Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Horsley 2010
Horsley 2010
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01363.x
(Liu & Horsley, 2007). More research is needed to develop theory that explains
and predicts communication practices and decision making in government and its
ultimate impact on publics.
On the applied side, recent government communication research does not explore
the nuances among bureaucratic layers of government outside of the United States,
but rather explores trends and initiatives in government communication in other
countries (i.e., Glenny, 2008; Gregory, 2006; Vos, 2006; Vos & Westerhoudt, 2008). In
addition, communication scholars have not fully examined differences among the four
primary levels of U.S. government: city, county, state, and federal. Liu and Horsley
(2007) proposed a government communication theoretical model that differentiates
the public sector from the private sector based on the operating environment. This
article empirically advances that model by creating intergovernmental comparisons
of communication practices and professional development opportunities through
a survey of 781 government communication practitioners. The model establishes a
theoretical foundation for the study of government communication within its unique
environmental context free from the bias of corporate-centric research assumptions
that dominate much of the research on communication practices. This model is
founded upon the public sector organizations’ unique environmental context, rather
than incorporating those parameters into a model that applies to all sectors (e.g.,
contingency theory and the public relations process model).1 Public organizations are
sufficiently different from corporations and deserving of study in their own context
(Allison, 2004; Beckett, 2000; Graber, 2003; Lee, 2001).
(Liu et al., 2010). Appendix A summarizes the public sector attributes and their impact
on government communication.
Because of the inherent differences between the public and private sectors’
operating environments, the prevailing communication models (e.g., government
communication process model, synthesis model of government crisis communi-
cation, and public relations process model) and theories (e.g., excellence theory
and contingency theory) do not account adequately for the public sector environ-
ment’s influence on communication practices (see Appendix B for a summary of the
communication theories and models that contribute to this model of government
communication).
Within the government communication decision wheel, the public sector envi-
ronment is divided into four microenvironments in which communication decision
making takes place: intragovernmental, intergovernmental, multi-level, and exter-
nal (see Figure 1). At any time, communication professionals from any level of
government may find themselves operating in one of these microenvironments. In
the intragovernmental microenvironment, all communication decisions are made
within a single organization. In the intergovernmental microenvironment, two or
more communicators from the same level of government (i.e., city, county, state, or
federal) work together. In the multi-level environment, communicators from two or
more levels may need to cooperate to produce and disseminate communication for
internal and external publics. Finally, in the external microenvironment, one or more
Environmental
attributes within the
Intergovernmental public sector:
M -complex system of
ed
ct
ia
re
te federalism
Di
d -intense media
scrutiny
Intra- -precarious
governmental Multi-level relationships with
publics
M -legal constraints
ct ed -weight of politics
ire ia
te
D d -devaluation of
communication by
External management
-goal of public good
-few leadership
opportunities
-lacking professional
development.
Four Public Sector Microenvironments
Figure 1 The government communication decision wheel encompassing nine attributes of
the public sector environment (Liu & Horsley, 2007).
Media coverage
Public administration and public relations scholars generally agree that the media
exhibit a negative bias when reporting government news (Graber, 2003; Lee, 2008). A
survey of 976 communicators supported this consensus: Government communicators
were more likely than corporate communicators to negatively evaluate media coverage
of their organizations (Liu et al., 2010). This intense media scrutiny can be viewed
as a benefit as well as a burden. For example, interviews with 49 government
communicators revealed that nearly one-fourth believed media watchdogs are good
for the government and create opportunities for publicity (Liu & Levenshus, 2010). At
the city and county levels, the importance of external communication is underscored
by a closer relationship with citizens (Liu & Levenshus, 2010) and pressure to be
accountable (Sanger, 2008). Sanger stated that cities and counties do a better job
communicating with citizens. Therefore, we propose:
H1: City and county government communicators report more positive media
coverage of their organizations than do state and federal government commu-
nicators.
counties have done a better job measuring citizen satisfaction than states have done
(Sanger, 2008). This commitment to customer service reflects the increased visibility
of local services that citizens experience on a daily basis. To clarify relationships
government communicators have with their primary publics, we ask:
RQ2: Is there a difference in how frequently city, county, state, and federal
government communicators interact with their primary publics?
H2: City and county government communicators report greater pressure from
their primary publics to meet their information needs than do state and federal
government communicators.
