I. Introduction

A. Public Sector Stakeholders

Public sector leaders (“public leaders”) communicate with various internal and external stakeholders to achieve organizational goals [3], [4], [5], [9]. In addition, public leaders are challenged to balance organizational and stakeholder viewpoints in times of limited resources on a daily basis [10].

A stakeholder is any entity that can affect or be affected by an organization [11], [12]. Stakeholders can be people, groups, neighborhoods, or businesses [13]. Examples of public sector internal stakeholders include elected officials, administrators, employees, and concessionaires and typical communications may deal with organizational goals, policy updates, and revenue projections. Examples of public sector external stakeholders include residents, visitors, and tourism businesses and typical communications may deal with emergency information, planning efforts, and attendance data.

Stakeholders can be analyzed by the following key constructs including [13, p. 869]: power (coercive, utilitarian, and normative), legitimacy (individual, organizational, and societal), urgency (organizational need for immediate attention due to time constraints or importance), and salience (priority given to competing stakeholders).

Until recently, organizational communications had been characterized as the owner/manager model where communications were initiated to achieve the economic goals of the organization [3]. Recently, scholars have been raising awareness of a “growing shift” to a stakeholder model wherein the communication between owner/manager and stakeholders is initiated to negotiate mutual goals [5, p. 38], [13]). [13] argue: Managers must know about entities in their environment that hold power and have the intent to impose their will upon the firm. (Emphasis in original text.)

B. Theoretical Underpinnings

[14] offer four communication models: (1) press agentry/publicity, (2) public information, (3) two-way Asymmetrical, and, (4) two-way Symmetrical. The press agentry model can be seen as using communications to generate publicity for the organization [1]. The public information model can be seen as using communications to disseminate information to various stakeholders [1].

The two-way Symmetrical model can be seen as learning stakeholder opinions and attitudes and then using communications to achieve mutually beneficial goals [1].

The two-way Asymmetrical model can be seen as understanding a stakeholder’s opinion and attitudes and then designing communications efforts to deliver information the stakeholders will likely accept, but the real intent is to achieve organizational goals [1], [15].

Public leaders may choose to implement one communication model in a specific situation and another model in a different situation. For example, during a local emergency situation, a public leader may adopt a public information model to disseminate information to public about areas to avoid or evacuation routes. Or, in response to specific public input, a public leader may implement a two-way Symmetrical communication to work with stakeholders to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes regarding noise, traffic, or public safety concerns.

Each of the four models offers certain advantages and drawbacks. For example, in the emergency situation mentioned above, communications about areas to avoid and evacuation routes may be the most important goal at that time. One draw-back of the public information model is that it does not cause the public agency to learn about the stakeholders [1].

[1] raise ethical considerations regarding the two-way Asymmetrical model (1995). They point out that under this model, public leaders are aware of stakeholder opinion and attitudes about a particular topic and undertake a communications campaign that craft messages to be easily accepted by that stakeholder. For example, let’s say a certain stakeholder group with a large voting base values increased access to public recreation facilities. Knowing this, a public agency leader could craft a communications campaign about a temporary tax increase and highlight that the extra revenue, will be used to improve public recreation facilities. While this may be true, perhaps only a small percentage of the tax increase may actually to go improving public recreation facilities.

The ethical dilemma is created when the public leader wants to spend the bulk of the tax increase for other programs or services, while playing to a majority of the stakeholders (voters) who value improved recreation facilities.

II. Research Methods

A. Case Study

This paper used a single case to analyze two-way Symmetrical and two-way Asymmetrical communications [16], [17], [18]. The context for the paper is a public leader dealing with a special event venue. This particular case study offered certain advantages to this paper including an indepth look at a complex setting, a bound context providing the reader a better understanding of the dynamics public agency leaders work within, and providing the reader a real-life situation to apply theory [18], [19], [20], [21].

B. Participant

The participant in the paper is a medium size public entity in Southern California. This public entity is similar to other public entities in California with respect to stakeholders, elected officials, managers, organization chart, income streams, expenditures, and public services (public safety, public works, and recreation).

One item that distinguishes this entity from other entities is the reliance on a special event venue to generate revenue. While the special event venue has attendance year round, most of the attendance occurs in July, August, and September (60% of yearly attendance) and the least occurring in January, February, and March (20% of yearly attendance). On average, the special event venue generates about 15% of the entity’s yearly revenue.

The special event venue creates business opportunities for local stakeholders including, by way of example onsite catering, staffing, and equipment rentals and offsite food, lodging, and tourism. One of the local chambers of commerce estimates that the special event venue generates about $160 million per year in local tourism dollars.

The public entity publishes attendance (actual use) and reservation (projected use) data with stakeholders. When attendance is steady or up, the stakeholders are happy with the public entity. When attendance is down, the stakeholders urge the elected officials to do more to increase attendance and reservations.

This public entity has a public relations office that reports to the public leader. The public relations office consists of one full-time and two part-time employees. The full-time employee has public relations background and is a member of the Public Relations Society of America. The public relations office has a delegated authority to draft and distribute information that is routine and not likely to cause a controversy, including such items as bus schedules, public service updates, and recreation programs. Any information that is non-routine or likely to cause a controversy must be approved in advance by the public leader.

Attendance and reservation data would be characterized as “likely to be controversial” needing the public leader’s approval before distribution. The public leader has no formal public relations or mass communications education or training, although she has supervised the public relations office for four years.

C. Scenario

The public leader wants to report attendance data on a fiscal year basis (July 1 through June 30). This reporting period is consistent with the public entity’s reporting and fiscal practices. The stakeholders want the attendance data reported on a calendar year basis (January 1 through December 31). This reporting period highlights the attendance data for that current tourist season. The public relations office wants to report the data twice a year: July 1 to December 31 and January 1 to June 30 to meet the needs of the public leader and the local stakeholders.

