Abstract
Using communications theory, the aim of this paper was to analyze a case study to describe the potential benefits and pitfalls of two-way Symmetrical and two-way Asymmetrical communication models [1].
Public sector leaders communicate with various internal and external stakeholders to achieve organizational goals [2], [3], [4].
When a public sector leader adopts a two-way Symmetrical communications approach, the leader works with the various stakeholders to achieve their respective mutual goals [4], [5], [6].
When a leader adopts a two-way Asymmetrical communications approach, the leader seeks to achieve organizational goals at the expense of mutual goals with one or more stakeholders. This is accomplished by framing communications in ways that are more likely to be accepted by stakeholders, but in reality, only advances the organizational goals [7].
Two-way Asymmetrical communication can also be seen as raising ethical issues since the leader is, in essence, pretending to listen to stakeholders while the underlying intent is to achieve organizational goals [4] & [8]).
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
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].
References
Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). Leader’s guide to excellence in public relations and communications management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Jablin, F. M. & Sias, P. M. (2001). Communication competence. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam, (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 819 864). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Mumby, D. K. (2013). Organizational communications: A critical approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 61–75.
Deetz, S. (2001). Conceptual foundations. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 3-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and “The Corporate Objective Revisited.” Organization Science, 15(3), 364–369.
Grunig, J. E. & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models of public relations and communication. In J. E. Grunig (Ed), Models of public relations and communication management (pp. 285–324). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Eller, D. & Sturm, K. B. (2014). Under scrutiny in the public sector: Ethical considerations of two-way Asymmetrical communications in public relations. Journal of Journalism & Mass Communications, 3rd Annual International Conference - Presentation, Singapore.
Miller, K. (2009). Organizational communication: Approaches and processes (5 th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Reynolds, H.W. (1967). Some neglected aspects of public relations in local government. Public Relations Quarterly, 12(2), 31–40.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.
Freeman, R. E. (2000). Business ethics at the millennium. Business Ethics Quarterly, 10(1), 169–180.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853 886.
Stacks, D. W. & Watson, M. L. (2007). Two-way communication based on quantitative research and measurement. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication management: Challenges for the next generation(pp. 67–83). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Stake, R. E. (2008). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Flick, U. (2008). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case Study. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.)(pp. 301-316). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Yin, R. K. (2006). Case study methods. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 111–122). Mahwah, NJ: AERA by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Childers, L. (1989). J. Grunig’s asymmetrical and symmetrical models of public relations: contrasting features and ethical dimensions. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communications, 32(2), 86–93.
Person, R. (1989). Business ethics and communication ethics: Public relations practice and the idea of dialogue. In C. H. Botan & V., Jr. (Eds), Public Relations Theory (pp. 111–131). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Smith, D. & McCloskey, J. (1998). Risk communication and the social amplification of public sector risk. Public Money and Management, 18(4), 41–50.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Grunig, J. E. (1976). Organizations and public relations: Testing a communication theory. In B. H. Westley (Ed.), Journalism Monographs (Number Forty-Six, November), pp. 1–59.
Austin, E. W. & Pinkleton, B. E. (2006). Strategic public relations management: Planning and managing effective communication programs (2 nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Emerson, W. M., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2012). A model for stakeholder classification and stakeholder relationships. Management Decision, 50(10), 1861–1879.
Neff, B. D. (1989). The emerging theoretical perspective in PR: An opportunity for communication departments. In C. H. Botan & V., Jr. (Eds), Public Relations Theory (pp. 159–172). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Authors’ profile
![figure 1](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.7603%2Fs40874-014-0011-8/MediaObjects/40874_2014_11_Fig1_HTML.jpg)
Kirk Sturm (JD ’89, Ventura College of Law; PhD ’12, University of California, Santa Barbara) is a Lecturer in the Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Administration Department at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Kirk has over twenty years of industry experience in leadership, organizations, and communications strategy (risk, crisis, and public relations).
![figure 2](http://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.7603%2Fs40874-014-0011-8/MediaObjects/40874_2014_11_Fig2_HTML.jpg)
Dan Eller (EdD ’10, University of California, Santa Barbara) is an Assistant Professor of Public Relations in the Journalism Department at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Dan has over twenty years of industry experience in Public Relations in the public sector including risk and crisis communications.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Sturm, K., Eller, D. Stakeholder communications by public leaders: Mutual gain or ethical challenge?. GSTF J Media Commun 2, 11 (2014). https://doi.org/10.7603/s40874-014-0011-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7603/s40874-014-0011-8