Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Government Communication Decision Wheel
Government Communication Decision Wheel
Government Communication Decision Wheel
net/publication/254311035
CITATIONS READS
84 1,969
2 authors, including:
Brooke Liu
University of Maryland, College Park
54 PUBLICATIONS 1,378 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Comprehensive Testing of Imminent Threat Public Messages for Mobile Devices View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Brooke Liu on 26 July 2016.
J. Suzanne Horsley
Department of Communication, University of Utah
We argue that the existing public relations and communication models do not ade-
quately account for the unique environmental characteristics of the public sector. By
reviewing the public sector environment literature, we identify 8 attributes that affect
government public relations: politics, focus on serving the public, legal constraints,
extreme media and public scrutiny, lack of managerial support for public relations
practitioners, poor public perception of government communication, lagging profes-
sional development, and federalism. We then review 5 existing public relations mod-
els, arguing that none of these models fully incorporates the unique environmental
characteristics of the public sector. We conclude by proposing a new model: the gov-
ernment communication decision wheel.
Just as tensions were peaking after the September 11 attacks, rumors began to
spread of an anthrax attack. This lethal form of bioterrorism forced the Centers for
Disease Control’s scientists and public relations experts to communicate quickly
about an alien substance that was not yet fully understood. Scientists had yet to de-
termine the biological traits of anthrax spores or how they could be contained from
spreading to the public at large. At the same time, public relations personnel had to
communicate with the public and media without inciting unnecessary fear, often
without being able to first talk with the CDC scientists (Ehling, 1992; Robinson &
Newstetter, 2003; Sieb & Fitzpatrick, 1995; Wright, 1981).
Correspondence should be sent to Brooke Fisher Liu, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, DePaul University,
College of Communication, 2320 N. Kenmore Ave., Chicago, IL 60614. E-mail: prof.liu@yahoo.com
378 LIU AND HORSLEY
The anthrax crisis is just one of the many emergencies that government agen-
cies must properly respond to and manage quickly, efficiently, and accurately to
protect the public’s safety. The government’s level of responsibility far exceeds
that of the private sector when the public’s safety is at risk. Although the stakes are
higher, the amount of scholarly research does not reflect the importance of govern-
ment communication (Garnett, 1992; Garnett & Kouzmin, 1997; Graber, 2003;
Horsley & Barker, 2002). In this study, we highlight the differences between pub-
lic and private sector environments and propose that a unique model is needed for
public relations practiced in the public sector.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Currently, the public relations field does not distinguish between the public and
private sectors, applying the same models to all scenarios. By understanding the
unique environmental characteristics of the public sector, we demonstrate a need
for a new theoretical approach to public sector public relations.
Legal constraints. Although the public good may guide government ac-
tions, legal constraints often limit the ability of agencies to communicate fully and
openly. Federal agencies must comply with the Freedom of Information Act; states
and local governments have their own access-to-information laws. In addition, Ti-
tle 18, Section 1913 of the United States Code prohibits lobbying by government
officials and spending public funds on advertising. This law does not interfere with
normal communication activities (Graber, 2003). It creates tension, however, be-
tween what is considered to be public communication and what is considered to be
advertising.
Media scrutiny. Public sector organizations also face a higher level of media
scrutiny. Allison1 (2004) argued that government decision-making is covered more
often in the media than the actions of private companies and the media can influ-
ence the timing of government decisions. Allison described the relationship be-
tween government and media as “mutually dependent” (p. 404), a depiction that
does not apply to the media and private companies (p. 404). Lee (2001) referred to
this relationship as “public reporting” (p. 33), meaning that a fundamental duty of
government officials is to constantly report decisions and actions via the media, to
maintain an informed citizenry (p. 33). Some researchers, however, do not view
the relationship between the government and the media as complementary (e.g.,
Wamsley & Schroeder, 1996). These researchers note that the government is never
free from the 24–7 news cycle. Thus, to avoid negative media coverage, govern-
1Original source: Proceedings of the Public Management Research Conference, November 19–20
1979 (1980). Washington, D.C.: Office of Personnel Management, OPM Document 127–53–1, pp.
27–38.
380 LIU AND HORSLEY
ment employees tend to follow the status quo and improvise less (Garnett, 1997;
Graber, 2003; Hicbert, 1981; Schneider, 1995).
cerns, but they also have to work within a system of federalism. Public administra-
tion scholar Laurence O’Toole (2000) defined federalism as “a system of authority
constitutionally apportioned between central and regional governments” (p. 2).
Local agencies communicate on matters within their municipal boundaries, but
states may step in to communicate about matters that go beyond those geograph-
ical borders. Likewise, the federal government may intercede and communicate
about matters of national importance (Schneider, 1995). Partly due to federalism,
but also due to a lack of formalized communication structure, agencies practice a
decentralized approach to communication. As Graber (2003) explained, “The lack
of centralized control over external communications explains why public officials
in the United States often do not speak with one voice about major issues. When
authoritative pronouncements are contradictory, people become confused, an-
noyed, and often cynical” (p. 228).
