Mending Government-to-Business Communication Disruptions in Russia: Language Perspective

  • Ekaterina BaevaEmail author
  • Vladimir Bondar
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 947)


Relations between government and various social entities often present serious challenges in many respects, among which communication is one of the most widespread and frequently neglected, especially when it comes to the sphere of government-to-business (G2B) communication. This paper addresses the issues in G2B interaction that pertain to the sphere of language and appear to be most vulnerable and fraught with possible communication failures. Though business and government discourse domains are regarded as separate, often unparalleled manifestations of language registers with their own established and long-standing traditions of specific usage of syntax, vocabulary, style etc, we argue that it is governmental communicators who are responsible for alleviating communication problems and taking additional language effort to adjust their messages to the rules of clear, concise and coherent business communication. Building on responses of surveyed employees from several firms, we devise a technique which shows in which cases governmental agents should abandon rigidity of communication behavior and succumb to changes in various language aspects. In particular, we propose to identify the so-called perception consistency which works as a benchmark in detecting which genre or/and which language aspect (style, grammar, vocabulary etc.) of governmental messages needs reformulation and readjustment. The paper contributes to a better understanding of multifaceted governmental transformations, an integral part of which is represented by a necessity of change in communication styles in the process of adaptation to constantly changing needs of society.


G2B communication Government transformations Language perspective Communication disruptions Perception consistency 



The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve this paper.


  1. 1.
    Hildebrandt, H.W., Bond, F.A., Miller, E.L., Swinyard, A.W.: An executive appraisal of courses which best prepare one for general management. J. Bus. Commun. 19, 5–15 (1982). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kjellgren, H.: Staten som informatör eller propagandist? Om statssyners betydelse i svensk informationspolitik. Statsvetenskapliga Institutionen, Göteborgs Universitet, Göteborg (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yakovlev, A.: The evolution of business-state interaction in Russia: from state capture to business capture? Eur.-Asia Stud. 58(7), 1033–1056 (2006). Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aidis, R., Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T.: Institutions and entrepreneurship development in Russia: a comparative perspective. J. Bus. Ventur. 23(6), 656–672 (2008). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Liu, B.F., Horsley, J.S., Levenshus, A.B.: Government and corporate communication practices: do the differences matter? J. Appl. Commun. Res. 38(2), 189–213 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gelders, D., Ihlen, Ø.: Government communication about potential policies: public relations, propaganda or both? Publ. Relat. Rev. 36(1), 59–62 (2010). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sanina, A., Balashov, A., Rubtcova, M., Satinsky, D.M.: The effectiveness of communication channels in government and business communication. Inf. Polity 1–17 (2017, preprint). Scholar
  8. 8.
    Belov, S., Kropachev, N., Latukha, M., Orlova, E., Baeva, E., Bondar, V.: The role of language in the communication process between business and government: evidence from Russian firms. J. East-West Bus. 1–20 (2018).
  9. 9.
    Jenkins, H.: Small business champions for corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 67(3), 241–256 (2006). Scholar
  10. 10.
    Russo, A., Tencati, A.: Formal vs. informal CSR strategies: evidence from Italian micro, small, medium-sized, and large firms. J. Bus. Ethics 85, 339–353 (2009). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bennett, J.C., Olney, R.J.: Executive priorities for effective communication in an information society. J. Bus. Commun. 23, 13–22 (1986). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vos, M.: Communication quality measurement of councils. In: Proceedings of BledCom July 2003 in Conjunction with Euprera Annual Congress, Bled, Slovenia (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Middel, R.: Daar hebben we toch communicatie voor; een beschouwing over de toegevoegde waarde van een discipline, L.S., Faculteit Communicatie en Journalistiek HU, Utrecht (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bergers, A.M.: Communication with SME Entrepreneurs: Assistance for Communication Advisors of the Federal Government (2003). Accessed 12 June 2018
  15. 15.
    Sidorenko, E.V.: Trening kommunikativnoj kompetentnosti v delovom vzaimodejstvjj [Training communicative competencies in business communication]. Rech, St Petersburg (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pieterson, W.: Channel Choice: Citizens’ Channel Behavior and Public Service Channel Strategy. Gildeprint B.V, Enschede (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van den Boer, Y., Pieterson, W., Arendsen, R., van Dijk, J.: Towards a model of source and channel choices in business-to-government service interactions: a structural equation modeling approach. Gov. Inf. Q. 34(3), 434–456 (2017). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carstens, J.: Perceptions of CEO’s Personnel Managers, and Training Directors of Communication Practices and Listening Behavior in Large-Scale Organizations (1982)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kaul, A.: Effective Business Communication. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., Delhi (2014)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dawkins, J.: Corporate responsibility: the communication challenge. J. Commun. Manag. 9(2), 108–119 (2005). Scholar
  21. 21.
    van den Boer, Y., van de Wijngaert, L., Pieterson, W., Arendsen, R.: On the interaction of source and channel choice in the government-to-business context. In: Scholl, H.J., Janssen, M., Wimmer, M.A., Moe, C.E., Flak, L.S. (eds.) EGOV 2012. LNCS, vol. 7443, pp. 27–39. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jaffee, D.: Organization Theory: Tension and Change. McGraw-Hill, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davis, K.: Human Behavior At Work: Organizational Behavior. McGraw-Hill, New York (1981)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scalia, A.: A matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law: Federal Courts and the Law. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2018)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guillory, J.: The memo and modernity. Crit. Inq. 31(1), 108–132 (2004). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Saint Petersburg State UniversitySaint PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations