- Email: [email protected]
Co-creating corporate identity through dialogue: A pilot study
G Model PUBREL-1270; No. of Pages 3
ARTICLE IN PRESS Public Relations Review xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review
Research in Brief
Co-creating corporate identity through dialogue: A pilot study Petra Theunissen ∗ School of Communication Studies, Faculty of Design & Creative Technologies, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 6 August 2013 Received in revised form 18 February 2014 Accepted 24 February 2014
Keywords: Corporate identity Authenticity Dialogue Co-creational
a b s t r a c t The current scholarship of reputation management in public relations largely ignores the role of publics and the co-creational approach towards corporate identity. With renewed attention turning towards dialogue within public relations theory and practice, it is argued that scholars must acknowledge, and bring to the fore, the potential risks and, perhaps, disadvantages of dialogue in public relations. In fact, the application of dialogic principles might change how we view and create authentic corporate identity. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction In public relations theory, the role of publics in creating corporate identity is only recognised for how identity might be perceived through the image created in the minds of such publics, and how this image is aligned with corporate identity to create a strong reputation. The underlying implication is that the organisation is in control of its identity and can manipulate it. To scholars of organisational studies this paradigm appears puzzling. Identity, after all, is seen by them as co-created. Though public relations scholars such as Argenti (2003) recognise that identity can change, the underlying paradigm is that once corporate identity is constructed, it is fixed and needs only to be adapted every few years to ‘upgrade’ or ‘modernise’ it, or to ‘realign’ it with the publics’ image of the organisation. This view is questioned here, and it is suggested that if organisations were to apply the principles of dialogic communication in their public relations efforts, the taken-for-granted belief that corporate identity is constructed and controlled solely by the organisation would be questioned. 2. Method Although many public relations authors refer to dialogue, dialogic theory is an under-explored and under-developed concept in public relations theory and practice (Pieczka, 2011; Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012). As a result, its potential implications for public relations practice remain under-researched, and insufficient attention is given to the potential impact of dialogic communication between an organisation and its publics, or the potential risk posed such as exposing an inauthentic identity (Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012).
∗ Tel.: +64 21 183 7080. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.02.026 0363-8111/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Theunissen, P. Co-creating corporate identity through dialogue: A pilot study. Public Relations Review (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.02.026
G Model PUBREL-1270; No. of Pages 3
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2
P. Theunissen / Public Relations Review xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
This study is conceptual and interdisciplinary in nature. Through insights gleaned from organisational and communication studies on the formation of identity, and their application within a public relations theoretical framework, the study explores the notion of ‘authentic’ corporate identity, and considers how dialogue might assist in constructing corporate identity. It proposes that when an organisation chooses to engage in dialogue, the effects will ripple beyond the obvious, and are likely to affect how identity is perceived and constructed. 3. Analysis and discussion If we subscribe to the view that corporate identity is constructed and controlled by the organisation, then identity is distinguished from image (how corporate identity is perceived) and reputation (the culmination of identity and image, which can result in a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ reputation). However, this separation is largely synthetic—mainly because how publics perceive the organisation’s identity is not without influence on how an organisation will create its identity. But adopting the view that an authentic corporate identity is co-creational in nature begs the question whether corporate identity can still be controlled in the traditional sense. Is it really, as Argenti (2003) said, “the only part of reputation management an organization can control completely” (p.61)? Or is this control an illusion that has been perpetuated through modernist management thinking? The idea that identity is constructed and thus controllable by the organisation becomes problematic—particularly if we apply the principles of dialogue. Basically, organisational identity answers the question: ‘Who are we as an organisation?’ and the answer is crucial when establishing an authentic corporate identity. The trouble is that once the question is answered, there is an assumption that the organisation’s ‘true’ identity is discovered and that further work is limited. Little consideration is given to the possibility that that if identity is co-created through dialogue then it would continuously shift, and would need to shift, to remain authentic. Authenticity and its relationship to dialogue and identity are integral to this discussion. Edwards (2010) argues it is the audience, rather than the producer (or in this case, the organisation), that determines how cues for authenticity are interpreted. The co-creational aspect of identity formation then becomes important, highlighting that control over the experience of authenticity does not lie exclusively with the public relations practitioner (PRP). But, as Edwards (2010) concludes, currently, the role of authenticity in reputation management is somewhat simplistically understood. Often, PRPs mistakenly believe it is their role to identify the organisation’s ‘true’ identity, ‘package’ it and then communicate it to the publics, or—where ethical behaviour is lacking—fabricate an identity and persuade the publics it’s authentic. But such a simplistic, step-by-step understanding suggests that identity is static, and does not change once it is ‘discovered’. It ignores the multiple organisational identities that might exist, the fluidity of the environment and the impact on