In sum, the unique attributes of the public sector environment are: politics, pub-
lic good, legal constraints, devaluation of communication, poor public percep-
tions, lagging professional development, and federalism. Because of these unique
attributes, we argue that a new theoretical approach is needed to understand public
relations practiced in the public sector.
and tactics, rather than the foundation for a theory. Finally, a review of the litera-
ture did not find any research testing Hiebert’s model.
Public relations process model. Hazelton and Long (1988) proposed the
public relations process model, which provides an open systems theory approach
to understanding public relations. The model outlines an environmental
supersystem that provides exogenous input for the three subsystems: organization,
communication, and target audience. These exogenous inputs consist of five inter-
related and interacting dimensions: legal/political, social, economic, technologi-
cal, and competitive. Within the organization subsystem, environmental inputs in-
teract with the organization, and organizational goals direct the behavior of public
relations practitioners. Hazelton and Long’s model has predominately been used
as an educational tool in public relations courses. Limited empirical research, how-
ever, has tested the model (e.g., Weaver, 2005, 2006). For example Werder (2006)
tested public relations strategies derived from the model to determine the influence
of problem recognition, involvement, constraint recognition, and goal compatibil-
ity on an organization’s response to activism.
The value of Hazelton and Long’s (1988) model is that it provides a roadmap of
the entire public relations process, not just one step, such as message dissemina-
tion. Also, unlike most models, the public relations process model incorporates the
importance of unique environments. However, the public relations process model
was developed with the private sector in mind, as evidenced by how Hazelton and
Long define public affairs: corporate relations with government rather than com-
munication originating from government.
THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION DECISION WHEEL 383
narrow and too broad. The theory cannot be applied to all situations because it only
hypothesizes how factors affect public relations behavior during conflict resolu-
tion situations. Further, by identifying 86 factors, the theory lacks parsimony.
More significant to our research focus, these 86 factors predominately focus on
private sector considerations rather than public sector considerations. Critical fac-
tors unique to the public sector, such as political turnover and political party affilia-
tion, are not included in the extensive list of factors.
The review of models reveals that a new model is needed to better address the
unique attributes of public sector public relations. The review, however, also re-
veals that the existing models can make significant theoretical contributions to the
development of a new model. Table 1 provides a summary of the five models we
discussed and lists the elements that we used from each model to develop a new
model: the government communication decision wheel.
The Microenvironments
Multilevel microenvironment. In the multilevel microenvironment, two or
more levels of government collaborate on a single issue. Each level of government,
however, still maintains some unique and separate responsibilities based on the
U.S. system of federalism. An example that typifies the multilevel microen-
vironment is the United States welfare program that is administered by both the na-
tional and state governments. The multilevel microenvironment also includes one
of more levels of the U.S. government interacting with foreign governments. An
example of this is the U.S. Department of Defense coordinating with the Iraqi Se-
curity Force.
Model of the Government Addresses public sector Only allows for one-way Inclusion of public sector
Communication Process environmental constraints; asymmetrical environmental constraints;
identifies when to select various communication; concept of adapting
communication vehicles for typology rather than a foundation communication strategy based on
government communication. for a theory. specific public sector
environmental constraints.
Synthesis Model of Public Sector Addresses wide variety of public Only applies to crisis situations; Inclusion of public sector
Crisis Communication sector environmental constraints. only allows for one-way environmental constraints.
asymmetrical communication.
Public Relations Process Model Explains how organizations interact Biased toward corporate sector; Concept of supersystem and
with their environment and need more detail on the subsystems.
change. subsystem dimensions.
Two-Way Symmetrical Model Combines mixed-motives and Does not allow for one-way Combining two-way symmetrical
two-way symmetrical; explains communication; does not account and asymmetrical
how organizations adapt for unique public sector communication; concept of
strategies to effectively meet the environment. organizations adapting strategies
organization’s and the publics’ to effectively meet publics’
needs. needs.
Contingency Theory Explains how the practice of public Only applied to conflict resolution; Concept that there is no
relations is contingent on factors 86 factors predominately focus one-size-fits all approach to the
that vary across time, on private sector considerations. practice of public relations.
environment, situation, and
publics.
385
386 LIU AND HORSLEY
ple is a state alcohol beverage control agency partnering with the state police de-
partment to educate retailers and minors about the implications of underage
alcohol purchases.
agement agencies, worked closely with nonprofits and private organizations to as-
sist survivors.
CONCLUSIONS
Every person’s life, in good times and bad, in peace and war, is affected by the ways
in which government organizations, including how thousands of administrative
392 LIU AND HORSLEY
REFERENCES
Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. L. (2002). Gender discrepancies in a gendered profession: A developing theory
for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14, 103–126.
Allison, G. T. (2004). Public and private management: Are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant
aspects? In J. M. Shafritz, A. C. Hyde & S. J. Parkes (Eds.), Classics of public administration (pp.
396– 413). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Appleby, P. H. (1973). Big democracy. New York: Knopf.
Avery, G. D., Brucchi, S. J., & Keane, J. F. (1996). Public affairs in the public sector. In L. B. Dennis
(Ed.), Practical public affairs in an era of change: A communication guide for business, government,
and college (pp. 169– 176). New York: University Press of America.