Legal frameworks
Government organizations in general have more legal and procedural constraints than
private sector organizations (Gelders et al., 2007). A survey of 976 communicators
reported that the strongest factor that distinguishes how communication is practiced
in the public and private sectors is the effect of external legal frameworks (laws
and regulations) such as the federal Freedom of Information Act (Liu et al., 2010).
Pandey and Garnett (2006) reported that red tape from information systems and
communication policies had a negative impact on internal communication. However,
external communication in state agencies was less susceptible to barriers created by red
tape. This suggests that state agencies have fewer barriers to external communication
efforts. We ask the following question to clarify the impact of legal frameworks on
government communicators operating in the four levels of government:
RQ3: Is there a difference in the impact of external legal frameworks on the daily
activities of city, county, state, and federal communicators?
Politics
Internal and external politics had a much greater influence on the practice of
communication in government settings than in corporate settings, according to
a survey of 976 communicators (Liu et al., 2010). However, these results were
not broken down by government level. Liu and Levenshus (2010) found that
federal employees believed politics had a strong impact on their communication
activities. Other researchers disagreed as to the level of influence that politics has
on federal government communications. In interviews, 18 federal communicators
indicated that political agendas can constrain the release of information, but that
this is more evident when the communicator is a political appointee rather than a
career bureaucrat (Fairbanks, Plowman, & Rawlins, 2007). However, Fitch (2004)
suggested that most communication is actually apolitical and that the day-to-day
communication may require more reviews prior to public release. Because public
messages from federal agencies appear to require more political scrutiny prior to
release, we predict:
H3: Federal communicators report a greater influence of politics on their daily
activities than do city, county, and state communicators.
Devaluation of communication
Research has produced mixed results regarding the value that government leadership
places on the communication function. In Fairbanks, Plowman, and Rawlins’s (2007)
18 interviews, they found that agency leaders who are not comfortable dealing with the
media may inhibit the release of information. But in agencies in which communicators
are part of management decision making, communicators do a better job of informing
the leaders and gathering information from management. When agency management
does not value communication, or does not trust the communicators with vital
information, barriers are created that prevent effective and accurate communication
efforts. The researchers also indicated that the devaluation of the communication
function at the federal level has decreased the communication staff to one full-time
employee or less per program. Other studies have found little or no devaluing of
communication by management. A survey of 976 communicators found no significant
difference in management support for communication between the public and private
sectors (Liu et al., 2010), and interviews with 49 government communicators revealed
that 86% believed they had strong support from management (Liu & Levenshus,
2010). However, neither study examined the issue by level of government. To
determine the extent of the devaluation of the communication function among the
levels of government, we ask:
RQ4: Is there a difference in management support for communicators within the
city, county, state, and federal levels of government?
Leadership opportunities
The little research that exists on government communicators’ leadership opportu-
nities offers contradictory insights. Liu and Levenshus’s (2010) interviews with 49
government communicators revealed that 61% stated they did not have good oppor-
tunities to take on a leadership role in their organizations. However, the National
Association of Government Communicators’ 2008 survey found that a majority
(59%) reported they play a part in important management decisions, and 53% have
supervisory responsibilities. To clarify the leadership opportunities for government
communicators, we ask:
RQ5: Is there a difference in leadership opportunities for city, county, state, and
federal communicators?
Professional development
Professional development can help government communicators overcome negative
media and public perception (Sieb & Fitzpatrick, 1995). The Public Relations
Society of America (2007) defined professional development as activities that give a
practitioner the ability to be more effective as well as any experience or knowledge
that improves the practitioner’s capabilities. A survey of job satisfaction among
government employees, while not specific to communicators, provided comparisons
of employees’ perceptions of their development opportunities among the levels of
government (Durst & DeSantis, 1997). The researchers found that local government
employees had a higher rate of job satisfaction and greater promotion opportunities
than did state and federal employees.