The attendance has started to drop in the winter—spring. The public leader wants to report the data on a fiscal year basis to capture increased attendance last July, August, and September which will “average” the current drop in attendance to look favorable. If the data is reported on a calendar year basis, the stakeholders will learn attendance is down.

While this attendance data may not be good news for the stakeholders (lost revenue), knowing this data does allow the stakeholders to make adjustments in staffing, maintenance projects, and equipment purchases.

III. Discussion

A. Mutual Gain

Mutual gain occurs when a public leader engages in stakeholder communications that identifies mutually beneficial goals [1], [4]. This infers two-way Symmetrical communications wherein the public leader shares and gathers information about the goals and constraints of the stakeholders. In this case study, there is no evidence the public leader engaged in any actions to promote two-way Symmetrical communications.

Here the stakeholders seem to have had some key construct advantages including[13, p. 869]: (1) power, because they had the ability to apply coercive pressure by contacting elected officials to pressure the public leader, (2) legitimacy, since they appear to have individual and organizational need for the timely attendance data, (3) urgency, may have been present depending upon the exact timing in relation to hiring, income, and expenditure deadlines which may have varied with each stakeholder, (4) salience, since the attendance data would have benefitted the stakeholders equally, relieving the public leader having to pick or choose between the stakeholders.

It appears as though this public leader still values the owner/manager communication model since she is (not) communicating to achieve her organizational revenue goals and making no attempt to assist the stakeholders [3]. Her public relations office has told her the stakeholders want to receive the attendance data on a calendar year basis. In contrast to [13]’s argument, this public leader knows about the stakeholder goals and is choosing not to collaborate.

In summary, there is no evidence of any intent to work towards mutual goals or two-way Symmetrical communications [1], [3], [4]. The stakeholders seem to have construct advantages, yet the public leader is not being responsive [13, p. 869]. Lastly, the public leader knows about the stakeholder goals and is choosing not to work collaboratively towards mutual goals [13].

B. Ethical Challenges

By using the fiscal year data the public leader is able to show an increase in fiscal year attendance because of the strong attendance in July, August, and September of the prior calendar (and tourist) year averages out the loss in attendance for winter and spring.

The public leader’s communications can be characterized as two-way Asymmetrical in that the public leader is “playing” to the stakeholders with “good news about attendance data,” while, in reality, advancing her goals [1], [15], [22].

[1] raise ethical considerations regarding the two-way Asymmetrical model. They point out that under this model, public leaders are aware of stakeholder opinion and attitudes about a particular topic and undertake a communications campaign that craft messages to be easily accepted by that stakeholder, while the real intent is to advance organizational goals.

For the sake of discussion, adopting the public relations office reporting period (twice a year) would show that, while last July, August, and September were strong, the winter and spring data are down. This can be seen as adopting a two-way Symmetrical approach since the public relations office is attempting to work with the stakeholders [1], [15].

Recently, scholars have been raising awareness of a “growing shift” to a stakeholder model wherein the communication between owner/manager and stakeholders is initiated to negotiate mutual goals which may lead improved -ethical communications [5, p. 38]. Knowing about the down-turn in attendance allows stakeholders to modify their respective planning efforts regarding income and expenditures.

IV. Conclusion

Ethics

[1] raise ethical considerations regarding the two-way Asymmetrical model. They point out that under this model, public leaders are aware of stakeholder opinion and attitudes about a particular topic and undertake a communications campaign that craft messages to be easily accepted by that stakeholder, while the real intent is to advance organizational goals.

Here, the public leader was intentionally grouping attendance data to portray good news about the attendance trends. This was deceiving the stakeholders [1], [15], [22].

Practitioners

Practitioners desiring to improve stakeholder relations and avoid ethical challenges may want to adopt two-way Symmetrical communication strategies [1], [3], [4], [13].

Theory

Two-way Symmetrical communication facilitates mutual goals and reciprocal learning [1], [3], [13]. This case study showed that two-way Asymmetrical communication does not promote or a dialog between the public entity and its stakeholders [1], [3], [24].

[6] argue that Stakeholder Theory can be brought into focus by answering two questions: (1) What is the purpose of the organization? (2) What responsibility does the organization owe the stakeholders?

This paper discussed a public entity and, as such, its purpose is to provide services to the residents and businesses within its jurisdiction. One of the public services is the special event venue that is open to all residents and businesses. At a minimum, the public leader owes the stakeholders ethical behavior through fair and honest communication. Ideally, the public leader owes the stakeholders balanced -reciprocal exchange of ideas, using two-way Symmetrical communication so both entities can achieve their mutual goals [1], [3], [13].

Limitations

This paper has limitations. First, as a case study, this paper describes one particular public entity [25]. Different public entities may yield different results given their respective situations, context, and goals of those particular organizations. As such, the conclusions in this paper may not apply to other organizations [20], [21]. Second, this case study was chosen because it represents a typical case and the researchers are familiar with the public entity [18]. Third, this paper acknowledges that the public leader reports to, and is directed by, executive staff and elected officials and those relationships were not described nor analyzed in this paper [16], [25].

Summary

Public leaders are challenged to balance organizational and stakeholder viewpoints in times of limited resources on a daily basis [10]. Two-way Asymmetrical communications does not promote a dialog between the public entity and its stakeholders and it raised ethical issues [1], [15], [22], [23], [27]. In contrast two-way Symmetrical communications promotes a balanced -reciprocal exchange of ideas with the stakeholders with the outcome being mutual understanding as opposed to winning and losing [1], [4], [28], [29].