organization goals, 426, 429 key performance results (KRIs), 397 labor‐type contingencies, 129, 130, 132 lead‐member exchange (LMX), 130–136 learning, 73, 147–148, 350, 397 best practice evaluation, 446, 447, 448, 450 change communication, 156, 159, 163–164 change management, 202, 204 diversity and inclusion, 350, 354, 355, 357 HROs, 329–341 instrumental, 251, 253 measurement and evaluation, 369, 373, 376, 406 performance management, 185, 187 risk and crisis, 237, 233, 235, 238, 238 signaling theory, 61, 68 legacy media, 6, 18, 310 legitimacy see organizational legitimacy listening, 2, 14, 161, 171, 352–354 citizen engagement, 277, 283, 284 citizen expectations, 303, 310 democracy, 32, 41 dialogue, 289–291, 295, 298, 352–354 diversity and inclusion, 346–347, 352–354 HROs, 329–330, 332, 337–338, 339, 340–341 public value, 105, 107 risk and crisis, 235, 236 social media, 320, 321, 324, 325 lobbying, 35, 73–74, 83, 84, 88 NGOs, 259–260, 263–264, 266, 268–269 low‐reliability organizations, 334, 339 mainstream media, 264–266, 324, 435 NGOs, 260, 262–267, 269 see also mass media management rationality, 203 marketing funnel, 374 mass media, 6, 19, 82, 398 social media, 315, 320, 324

materialism, 170 meaning‐making, 238, 238 measurement, 361–363, 405–414, 458, 459, 462 analysis, 411–412 Barcelona Principles, 439, 439, 440 barriers, 362 best practice evaluation, 436–437, 439, 439–440 case studies, 408, 410, 413–414 communication planning cycle, 369, 370 definition, 368 effectiveness, 375–377 evaluation methods, 377–378, 406–407, 408, 408–411 evaluation models, 372–373, 373, 374, 374–375 fundamentals, 367–379 media, 383–401 organizational goals, 417–420, 420, 421–431 outcomes, 406–407, 407, 408, 411, 412, 412–413 reporting, 412–413 SMART objectives, 370–372 theoretical issues, 406 timing of evaluation, 407–408 media, 2–3, 5, 11, 18–19, 99, 383–401, 459 Barcelona Principles, 439, 439 best practice evaluation, 435–436, 438–439, 439, 440, 442 case study, 429 change communication, 160, 162 change management, 204, 207 citizen expectations, 305, 309–310 communication practices, 182, 184 content analysis, 388–389, 394 definitions, 6, 7–9 dialogue, 293, 294, 297 diversity and inclusion, 345, 352, 355 evaluating relations, 385–386, 397, 401 evaluating traditional publicity, 386–389 government communication, 15 landscape at a glance, 384–385 measurement and evaluation, 361, 363, 372, 373, 374, 383–401 NGOs, 259–269 organizational goals, 421–422, 423, 424, 425, 427, 429 organizational legitimacy, 47, 48 outcomes and impacts of relations, 396–399, 399, 400, 400–401 performance management, 187, 192 politics and policy, 82, 84–87, 88, 89 reputation, 215, 217, 220–224, 388 risk and crisis, 229, 231, 232, 236, 236, 240, 241 significance, 168–173 strategic communication campaigns, 247–248, 251

Index transparency, 73, 77 trustworthiness, 65 see also mainstream media; mediatization; social media media logic, 171–172 mediatization, 11, 17, 19, 99, 167–177, 459 challenges, 175–177 citizens expectations, 303 definitive and sensitising concept, 168–170 institutional transformation, 171–173 negotiations and resistance, 174–175 organizing communication, 173–175 politics and policy, 81, 86, 87, 91 reputation, 223–224 research traditions, 170–171 significance of media, 168–173 value systems, 176 message‐centered approach, 233, 236–237, 239 message framing, 251, 253 middle managers’ roles, 163 migration and immigration, 345–348, 361, 435 mindfulness, 331, 331–332, 336, 339, 341 MINDSPACE, 449, 449 misinterpretation of signals, 65–67 mode of communication between supervisor‐ subordinate, 128 monitoring, 16, 27, 32, 34–35, 462 best practice evaluation, 437, 442, 448 change management, 203, 208 citizen expectations, 310, 311 coproduction, 140 democracy, 42 HROs, 331, 333 measurement and evaluation, 369, 374, 374, 378, 407, 411, 414 media, 353–354, 374, 386, 393, 397, 448 mediatization, 174 organizational goals, 419–421, 425, 428–431 reputation, 220 social media, 321–323, 393 moral legitimacy, 47, 48, 50–55 motivated reasoning, 190–191 multi‐changes, 154, 157, 158, 161, 163 multiculturalism, 19, 345–346, 348, 350, 355, 436 case study, 356 multidisciplinarity, 460 National Coalition for Deliberative Democracy (NCDD), 40 National Issues Forums (NIF), 39 negative work acts, 134 negativity bias, 188, 192, 310 neo‐institutional theory, 183, 240–241 networks, 127, 129, 133, 134, 411