Elaborating on these findings, Liu and Levenshus (2010) discovered that federal
respondents who worked for an elected official rather than a bureaucrat reported they
had no opportunities for career development. However, the researchers also found
that government communicators generally were satisfied with their professional
development despite limited opportunities for career advancement. In terms of
employer-sponsored training, a survey revealed most government communicators
(70%) were satisfied with the job training they received, and 80% indicated their
agencies had training budgets (NAGC, 2008). These results were not reported by
level of the government employer. To clarify the influence of organizational factors
on government communicators’ career development, we ask:
Survey sample
The survey sample was 1,617 government employees who at the time of the study
worked for a government entity in the United States at the city, county, state,
or federal level as a communication professional. Government communicators’
primary responsibilities are communicating internally and/or externally to vari-
ous publics regarding organizational policies, decisions, or actions and/or guiding
communication strategy. To recruit participants, we worked with four prominent
professional government communicator associations: the City-County Communi-
cations and Marketing Association (3CMA), the Federal Communicators Network
(FCN), the National Association of County Information Officers (NACIO), and the
National Association of Government Communicators (NAGC). These organizations
are unique in that they provide networking, education, and development oppor-
tunities specifically for communication professionals in the public sector. The four
associations also are dominant professional organizations for government commu-
nicators in the United States and represent communicators from all four levels of
government in geographically diverse areas (e.g., unlike other associations, such as
Survey Instrument
The survey instrument was developed from Liu and Horsley’s (2007) operationaliza-
tion of the theoretical constructs of the government communication decision wheel
and refinements by Liu and Levenshus (2010). It consisted of 68 questions regarding
daily communication activities, relationships with the media and primary publics,
the influence of politics on communicators’ work, satisfaction with professional
development opportunities, and demographics of respondents and their employers.
The instrument noted that respondents did not have to complete all the questions
and that the responses were confidential.
Respondents rated 23 daily activities on a 5-point anchored scale from ‘‘never
engage in the activity’’ to ‘‘very frequently engage in the activity (e.g., daily).’’ Activities
included media relations, community relations, advertising, strategic development,
and digital media. Respondents had the option to add and rate items not listed on
the survey.
To understand relationships, respondents rated the frequency of involvement
with seven outside groups (e.g., state government agencies/departments, industry
self-regulating organizations, and nonprofits/associations) on a 5-point anchored
scale from ‘‘never’’ to ‘‘very often (e.g., daily).’’ Respondents also considered their
involvement with their ‘‘most critical primary public’’ through three questions (e.g.,
‘‘How often do you communicate with your primary public?’’) on a 5-point anchored
scale with response options from low to high (e.g., ‘‘rarely’’ and ‘‘frequently’’). Finally,
respondents evaluated media relations through six questions (e.g., frequency of media
coverage and accuracy of media coverage) on a 5-point anchored scale with response
options from low to high (e.g., ‘‘rare coverage’’ to ‘‘frequent coverage (e.g., daily)’’
and ‘‘extremely inaccurate’’ to ‘‘extremely accurate’’).
Respondents evaluated the influence of internal and external politics through four
questions (e.g., ‘‘How much pressure do you feel from external politics?’’ and ‘‘How
much of an effect do external politics have on your job?’’) on a 5-point anchored scale
with response options from low to high (e.g., ‘‘low pressure’’ to ‘‘high pressure’’ and
‘‘minimal effect’’ to ‘‘large effect’’). Respondents evaluated their professional devel-
opment opportunities by rating their satisfaction with nine items (e.g., conference
travel, mentoring program, and tuition reimbursement) on a 5-point anchored scale
from ‘‘not satisfied at all’’ to ‘‘very satisfied.’’ Respondents could select ‘‘N/A’’ if their
employers did not provide a listed professional development opportunity.
Respondent demographics were collected through eight open-ended questions
(e.g., ‘‘How many employees, if any, do you manage?’’ and ‘‘How many years, if any,
have you been employed in government communication?’’) and seven categorical
questions (e.g., ‘‘Do you consider yourself part of your organization’s management
team?’’ with options of ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no,’’ and ‘‘Do you work for an elected official?’’
with options of ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’).
Survey administration
The survey was disseminated in two phases: (a) April through June 2008 and
(b) November through December 2008. We added the second dissemination phase
after the presidential election to recruit communicators working for elected officials
after discovering a low response rate for this demographic. We followed Dillman’s
(2000) tailored design method: (a) we e-mailed a brief prenotice letter; (b) we
e-mailed a detailed cover letter with a link to the online survey; (c) we e-mailed
a thank-you/reminder e-mail; (d) we mailed a thank-you/reminder letter with a
replacement questionnaire to nonresponders; and (e) we called and/or e-mailed a
random sample of nonresponders.