Beckett, R. (2000). The “government should run like a business” mantra. American Review of Public
Administration, 30(2), 185– 204.
Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M., & Weaver Lariscy, R. A. (1996). Developing standards of professional
performance in public relations. Public Relations Review, 22(1), 43– 61.
Cancel, A. E., Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M., & Mitrook, M. A. (1997). It depends: A contingency the-
ory of accommodation in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9, 31– 63.
Choi, Y., & Cameron, G. T. (2005). Overcoming ethnocentrism: The role of identity in contingent prac-
tice of international public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17, 171– 189.
Covello, V. T. (2003). Best practices in public health risk and crisis communication. Journal of Health
Communication, 8, 5– 8.
Cutlip, S. M. ( 1981). Government and the public information systems. In R. E. Hiebert (Ed.), In-
forming the People: A Public Information Handbook (pp. 23– 37). New York: Longman.
Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations
and communication management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ehling, W. P. (1992). Public relations education and professionalism. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence
in public relations and communication management (pp. 439–464). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Garnett, J. L. (1992). Communicating for results in government: A strategic approach for public man-
agers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Garnett, J. L. (1997). Administrative communication: Domain, threats, and legitimacy. In J. L. Garnett
& A. Kouzmin (Eds.), Handbook of administrative communication (pp. 1– 20). New York: Marcel
Dekker.
Garnett, J. L., & Kouzmin, A. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of administrative communication. New York:
Marcel Dekker.
Graber, D. A. (2003). The power of communication: Managing information in public organizations.
Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Grunig, J. E. (1984). Organizations, environments, and models of public relations. Public Relations Re-
search & Education, 1(1), 6– 29.
Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present, and future. In R. L. Heath
(Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 11– 30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION DECISION WHEEL 393
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organiza-
tions: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Hazelton, V., Jr., & Long, G. W. (1988). Concepts for public relations education, research and practice:
A communication point of view. Central States Speech Journal, 39(2), 78– 87.
Hiebert, R. E. (1981). Informing the People: A Public Information Handbook. New York: Longman.
Holtzhausen, D. R., & Voto, R. (2002). Resistance from the margins: The postmodern public relations
practitioner as organizational activist. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14, 57– 84.
Horsley, J. S., & Barker, R. T. (2002). Toward a synthesis model for crisis communication in the public
sector: An initial investigation. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 16(4), 406– 440.
Lee, M. (1997). President Nixon sees a ‘cover up’: Public relations in federal agencies. Public Rela-
tions Review, 23(4), 301– 325.
Lee, M. (2001). Intersectoral differences in public affairs: The duty of public reporting in public admin-
istration. Journal of Public Affairs, 2(2), 33– 43.
Murphy, P. (1991). The limits of symmetry: A game theory approach to symmetric and asymmetric
public relations. Public Relations Research Annual, 3, 115– 131.
O’Toole, L. J., Jr. (2000). American intergovernmental relations (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Qiu, Q., & Cameron, G. T. (2005, May). A public relations perspective to manage conflict in a public
health crisis. Paper presented at the International Communicators Association, New York.
Rainey, H. G. (2003). Understanding and managing public organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Rhee, Y. (2002). Global public relations: A cross-cultural study of the excellence theory in South Ko-
rea. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14, 159– 184.
Robinson, S. J., & Newstetter, W. C. (2003). Uncertain science and certain deadlines: CDC responses to
the media during the anthrax attacks of 2001. Journal of Health Communication, 8, 17– 34.
Roper, J. (2005). Symmetrical communication: Excellent public relations or a strategy for hegemony.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 17, 69– 86.
Sallot, L. M., Cameron, G. T., & Weaver Lariscy, R. A. (1997). Professional standards in public rela-
tions: A survey of educators. Public Relations Review, 23(3), 197– 216.
Schneider, S. K. (1995). Flirting with disaster: Public management in crisis situations. Armonk, NY:
M. E. Sharpe.
Sieb, P., & Fitzpatrick, K. (1995). Public relations ethics. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Smith, D., & McCloskey, J. (1998). Risk communication and the social amplification of public sector
risk. Public Money and Management, 18(4), 41– 50.
Viteritti, J. P. (1997). The environmental context of communication: Public sector organizations. In J.
L. Garnett & A. Kouzmin (Eds.), Handbook of administrative communication (pp. 79– 100). New
York: Marcel Dekker.
Wakefield, R. I. (2000). World-class public relations: A model for effective public relations in the mul-
tinational. Journal of Communication Management, 5(1), 59– 71.
Wamsley, G. L., & Schroeder, A. D. (1996). Escalating a quagmire: The changing dynamics of the
emergency management policy subsystem. Public Administration Review, 56(3), 235– 244.
Werder, K. P. (2005). An empirical analysis of the influence of perceived attributes of publics on public
relations strategy use and effectiveness. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(3), 217– 266.
Werder, K. P. (2006). Responding to activism: An experimental analysis of public relations strategy in-
fluence on attributes of publics. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(4), 335–356.
Wright, D. K. (1981). Accreditation’s effects on professionalism. Public Relations Review, 7(1), 48–
61.