475

neutral reputation, 14, 218, 222, 224, 308 new public governance (NPG), 142 new public management (NPM), 15–16, 115, 117–118, 154 change management, 200, 210 coproduction, 139, 142 organizational legitimacy, 51, 53 social exchange relations, 129, 133–134, 136 news, 6, 7, 11, 40, 73 citizen expectations, 310 HROs, 332, 333, 337 media measurement, 383–386 mediatization, 169–175, 176 NGOs, 262, 264–267 performance management, 187 reputation, 215, 223 risk and crisis, 240 social media, 318, 320–321, 323, 385 strategic communication campaigns, 249, 251 New South Wales Government Communication Evaluation Framework, 442, 444, 444 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), 6, 172, 184, 215, 259–269, 353 approaches to communication, 261–263 coproduction, 139, 144 definition, 260–261 democracy, 37–38, 42 future research, 268–269 implications, 266–268 insider and outsider strategies, 263–266 transparency, 75, 77 nontransparency, 28, 73–74 corruption, 28, 71–75, 77 normative legitimacy, 48 nudging, 449, 462 OASIS model, 369, 370 objective setting, 370–372, 373, 378 observation studies for evaluation, 408, 410 OECD, 97 online media, 384–386, 389–396, 401 efficiency, 389, 390, 390–391, 391, 392, 392–393, 393 evaluation, 384–386, 389–390, 390, 391, 391–392, 392, 393, 393, 401 measuring publicity, 393–394, 394, 395, 395–396 openness, 155–157, 198 dialogue, 289, 296, 297, 299 HROs, 335, 341 social media, 317–318, 320 orders of change, 201, 202, 202 organizational approach, 216–218 organizational change, 19, 153–154, 155–157

476

Index

organizational goals, 417–431, 463 aligning communication, 424, 425, 425–426 case studies, 428–429 challenges and misunderstandings, 430–431 communication management and communication controlling, 418–420, 420, 421–423, 423 empirical insights, 426–428 evaluating and measuring communication effects, 422–423, 423, 424 future research, 431 organizational legitimacy, 28–29, 45–55, 459, 460, 462 challenges, 54 change management, 198, 207, 208, 209 citizens expectations, 303, 311, 312 context, 49–51 definition, 46–48 dialogue, 291, 299 diversity and inclusion, 349 intangible assets, 102, 107–108, 110–111 NGOs, 262, 265, 267 organizational goals, 417, 418, 424 public value, 107, 108, 110 reputation, 45–46, 50–55, 215–217 research, 48–49, 54–55 risk and crisis, 241 social media, 320 organization public dialogue communication (OPDC), 296–297 organization‐public relationships (OPRs), 296–298 organization type, 50–51, 55 outcomes, 406–407, 407–408, 408, 411–412, 412, 413 Barcelona Principles, 439, 439 best practice evaluation, 436, 439, 439, 441–442, 443, 444, 444, 445, 446, 447–448, 450 evaluation, 363, 372, 374, 374 media measurement, 386, 388 media relations, 396–399, 399, 400, 400–401 organizational goals, 417, 422–423, 423, 424, 425 outflows, 426, 441 organizational goals, 418, 422–423, 423, 424, 425, 426–427 see also impact (outflow) outgrowths, 441 outputs, 372–374, 374, 377–378, 436 best practice evaluation, 436–437, 439, 441–442, 443, 444, 444–445, 445, 446, 447–448 media measurement, 386, 397 organizational goals, 422–423, 423, 424, 425, 426–427 outsourcing, 3, 6, 15, 117