Survey results
Response rate
The survey response rate was 48% with 781 government communicators responding
to the survey, which exceeds the average response rates for mail surveys (42%) and
e-mail surveys (30%) in communication journals (Macias, Springston, Weaver,
Lariscy, & Neustifter, 2008). The majority of the respondents self-identified as
working for the federal government (33%), followed by city (27%), county (22%),
and state (16%) governments. We conducted a series of t-tests to determine if there
is a statistically significant difference between the online and mail responses to our
research questions and hypotheses. After controlling for family-wise error rate using
Bonferroni’s correction (α = .005), the following independent sample t-tests revealed
a statistically significant difference: level of involvement with outside groups (t(786) =
−3.83, p < .001, d = .39); amount and influence of political pressure (t(774) =
−3.38, p = .001, d = .34); the evaluation of media coverage (t(766) = −3.90,
p < .001, d = .39), and frequency of communication with primary publics (t(253) =
−5.05, p < .001, d = .35). However, because the magnitude of the differences in the
means is relatively small (i.e., d < .40 for all four factors), we analyzed the data as
one sample. We also conducted a series of t-tests to determine if there is a statistically
significant difference between the data collected for the two phases and did not find
any significant differences after controlling for family-wise error rate.
Respondents’ demographics
The respondents averaged 10 years of experience in government communication
(SD = 8.3). On average, the respondents’ organizations employ nine full-time
(SD = 27.4) and one part-time employee (SD = 2.8) in the communication area,
and the respondents supervise four employees (SD = 9.4). Women completed 62%
of the surveys.
Media Relations
Respond to media inquiries 4.31 .87 4.14 1.11 4.42 1.03 3.64 1.56
Media release 4.22 .90 3.97 1.17 3.91 1.05 3.37 1.55
Pitch stories to media 3.69 .98 3.48 1.20 3.37 1.19 3.08 1.58
Media interviews 3.46 1.15 3.22 1.14 3.60 1.32 3.26 1.52
Train leadership/experts 2.92 1.12 2.85 1.23 3.22 1.10 3.12 1.38
for interviews
News conference 2.25 .94 2.25 1.08 2.4 1.33 2.27 1.44
Research
Track media clips 3.65 1.41 3.79 1.49 4.01 1.24 3.63 1.58
Primary research 2.67 1.09 2.30 1.15 2.06 1.25 2.54 1.38
Planning
Strategic plans 3.05 1.11 2.97 1.02 2.84 1.27 3.45 1.31
Crisis communication plans 2.89 1.07 2.81 1.13 2.77 .97 2.91 1.36
Tactics
Contribute/edit Web site 4.54 .84 4.11 1.13 4.05 1.35 3.76 1.42
Fliers 3.58 1.16 3.41 1.15 3.36 1.09 2.72 1.37
Brochures 3.53 1.12 3.34 1.16 3.46 1.21 2.61 1.29
Network 3.51 1.00 3.21 1.12 3.12 1.03 3.56 1.16
Newsletters 3.25 1.45 2.84 1.20 2.75 1.46 2.57 1.13
Print advertising 3.21 1.19 2.81 1.31 2.33 1.23 1.92 1.17
Community meetings 3.13 1.17 2.54 1.21 2.60 1.21 2.23 1.35
Guides 2.99 1.20 2.82 1.20 3.37 1.21 2.51 1.28
Fact sheet 2.95 1.06 2.80 1.05 3.13 1.28 3.21 1.17
Radio or TV PSAs 2.84 1.18 2.53 1.22 2.10 1.01 2.18 1.25
Broadcast advertising 2.11 1.19 2.11 1.27 1.94 1.07 1.81 1.22
VNRs 1.70 1.04 1.58 .97 1.98 1.18 1.60 1.13
Blog 1.48 .97 1.43 1.03 1.57 1.07 1.98 1.37
∗ Question: On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is never engage in activity and 5 is engage in activity
daily, how frequently do you engage in the following communication activities?
a Each group’s top five activities are in bold.
scale using Tukey’s HSD revealed a significant difference between the federal and
city respondents (p < .001), but not between federal and state (p = .006) or federal
and county (p = .008). On specific factors, the federal respondents differed from
all three other groups in the negative direction on news releases (p < .001 for each
group), media inquiries (p < .001 for each group), brochures (p < .001 for each
group), and fliers (p < .001 for each group). Federal respondents were more likely
to work on blogs than state (p = .005), county (p < .001), and city respondents
(p < .001). Federal employees were more likely to work on strategic plans than state
(p < .001), county (p < .001), and city respondents (p = .002). City respondents
were more likely to be involved in community meetings than federal (p < .001), state
(p = .001), and county respondents (p < .001). City communicators were also more
likely to spend time working on Web sites than federal (p < .001), state (p = .002),
and county communicators (p = .003).