perceptions of authenticity. It also ignores the impact of dialogue. Co-creational thinking emphasizes communication and dialogue. Meaning is not static; it is created together and dependent on the continually evolving (or devolving) social environment. Meaning determines how authenticity and identity are understood and received, and in order to mitigate reputational risk, organisations must participate in this process (Aula, 2010). While dialogue ensures the corporate identity remains relevant to the social context, it poses risk for organisations that want to promote an inauthentic identity (Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012) because meaning is continuously changing. The public relations industry strives to connect with its audiences presumably to reduce conflict and create stability within the organisation-public-relationship (OPR). But this ‘connection’ is mostly initiated, managed and controlled by the organisation, and too often the source of authenticity (the social context) is confused for the target of authenticity, which immediately highlights the inauthenticity (Edwards, 2010). As a result, the organisation fails to acknowledge the principle of dialogue where the publics are seen as people and not just targets for messages (Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012). However, through candid dialogue and a readiness to change, the organisation can adjust and re-adjust to develop an identity that is deemed true. Importantly, this dialogue is not necessarily initiated by the organisation but may—in an ideal world—be initiated by one or more publics. It is argued here that persuading an audience that its identity is authentic when it’s not, holds greater risk than allowing an authentic corporate identity to emerge through a dialogic process. In fact, following the aforementioned approach is likely to result in what Aula (2010) describes as a ‘distorted reality’—one intended to be favourable to the organisation but which can lead to reputational risk once it is revealed, and it is likely to be. In the vein of Buber’s dialogic theory it could be argued that dialogue is necessary for authentic identity to develop by allowing the other party to ‘be’ him- or herself; to engage in dialogue without preconceived ideas (Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012). The implications are that an organisation’s self-interest (survival or, in the case of corporates, profit-making) holds consequences. It would be both dissolute and inauthentic if this relationship were purely based on financial consideration where the organisation pretends to be genuine in its engagement. In such a case, neither the relationship nor the identity would be authentic. 4. Conclusion The view of corporate identity as a visual manifestation of the organisation’s identity is borne out of marketing and advertising theory. It is a constricted view of corporate identity that neglects the co-creational impact of publics, and belies the fact that authenticity cannot simply be uncovered and promoted. As such, contemporary public relations scholarship that aspires to follow a normative relationship and dialogue paradigm needs to re-evaluate the creation, role and management Please cite this article in press as: Theunissen, P. Co-creating corporate identity through dialogue: A pilot study. Public Relations Review (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.02.026
G Model PUBREL-1270; No. of Pages 3
ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Theunissen / Public Relations Review xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
3
of corporate identity. This becomes more critical when moving towards an interdisciplinary understanding of corporate identity and emphasising dialogue as the ideal mode of communication. Scholars should explore the impact of dialogue on corporate identity, image and reputation, and understand that developing a corporate identity that is perceived as authentic can only happen by means of a co-creational process. Meanwhile, PRPs must consider the possibility that corporate identity can no longer be meticulously managed in the way it was when the concept was first introduced into public relations theory thirty or forty years ago. Accordingly, to create a truly authentic corporate identity, PRPs need to recognise the co-creational impact and the role of communication, and specifically dialogue. A paradigm that subscribes to relationship building and dialogue would recognise that give-and-take as well as the possibility for an unpredicted outcome are realities. Allowing change is paramount, and so is a willingness to build a corporate identity around the OPR. However, in a competitive market, it is conceivably easier said than done, and perhaps more so for an organisation with an established identity. Such organisations can engage in dialogue and allow publics to participate in the growth of an existing identity without concern of losing complete control. Having entered the second decade of the 21st century there is no dispute that transparency, authenticity and dialogue are the expected norms in public relations. Unfortunately, PRPs often confuse being seen to engage in dialogue with the practice of genuine dialogue, and thus are ill-prepared for the potential impact on their practice, such as the effect of genuine dialogue on the development of an authentic corporate identity. There is no doubt that dialogue has benefits for the longevity and authenticity of contemporary organisations, but as scholars we also need to acknowledge and understand its potential risks. References Argenti, P. (2003). Corporate Communication (3rd ed.). Boston.: McGrawHill-Irwin. Aula, P. (2010). Social media, reputation risk and ambient publicity management. Strategy and Leadership, 38(6), 43–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10878571011088069 Edwards, L. (2010). Authenticity in organisational context: fragmentation, contradiction and loss of control. Journal of Communication Management, 14(3), 195–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13632541011064481 Pieczka, M. (2011). Public relations as dialogic expertise? Journal of Communication Management, 15(2), 108–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/1363251111126346 Theunissen, P., & Wan Noordin, W. (2012). Revisiting the concept ‘dialogue’ in public relations. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 5–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.09.006
Please cite this article in press as: Theunissen, P. Co-creating corporate identity through dialogue: A pilot study. Public Relations Review (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.02.026