outtakes, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447–448 evaluation, 372, 374, 377 media relations, 396 organizational goals, 422 panel studies for evaluation, 411 Parsons, Talcott, 46 participants in democratic communication, 32, 33 participatory communication, 156, 351–352, 353, 353–355 spectrum, 352, 353 perceived dimensions, 46, 47 perceptions, 268 performance information and management, 182–183, 185–193, 459 comparison and reference points, 189–190 dominance of negative, 188–189 future research, 191–193 motivated reasoning, 190–191 reputation, 215 research, 187–191, 192, 193 study of numbers, 186–187 permanent campaigns, 11, 81, 88–89, 91 pervasiveness, 458 planning, implementation, impact (PII) model, 373, 373, 422 platforms for interaction, 141, 145, 147 pluralism, 122, 142, 207, 353 change communication, 155, 157, 158–159, 162 NGOs, 262–265 policy change campaigns, 249, 249, 250 policy‐making process, 34–35 democracy, 31, 34–36, 39, 40, 42 political communication, 6, 11–12, 12, 15 characteristics, 88 policy, 81–83, 83, 84, 84–85, 88, 88–89, 91–92 political marketing, 11, 81–83, 83, 84, 85 political perspective, 233–234, 234, 237–240, 240, 242 political public relations, 6, 7–8, 10 political science approach, 216, 219–222 politics of crisis management, 237–238, 238 politics and policy, 81–92, 459 broader literature, 84–86 context, 82 functions, 89–91 key issues, 87–88, 88, 89–91 mapping the field, 82–83, 83 relationships, 87–88, 88, 89 subdisciplines, 82–83, 84, 85–86 theoretical perspectives, 86–87 populism, 27, 29 power relations, 28, 49, 143 citizen engagement, 279, 283 diversity and inclusion, 349–352

Index employees, 98 imbalance, 66, 67 sharing, 17 social media, 318, 319 Weber and Taylor, 116, 117, 119 pragmatic legitimacy, 47–48, 50, 55 prescriptive approach to change management, 201–206 priming, 11, 251, 253 citizen expectations, 307, 309–311 private sphere, 31–34, 37, 38, 41 problem anticipation, 331, 332–333 procedural justice, 27, 60, 65, 75 process evaluation, 250, 437, 442, 450 fundamentals, 369, 372 process tracing and contribution analysis, 411 productivity, 17, 62, 97–98, 102 Taylor and Weber, 115, 116, 120 professional bodies, 2–3, 5, 15, 66, 99–100 democracy, 37, 38, 39–42 organizational legitimacy, 48, 52 politics and policy, 84–86, 88 professionalization, 84–86, 172–173, 175 program logic model, 372, 374, 376 best practice, 441, 442, 444 program theory, 441 program theory evaluation (PTE), 441 propaganda, 72, 74–75 Proposed Interim Standards for Metrics in Traditional Media Analysis, 440 public administration, 12, 15–16, 293–294 public information campaigns, 17, 248 public institution communication, 8 publicness, 1, 3, 4, 4–5, 34, 247 intangible assets, 104 public opinion, 3, 6, 7, 15, 27–28, 368, 458 change management, 200 democracy, 32, 33–35 intangible assets, 108 mediatization, 168 organizational goals, 419 policy‐making process, 34–35 social media, 318, 321, 323 strategic communication campaigns, 246–247, 255 public relations (PR), 6, 7–8, 10–13, 91–92, 458 Barcelona Principles, 439, 439 best practice evaluations, 436–438, 439, 439–442, 444–445 citizen expectations, 304, 306, 308 dialogue, 291–293, 295–298 measurement and evaluation, 13, 362, 368–370, 372–373, 374, 375, 377 media measurement, 385, 398 organizational goals, 418, 422 politics and policy, 82–83, 84, 85 strategic communication, 12, 12–13

477

public sector marketing, 82, 83, 84, 85 public sector reform, 139, 141–142 public sphere 31–37, 38, 38–42 definition, 32–33 public value, 105–109, 135–136, 459, 460 coproduction, 148 definition, 105 intangible assets, 101–112 organizational goals, 417, 422 social exchange relationships, 127, 129, 130–131, 135–136 social media, 318 public value government triangle (PVGT), 106–107 quantitative bias, 438 race and ethnicity, 39, 65 diversity and inclusion, 346, 348, 349–350 Really Simple Syndication (RSS), 394, 395, 399, 447 reference points, 189–190 regulative legitimacy, 48 relational systems, 172 relational theory, 12–13, 291 relationships, 87–88, 88, 89, 98, 459 social exchange, 127–136, 459 reliability, 267, 275, 311, 459 signals, 60, 64, 65 see also high‐reliability organizations (HROs) reluctance to simplify, 330, 332–333, 338, 339 reputation, 3, 5, 8–9, 10–13, 17, 19, 28–29, 215–224 approaches, 216–222 best practice evaluation, 446 challenges, 222–224 citizen expectations, 303, 308–311 communication practices, 183 corporate communication, 14 crisis, 215, 218, 220, 229, 233, 241, 241–242 diversity and inclusion, 219, 222, 348 future vision, 459, 459–460, 462 government communication, 15 HROs, 337 intangible assets, 5, 102–104, 108, 110–111, 215 measurement and evaluation, 371, 372 media, 215, 217, 220–224, 388 neutral, 14, 218, 222, 224, 308 organizational goals, 417–418, 420–421, 425, 427 organizational legitimacy, 45–46, 50–55, 215–217 politics and policy, 85 protective behavior, 220–224 public relations, 12–13 strategic communication campaigns, 247, 252, 254 threat, 215, 217, 220–224, 233, 252