The survey also reveals differences in the value that is placed on communi-
cation efforts among the four groups. Most federal respondents (51%) indicated
that their organizations value external communication over internal communi-
cation. However, the majority of communicators from state (63%) and county
(54%) employers and half of the communicators from city (50%) employers
reported that their organizations value internal and external communication equally.
There is a statistically significant difference in the values that the four government
groups place on internal and external communication (χ 2 (6, N = 773) = 45.79,
p < .001).
frameworks in the MANOVA because these data were collected separately due to a
processing error in the survey.3 Thus, we evaluated external legal frameworks through
a one-way ANOVA test. The MANOVA revealed significant differences for seven
factors (see Table 3): federalism (F(3,749) = 4.96, p = .002; partial eta squared =
.02); frequency of communication with primary publics (F(3,749) = 8.84, p < .001;
partial eta squared = .034); pressure to meet primary publics’ information needs
(F(3,749) = 11.21, p < .001; partial eta squared = .043); politics (F(3,749) = 4.27,
p = .005; partial eta squared = .017); management support (F(3,749) = 10.47,
p < .001; partial eta squared = .04); leadership opportunities (F(3,749) = 3.63,
p = .013; partial eta squared = .014); and professional development (F(3,749) =
19.36, p < .001; partial eta squared = .072).
Posthoc tests using Tukey’s HSD further answered the research questions and
hypotheses. For federalism (RQ1), Tukey’s HSD found a statistically significant
difference between federal and state respondents (p = .003), indicating state com-
municators are more influenced by federalism (see Table 3). For frequency of
interaction with primary publics (RQ2), Tukey’s HSD revealed a significant dif-
ference in that the city level was higher when compared to the county (p = .002)
and federal levels (p < .001). For pressure to meet the publics’ information needs
(H2), there was a significant difference for county respondents over city respondents
(p < .001), suggesting there is less pressure for information at the county level. There
also was a significant difference for federal respondents over county (p = .01) and
city respondents (p = .014) and state over county respondents (p = .011). Thus H2
is not supported.
For politics (H3), Tukey’s HSD provided partial support for this hypothesis:
Federal communicators experience a greater influence of politics on their daily
activities than their peers within the three other government levels. The federal group
was more likely to experience political pressure than the county group (p = .021) and
the state group (p = .020). For management support (RQ4), Tukey’s HSD revealed
a significant difference between the federal group and the city (p < .001), county
(p < .001), and state groups (p = .002), revealing that the county group rated its
management support the highest followed by state, city, and federal groups.
For leadership opportunities (RQ5), Tukey’s HSD revealed a significant dif-
ference between the federal group and the city (p = .026) and county (p = .032)
groups, indicating that the federal group rated its leadership opportunities lower
than the city and county groups. For professional development (RQ6), Tukey’s
HSD revealed significant differences for the federal and the county (p < .001) and
the city (p < .001) groups, indicating that the federal communicators had fewer
professional development opportunities than those reported by the county and city
communicators.
Finally, the MANOVA did not reveal a significant result for one factor: evaluation
of media coverage (F(3,749) = 2.40, p = .067; partial eta squared = .01), thus not
supporting H1. The ANOVA did not find a significant difference for the impact of
external legal frameworks (F(3,530) = 2.87; p = .036, η2 = .020), answering RQ3.
M SD
J. S. Horsley et al.
283
Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices J. S. Horsley et al.
Conclusions
The effects sizes for the MANOVA and ANOVA calculations were relatively small
(partial eta squared <.08, η2 < .03), reinforcing the government communication
decision wheel’s primary premise that government communicators face similar
constraints and opportunities. This finding, however, also suggests slight differences
exist within the sector. Thus, the public sector environment is analogous to a family
in that each member has the same familial roots, but slightly different genetic make-
up. Depending on its position in the family tree, or in this case, bureaucracy, one
organization may operate in the environment differently than another. Given that
we did find significant differences in how communication is practiced among the
four levels of U.S. government, we now discuss how we revised the government
communication decision wheel. When academics and government communicators
apply the model to research and practice, however, they should remember that the
relatively moderate effect sizes identified in this study indicate that these differences
likely are not difficult to overcome.