ARTICLE IN PRESS Public Relations Review xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review
Research in Brief
Co-creating corporate identity through dialogue: A pilot study Petra Theunissen ∗ School of Communication Studies, Faculty of Design & Creative Technologies, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 6 August 2013 Received in revised form 18 February 2014 Accepted 24 February 2014
Keywords: Corporate identity Authenticity Dialogue Co-creational
a b s t r a c t The current scholarship of reputation management in public relations largely ignores the role of publics and the co-creational approach towards corporate identity. With renewed attention turning towards dialogue within public relations theory and practice, it is argued that scholars must acknowledge, and bring to the fore, the potential risks and, perhaps, disadvantages of dialogue in public relations. In fact, the application of dialogic principles might change how we view and create authentic corporate identity. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction In public relations theory, the role of publics in creating corporate identity is only recognised for how identity might be perceived through the image created in the minds of such publics, and how this image is aligned with corporate identity to create a strong reputation. The underlying implication is that the organisation is in control of its identity and can manipulate it. To scholars of organisational studies this paradigm appears puzzling. Identity, after all, is seen by them as co-created. Though public relations scholars such as Argenti (2003) recognise that identity can change, the underlying paradigm is that once corporate identity is constructed, it is fixed and needs only to be adapted every few years to ‘upgrade’ or ‘modernise’ it, or to ‘realign’ it with the publics’ image of the organisation. This view is questioned here, and it is suggested that if organisations were to apply the principles of dialogic communication in their public relations efforts, the taken-for-granted belief that corporate identity is constructed and controlled solely by the organisation would be questioned. 2. Method Although many public relations authors refer to dialogue, dialogic theory is an under-explored and under-developed concept in public relations theory and practice (Pieczka, 2011; Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012). As a result, its potential implications for public relations practice remain under-researched, and insufficient attention is given to the potential impact of dialogic communication between an organisation and its publics, or the potential risk posed such as exposing an inauthentic identity (Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012).
∗ Tel.: +64 21 183 7080. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.02.026 0363-8111/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Theunissen, P. Co-creating corporate identity through dialogue: A pilot study. Public Relations Review (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.02.026
G Model PUBREL-1270; No. of Pages 3
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2
P. Theunissen / Public Relations Review xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
This study is conceptual and interdisciplinary in nature. Through insights gleaned from organisational and communication studies on the formation of identity, and their application within a public relations theoretical framework, the study explores the notion of ‘authentic’ corporate identity, and considers how dialogue might assist in constructing corporate identity. It proposes that when an organisation chooses to engage in dialogue, the effects will ripple beyond the obvious, and are likely to affect how identity is perceived and constructed. 3. Analysis and discussion If we subscribe to the view that corporate identity is constructed and controlled by the organisation, then identity is distinguished from image (how corporate identity is perceived) and reputation (the culmination of identity and image, which can result in a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ reputation). However, this separation is largely synthetic—mainly because how publics perceive the organisation’s identity is not without influence on how an organisation will create its identity. But adopting the view that an authentic corporate identity is co-creational in nature begs the question whether corporate identity can still be controlled in the traditional sense. Is it really, as Argenti (2003) said, “the only part of reputation management an organization can control completely” (p.61)? Or is this control an illusion that has been perpetuated through modernist management thinking? The idea that identity is constructed and thus controllable by the organisation becomes problematic—particularly if we apply the principles of dialogue. Basically, organisational identity answers the question: ‘Who are we as an organisation?’ and the answer is crucial when establishing an authentic corporate identity. The trouble is that once the question is answered, there is an assumption that the organisation’s ‘true’ identity is discovered and that further work is limited. Little consideration is given to the possibility that that if identity is co-created through dialogue then it would continuously shift, and would need to shift, to remain authentic. Authenticity and its relationship to dialogue and identity are integral to this discussion. Edwards (2010) argues it is the audience, rather than the producer (or in this case, the organisation), that determines how cues for authenticity are interpreted. The co-creational aspect of identity formation then becomes important, highlighting that control over the experience of authenticity does not lie exclusively with the public relations practitioner (PRP). But, as Edwards (2010) concludes, currently, the role of authenticity in reputation management is somewhat simplistically understood. Often, PRPs mistakenly believe it is their role to identify the organisation’s ‘true’ identity, ‘package’ it and then communicate it to the publics, or—where ethical behaviour is lacking—fabricate an identity and persuade the publics it’s authentic. But such a simplistic, step-by-step understanding suggests that identity is static, and does not change once it is ‘discovered’. It ignores the multiple organisational identities that might exist, the fluidity of the environment and the impact on perceptions of authenticity. It also ignores the