478 research knowledge and skills, 438 resilience, 330, 334, 338–339, 339, 341 resistance, 35, 60, 174–175 change communication, 154, 156, 159–160 change management, 204, 206, 210 resource‐dependence theory, 49, 156 response, 430, 459 coproduction, 142 dialogue, 289, 292–294, 299 HROs, 329, 331, 335, 338, 339, 340 interaction of officials and citizens, 60 measurement and evaluation, 16, 19, 363, 405 media measurement, 399, 399 mediatization, 168–169, 171–174 NGOs, 267 organizational legitimacy, 47 performance management, 187–189, 192 public value, 106, 107 reputation, 217, 220–224 risk and crisis, 231, 232, 233, 235, 237, 238 strategic communication campaigns, 251–252, 253, 254 return on earned media (ROEM), 398 return on expectations (ROE), 398 return on investment (ROI), 375–376, 377 media measurement, 398–400, 400, 401 return on media impact (ROMI), 375, 398 return on objectives (ROO), 398 return on target influence (ROTI), 375, 398 rhetorical arena theory (RAT), 239–240, 240 risk, 17, 19, 119–121, 230–231, 337–338, 459 approaches to research, 232, 233 citizen engagement, 283 citizen expectations, 308 communication, 183, 229–242 coproduction, 141, 149 definition, 231, 232, 232 dialogue, 233, 237, 292 general perspective, 232–233, 234, 234 HROs, 329–330, 332–338 informational perspective, 232–234, 234, 235, 235–237, 239, 242 institutional perspective, 234, 234, 240–241, 241, 242 measurement and evaluation, 375 organizational goals, 418 political perspective, 233–234, 234, 237–240, 242 routines, 172 scientific management, 115, 116–118, 119, 121, 123 scope of organizational legitimacy, 46, 47 self‐presentation, 51–52, 53 sense‐dimming, 158, 163

Index sense‐giving, 158, 159, 163, 206–207 sense‐making, 292, 411, 450 change communication, 153–155, 158–159, 162–163 change management, 198, 205, 206 HROs, 332, 333, 341 risk and crisis, 238, 238 sense‐making methodology (SMM), 450 service delivery chain, 140–141, 144–145, 146–149 service design, 281–282 services and structures, 32, 33, 198–199, 200 settings change, 464 signaling theory, 28, 59–60 applications, 61–63 citizen signals, 63–64 interactions of officials and citizens, 59–68 misinterpretation, 65–67 moderating contexts, 64–65 public sector signals, 64 trustworthiness, 63–65, 67–68 Simon, Herbert, 127, 185, 186, 190 situational awareness, 332, 339 situational crisis communication theory, 252, 254 situational theory of problem solving, 252, 254 situational theory of publics, 252 SMART objectives, 370–372, 445 Smith, Adam, 116 social capital, 5, 13, 38, 247, 321, 350 dialogue, 291, 296, 299 intangible assets, 5, 13, 102–103, 110–112 social cognitive theory, 251, 252, 253 social comparisons, 189–190, 193 social constructionism, 153, 155, 162, 163 social exchange relationships, 127–136, 459 consequences, 129, 135–136 dimensions, 133–135 future research, 136 institutional contingencies, 129, 130–131, 133 labor‐type contingencies, 129, 130, 132 pathways. 129, 129, 130 qualifying, 130–131 supervisor‐subordinate, 127, 128–129 social exchange theory (SET), 129, 134 social justice, 347–348, 350 social media, 17, 19, 34–35, 175, 315–325, 374, 459 adoption, 316, 317, 317, 318 best practice evaluation, 436, 439, 440 change communication, 162 citizen expectations, 303, 310 critiques and challenges, 323–324 dialogue, 289, 297, 322, 324, 353–354 diversity and inclusion, 353–354, 355 future research, 324 global communication, 316, 317, 325

Index impact on objectives, 318–319 measurement and evaluation, 363, 383–385, 389, 390, 392, 393, 396, 398–401, 411 measurement of publicity, 393–394, 394, 395, 395–396 NGOs, 266, 268 organizational goals, 417 politics and policy, 84, 89 risk and crisis, 215, 233 role, 316, 461 shaping communication, 321–322 use, 319–320, 320, 321 social network analysis, 411 social relations, 98 social responsibility, 5, 14, 84, 102, 111, 247 social return on investment (SROI), 376 social services/benefits, 62, 65, 66 socio‐political legitimacy, 47, 48, 50, 52–55 stakeholder change, 463–464 status, 51 strategic action, 87 strategic communication, 11–13, 15, 248–249, 249, 250–251 campaigns, 183–184, 245–255, 459 challenges, 252, 254–255 change management, 210 coproduction, 140, 148 definition, 246–247 evaluation of campaigns, 368–374, 378, 405, 410, 413–414 future direction, 255 NGOs, 259, 260, 262 organizational legitimacy, 45–46, 52, 54–55 politics and policy, 83, 85 reputation, 221, 222 Taylor, 117 theoretical perspective, 251–252, 253–254 types, 249, 249, 250 street‐level bureaucracy, 59–61, 65–66, 68, 127 substance, 32 summative evaluation, 372, 421, 437, 442, 450 fundamentals, 369, 370, 372 strategic communication campaigns, 250 supervisor‐subordinate communication, 127–129, 130–136 surveillance, 323–324 survey and polls for evaluation, 408, 408, 409, 412 symbolic systems, 172 target groups for coproduction, 140–141, 145–146, 147 taxation, 117, 120 Taylor, Frederick, 98, 115–116, 120–123 scientific management, 116–118, 119, 121, 123 terminating, 238, 238

479

terrorism, 229–231, 234, 235 theory of change, 441 theory of planned behavior, 251, 253 theory of reasoned action, 251, 252, 253 total quality management model (TQM), 49, 307, 308 tracking mechanism for evaluation, 408, 411 transparency, 2, 5, 15–16, 28, 208, 208–209, 459, 460 best practice evaluation, 435, 439, 450 bureaucracy, 73–76, 120 change communication, 157, 160 change management, 198–200, 207–210 citizen expectations, 74, 157, 160, 198, 305, 311 corruption, 28, 71–77 definition, 71–72 dialogue, 75, 76, 289, 297–299 HROs, 329, 332, 334, 339 interactions of officials and citizens, 60, 63, 64 measurement and evaluation, 361 media measurement, 386 organizational goals, 420, 420, 424–425 organizational legitimacy, 45 politics and policy, 84 social exchange relationships, 135, 136 social media, 317–319, 320, 322–324 strategic communication campaigns, 255 Taylor and Weber, 120, 121 Transtheoretical Model, 252, 254 trust, 3, 10–11, 13–19, 28–29, 340, 459, 460 best practice evaluation, 446 challenges, 67–68 change management, 200, 204, 208, 208–209 citizen engagement, 278, 280, 282 citizen expectation, 303, 305, 309, 311–312 dialogue, 291, 293, 296–297, 299 diversity and inclusion, 352, 355 HROs, 329, 338, 340 information asymmetries, 60–61 intangible assets, 101–103, 110–111 interactions of officials and citizens 59–68 measurement and evaluation, 371, 406 media measurement, 386 mediatization, 173 misinterpretation, 65–67 NGOs, 269 organizational goals, 417–418, 420, 424, 425 organizational legitimacy, 48 pervasiveness, 458 politics and policy, 84, 86 reputation, 216 risk and crisis, 232 signaling theory, 62–65, 67–68 social media, 321, 323 strategic communication campaigns, 247 transparency, 71–72, 74–75, 77

480 UK Cabinet Office Evaluation Framework, 441–442 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 76 uses and gratifications, 251, 253 value link models, 424–425, 425, 426, 429

Index Weber, Max, 98, 115–116, 117, 120–123 bureaucracy, 115, 118–120, 121–123 organizational legitimacy, 46, 49, 54 web metrics, 408, 411 workplace stress, 134–135 World Trade Organization (WTO), 97

WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT Go to www.wiley.com/go/eula to access Wiley’s ebook EULA.