Federalism
State communicators indicated a higher level of interaction with other groups, indi-
cating that their communication activities are influenced by the system of federalism
more than the other three groups. This finding indicates that communicators would
especially need to consider how federalism affects communication at the state level
if they were to partner with communicators from state organizations. For example,
state communicators would follow policies and procedures established by a federal
initiative to raise the age for state driver’s licenses, but partners at the city and
county levels who supported the public information campaign would rely on the
state communicators to keep the communication in compliance.
Public interaction
County communicators report less public pressure for information than do city
communicators, while city respondents report communicating more frequently with
their primary publics than do federal and county respondents. Federal communicators
report more public pressure for information than do county communicators, but less
than city communicators. Finally, state communicators report more public pressure
for information than do county communicators. Understanding publics’ expectations
can assist communicators using the government communication decision wheel to
plan their communication activities. For example, a communicator from a county
Communication Partner(s)
Ring
Government Communicator
Ring
e Federal Co
at un
St ty
Intergovernmental
M
ed
ct
ia
re
te
Di
d
Intra-
State
City
governmental Multi-level
l
Federa
M
ct ed
City
ire ia
te
D d
External
County
Non-Governmental
Common Attributes
Legal frameworks; media coverage evaluation; goal of the public good.
organization would need to consider that peers in city government have a greater
expectation from their publics for information. Therefore, in a joint communication
effort on changes in municipal garbage and recycling collection, those expectations
would need to be addressed so that all target publics’ needs are met.
Political pressure
Federal communicators are more likely to report greater external political pressure
on their work than county respondents. Federal communicators also were more
likely to experience internal political pressure than state respondents. Government
communicators who partner with peers in the multi-level microenvironment could
use these findings to help them identify communication obstacles (e.g., federal
political priorities that may delay or inhibit communication related to healthcare
reform) and opportunities (e.g., state political priorities that may encourage and
expedite communication related to healthcare reform) that can be negotiated during
the development of communication strategies and tactics.
Management support
Federal communicators are more likely to report a lack of management support
for communication compared to the other three government groups. When com-
municators from other government levels partner with a federal communicator,
they should keep in mind that this lack of support from upper management may
interfere with the federal communicator’s ability to gain approval from leadership
for message creation and dissemination, especially if the matter is a top priority for a
partner’s organization but not for the federal organization. This knowledge may help
partners find ways to negotiate this obstacle before it infringes on the success of the
communication efforts.
Leadership opportunities
Federal communicators rate their leadership opportunities lower than the city and
county groups. This finding clarifies previously contradictory findings by Liu and Lev-
enshus (2010), who found most government communicators had no opportunities
for leadership roles, and the NAGC (2008), which found most did have a leadership
role. As neither study examined responses based on level of government employer,
this significant finding suggests the contradiction emanated from subgroups with
differing leadership opportunities within the study samples. In terms of commu-
nication practice, understanding the leadership disparity may help communicators
who are partnering with federal, city, and county groups to factor this into their
strategic planning. Federal communicators who may not have sufficient leadership
power may find that partnering with communicators who do will bring more power
to the partnership and enhance the objectives of their communication efforts.
communicators who are up-to-date on social media tactics may be frustrated by their
partners at the federal level who have not developed these skill sets.
Legal frameworks
All four groups of communicators report that external legal constraints have an impact
on their daily activities, reinforcing a study in which government communicators
reported a greater impact of external legal frameworks on their daily activities than
their corporate counterparts (Liu et al., 2010). These findings suggest a common
ground for all government communicators and a key consideration when using the
government communication decision wheel to determine obstacles and opportunities
in the public sector environment for communicators at all levels of government.
Federalism Overlapping, yet independent, system of constitutional Decentralized communication approach may
authority. cause government bodies to speak with
multiple, contradictory voices.
Media Scrutiny Media act as government watchdogs, scrutinize Makes government communicators more
government activities, and push for transparency conservative in communication to avoid
(Fitch, 2004; Lee, 2008). Government media coverage negative coverage. Some government
declining and increasingly negative. communicators see media scrutiny as positive.
Relationships with Even though most government communication is May limit acceptance and effectiveness of
Primary Publics truthful, the public and media tend to have negative government communication. Public cynicism
perceptions about government communication. seen as greatest obstacle to effective
Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices
communication.