impact of dialogue. Co-creational thinking emphasizes communication and dialogue. Meaning is not static; it is created together and dependent on the continually evolving (or devolving) social environment. Meaning determines how authenticity and identity are understood and received, and in order to mitigate reputational risk, organisations must participate in this process (Aula, 2010). While dialogue ensures the corporate identity remains relevant to the social context, it poses risk for organisations that want to promote an inauthentic identity (Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012) because meaning is continuously changing. The public relations industry strives to connect with its audiences presumably to reduce conflict and create stability within the organisation-public-relationship (OPR). But this ‘connection’ is mostly initiated, managed and controlled by the organisation, and too often the source of authenticity (the social context) is confused for the target of authenticity, which immediately highlights the inauthenticity (Edwards, 2010). As a result, the organisation fails to acknowledge the principle of dialogue where the publics are seen as people and not just targets for messages (Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012). However, through candid dialogue and a readiness to change, the organisation can adjust and re-adjust to develop an identity that is deemed true. Importantly, this dialogue is not necessarily initiated by the organisation but may—in an ideal world—be initiated by one or more publics. It is argued here that persuading an audience that its identity is authentic when it’s not, holds greater risk than allowing an authentic corporate identity to emerge through a dialogic process. In fact, following the aforementioned approach is likely to result in what Aula (2010) describes as a ‘distorted reality’—one intended to be favourable to the organisation but which can lead to reputational risk once it is revealed, and it is likely to be. In the vein of Buber’s dialogic theory it could be argued that dialogue is necessary for authentic identity to develop by allowing the other party to ‘be’ him- or herself; to engage in dialogue without preconceived ideas (Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012). The implications are that an organisation’s self-interest (survival or, in the case of corporates, profit-making) holds consequences. It would be both dissolute and inauthentic if this relationship were purely based on financial consideration where the organisation pretends to be genuine in its engagement. In such a case, neither the relationship nor the identity would be authentic. 4. Conclusion The view of corporate identity as a visual manifestation of the organisation’s identity is borne out of marketing and advertising theory. It is a constricted view of corporate identity that neglects the co-creational impact of publics, and belies the fact that authenticity cannot simply be uncovered and promoted. As such, contemporary public relations scholarship that aspires to follow a normative relationship and dialogue paradigm needs to re-evaluate the creation, role and management Please cite this article in press as: Theunissen, P. Co-creating corporate identity through dialogue: A pilot study. Public Relations Review (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.02.026
G Model PUBREL-1270; No. of Pages 3
ARTICLE IN PRESS P. Theunissen / Public Relations Review xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
3
of corporate identity. This becomes more critical when moving towards an interdisciplinary understanding of corporate identity and emphasising dialogue as the ideal mode of communication. Scholars should explore the impact of dialogue on corporate identity, image and reputation, and understand that developing a corporate identity that is perceived as authentic can only happen by means of a co-creational process. Meanwhile, PRPs must consider the possibility that corporate identity can no longer be meticulously managed in the way it was when the concept was first introduced into public relations theory thirty or forty years ago. Accordingly, to create a truly authentic corporate identity, PRPs need to recognise the co-creational impact and the role of communication, and specifically dialogue. A paradigm that subscribes to relationship building and dialogue would recognise that give-and-take as well as the possibility for an unpredicted outcome are realities. Allowing change is paramount, and so is a willingness to build a corporate identity around the OPR. However, in a competitive market, it is conceivably easier said than done, and perhaps more so for an organisation with an established identity. Such organisations can engage in dialogue and allow publics to participate in the growth of an existing identity without concern of losing complete control. Having entered the second decade of the 21st century there is no dispute that transparency, authenticity and dialogue are the expected norms in public relations. Unfortunately, PRPs often confuse being seen to engage in dialogue with the practice of genuine dialogue, and thus are ill-prepared for the potential impact on their practice, such as the effect of genuine dialogue on the development of an authentic corporate identity. There is no doubt that dialogue has benefits for the longevity and authenticity of contemporary organisations, but as scholars we also need to acknowledge and understand its potential risks. References Argenti, P. (2003). Corporate Communication (3rd ed.). Boston.: McGrawHill-Irwin. Aula, P. (2010). Social media, reputation risk and ambient publicity management. Strategy and Leadership, 38(6), 43–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10878571011088069 Edwards, L. (2010). Authenticity in organisational context: fragmentation, contradiction and loss of control. Journal of Communication Management, 14(3), 195–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13632541011064481 Pieczka, M. (2011). Public relations as dialogic expertise? Journal of Communication Management, 15(2), 108–124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/1363251111126346 Theunissen, P., & Wan Noordin, W. (2012). Revisiting the concept ‘dialogue’ in public relations. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 5–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.09.006
Please cite this article in press as: Theunissen, P. Co-creating corporate identity through dialogue: A pilot study. Public Relations Review (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.02.026