Legal Frameworks Federal laws ban propaganda and restrict government Misinterpretation of laws may unnecessarily limit
use of public funds for publicity (Lee, 2008). Federal, communication activities at all government
state, and local access-to-information laws vary (e.g., levels and hurt ability to share information with
federal Freedom of Information Act). the public and media. May expand or hamper
communicators’ efforts.
Politics While all organizations experience the influence of Influences strategy selection. May hinder message
politics, external politics define government bodies. distribution and creativity, increase outside
interest groups’ influence. Determines the level
and means of information sharing.
J. S. Horsley et al.
Appendix A Continued
Devaluation of Historic avoidance of public communication Obstacles created by management who do not value
Communication by strategies may be changing. strategic communication may reduce the
Management effectiveness of communication strategies and
tactics.
Public Good Unlike the private sector, the government’s goal is Government bodies are not typically influenced by
public service rather than profits. market pressures when making strategic decisions.
Few Leadership Government communicators are historically A weaker voice in management decision making may
Opportunities relegated to a technical role, but data are mixed on impede strategic communication planning and
their inclusion in management decision making execution.
and promotions.
Lacking Professional Government communicators lag behind their The lack of skill and management development may
Development corporate counterparts in terms of professional impact the effectiveness of communication efforts
291
292
Appendix B Summary of Communication Theories and Models∗
Model of the Government Includes public sector attributes; Only allows for one-way Inclusion of public sector
Communication Process identifies when to select tactics asymmetrical communication; attributes; Concept of adapting
(Hiebert, 1981) for government typology rather than theory. communication strategy based
communication. on environmental attributes.
Synthesis Model of Public Addresses wide variety of public Only applies to crisis Inclusion of public sector
Sector Crisis sector attributes. communication; only allows for attributes.
Communication one-way asymmetrical
(Horsley & Barker, 2002) communication.
Public Relations Process Explains how organizations Biased toward corporate sector; Concept of supersystem and
Model (Hazelton & interact with the environment needs more detail on subsystem subsystems.
Long, 1988) and change. dimensions.
Comparisons of U.S. Government Communication Practices
Two-Way Symmetrical Explains how organizations Does not allow for one-way Concept of organizations adapting
Model (L. A. Grunig, effectively meet organizations’ communication; does not strategies to effectively meet
J. E. Grunig, & Dozier, and publics’ needs. account for public sector publics’ needs.
2002) attributes.
Contingency Theory Explains how practice of public Only applied to conflict Concept that there is no
(Cancel, Cameron, Sallot, relations is contingent on resolution; 86 factors one-size-fits-all approach to the
& Mitrook, 1997) factors that vary across time, predominately focus on private practice of public relations.
environment, situation, and sector considerations.
publics.
∗ Adapted from Liu and Levenshus (2010).
J. S. Horsley et al.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Plank Center for Leadership in Public Relations at the
University of Alabama for generously supporting this research.
Notes
1 We chose to test the federal, state, county, and city levels of government based upon other
comparative studies of public sector organizations (i.e., Sanger, 2008; Wright, 1990) and
to limit the categories to help maintain the model’s parsimony.
2 One of the attributes, public good, was not tested in this study as it was confirmed
previously by Liu and Levenshus (2010) and Liu et al. (2010) as a given characteristic of
government organizations.
3 When the survey was launched via mail and online, the question related to external legal
frameworks was not included. This question was included in a separate online survey sent
to the same sample.
References
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.
Baker, B. (1997). Public relations in government. In C. L. Caywood (Ed.), The handbook of
strategic public relations & integrated communications (pp. 453–479). Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Beckett, R. (2000). The ‘‘government should run like a business’’ mantra. American Review of
Public Administration, 30(2), 185–204.
Cancel, A. E., Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M., & Mitrook, M. A. (1997). It depends: A
contingency theory of accommodation in public relations. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 9, 31–63.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Durst, S. L., & DeSantis, V. S. (1997). The determinants of job satisfaction among federal,
state, and local government employees. State and Local Government Review, 29(1), 7–16.
Fairbanks, J., Plowman, K. D., & Rawlins, B. L. (2007). Transparency in government
communication. Journal of Public Affairs, 7, 23–37.
Fitch, B. (2004). Media relations handbook for agencies, associations, nonprofits, and Congress.
Alexandria, VA: TheCapitol.Net.
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.
Glenny, L. (2008). Perspectives on communication in the Australian public sector. Journal of
Communication Management, 12(2), 152–168.
Graber, D. A. (2003). The power of communication: Managing information in public
organizations. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Thompson, F. J. (2008). State and local governance fifteen years later: Enduring and new
challenges. Public Administration Review, 68(6), S8–S19.
Viteritti, J. P. (2008). The environmental context of communication: Public sector
organizations. In M. Lee (Ed.), Government public relations: A reader (pp. 319–341). Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Vos, M. (2006). Setting the research agenda for governmental communication. Journal of
Communication Management, 10(3), 250–258.
Vos, M., & Westerhoudt, E. (2008). Trends in government communication in the
Netherlands. Journal of Communication Management, 12(1), 18–29.
Wright, D. S. (1990). Federalism, intergovernmental relations, and intergovernmental
management: Historical reflections and conceptual comparisons. Public Administration
Review, 50(2), 168–178.
比较美国政府的传播实践:扩大政府传播决策的轮盘
J. Suzanne Horsley
Brooke Fisher Liu
Abbey Blake
Levenshus
美国阿拉巴马大学广告与公共关系系
【摘要:】
政府传播是很普遍的,并且涉及到美国公众生活的方方面面。然而在这个
重要的传播领域却极少有理论驱动的研究。本研究通过对781个政府传播者的调
查,探讨了在美国政府四个层级的传播实践和专业发展的比较。本研究在市、
县、州和联邦层级上,确定了公共部门环境如何影响传播实践的五个重大差别
和三个相似之处。我们将研究结果用于修改政府传播决策轮盘,在没有以组织
为中心的研究假设的偏见的独特环境中,为政府传播研究提供了理论基础。研
究结果将对未被充分研究的公共部门的传播理论发展有所裨益。
Comparaisons des pratiques de communication du gouvernement américain : pour développer la
roue des décisions communicationnelles du gouvernement
J. Suzanne Horsley, Brooke Fisher Liu, & Abbey Blake Levenshus
Die Kommunikation der Regierung ist allgegenwärtig und berührt jeden Aspekt des Lebens der
amerikanischen Öffentlichkeit. Dennoch gibt es wenig theoriebasierte Forschung in diesem zentralen
Feld der Kommunikation. Diese Studie betrachtet Vergleiche der Kommunikationspraktiken und
professionellen Entwicklung auf vier Ebenen der US‐Regierung mittels einer Umfrage unter 781
Regierungskommunikatoren. Die Studie identifiziert fünf signifikante Unterschiede und drei ähnliche
Aspekte, wie der öffentliche Sektor die Kommunikationspraktiken auf Stadt‐, Landkreis‐, Länder‐ und
Bundesebene beeinflusst. Die Ergebnisse wurden zur Modifikation des
Kommunikationsentscheidungsrads der Regierung herangezogen ‐ eine theoretische Basis für die
Untersuchung von Regierungskommunikation innerhalb ihres einzigartigen Kontextes und frei von
Befangenheiten unternehmenszentristischer Forschungsannahmen. Die Ergebnisse tragen zur
Entwicklung von Kommunikationstheorie im bislang unterbeleuchteten öffentlichen Sektor bei.
미국정부의 커뮤니케이션 실행의 비교들: 정부커뮤니케이션 결정기구의 확장
요약
Resumen
La comunicación del gobierno es dominante y toca cada aspecto de la vida pública Americana.
No obstante, hay un mínimo de investigación dirigida por la teoría sobre esta área de
comunicación crítica. Esta investigación explora las comparaciones de las prácticas de
comunicación y el desarrollo profesional entre 4 niveles del gobierno de los EE.UU. mediante
una encuesta de 781 comunicadores del gobierno. Este estudio identifica 5 diferencias
significativas y 3 similitudes en cómo el sector público del medio ambiente afecta las prácticas
de comunicación al nivel de la ciudad, el condado, el estado y el estado federal. Estos hallazgos
fueron aplicados a modificación de la comunicación de la rueda de decisión del gobierno, una
fundación teórica para el estudio de la comunicación del gobierno dentro de este contexto único
del medio ambiente libre de las preconcepciones de las asunciones de la investigación centradas
en las corporaciones. Los hallazgos contribuyen al desarrollo de la teoría de la comunicación
para el sector público poco investigado.
.