- Email: [email protected]
Putting engagement in its PRoper place: State of the field, definition and model of engagement in public relations
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pubrev
Full Length Article
Putting Engagement in its PRoper place: State of the field, definition and model of Engagement in Public Relations Ganga S. Dhanesh College of Communication and Media Sciences, Zayed University, P.O. Box 19282, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
AR TI CLE I NF O
AB S T R A CT
Keywords: Engagement Dialogue Public relations Communication management
Although engagement has been a catchword in public relations practice and theory for over a decade, the term has been applied rather loosely to imply any form of communicative interaction between publics and organizations. Despite lack of clarity on the concept of engagement, research has been thriving, propelled by the increasing prevalence of social media and organizations’ consequent rush to digitally engage publics. This paper assesses the use of engagement in the field of public relations and critiques the equation of engagement with communicative interaction, with its foregrounding engagement as collaboration over that of engagement as control. It also builds upon theoretical conceptualizations of public/stakeholder engagement, employee engagement, and digital engagement to propose a practice-relevant and theoretically informed model and definition of engagement: Engagement is an affective, cognitive, and behavioral state wherein publics and organizations who share mutual interests in salient topics interact along continua that range from passive to active and from control to collaboration, and is aimed at goal attainment, adjustment, and adaptation for both publics and organizations.
1. Introduction Engagement has been a buzzword in public relations practice and theory for over a decade, its importance further fueled by Edelman’s (2008) vision of public engagement as the future of public relations. Although the concept has its origins in practice, it has garnered scholarly attention with a special issue in the Journal of Public Relations Research in 2014, a call for papers from the 23rd International Public Relations Research Symposium, BledCom 2016, and a related special issue in Public Relations Review. Research on engagement in public relations has mushroomed, especially in the area of digital engagement (Avidar, Ariel, Malka, & Levy, 2015; Lovari & Parisi, 2015; Men & Tsai, 2014, 2015). However, there are few studies on employee engagement (Gill, 2015; Welch, 2011) and even fewer on theoretical conceptualizations of public/stakeholder engagement (Taylor & Kent, 2014; Taylor, Vasquez & Doorley, 2003). There also has been little theoretical explication of the concept of engagement within public relations, except for rare attempts such as those by Taylor and Kent (2014), who situated engagement within the concept of ethical communication and dialogue, specifically within dialogue’s dimension of propinquity. Despite a lack of clarity on the concept, research on engagement has been booming, driven by the rising popularity of social media and organizations’ scramble to digitally engage organizational publics. The field of public relations lacks a practice-relevant, theoretically informed model and definition of engagement that can inform practice and chart future directions of research. Accordingly, this paper reviews the literature on the concept of engagement within the field of public relations, identifies key points for consideration, proposes a model and definition for engagement, and suggests directions for future research.
E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.001 Received 20 September 2016; Received in revised form 27 March 2017; Accepted 2 April 2017 0363-8111/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Dhanesh, G.S., Public Relations Review (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.001
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G.S. Dhanesh
2. Literature review Most of the seminal scholarly work on engagement has taken place in the fields of applied psychology, organizational behavior and human resource management (on employee/work engagement and burnout), education (on student engagement), political science (on political/civic engagement), and marketing/advertising (on customer engagement). A thorough review of the literature on engagement within public relations and communication management revealed three main clusters of work: (1) Digital engagement (Avidar et al., 2015; Bowen, 2013; DiStatso, 2012; Jiang, Luo & Kulemeka, 2016; Men & Tsai, 2013, 2014, 2015; Wigley & Lewis, 2012; Yang & Kang, 2009), including civic engagement (Agostino, 2013; Comor & Bean, 2012; Housholder & LaMarre, 2015; Lovari & Parisi, 2015), engagement by non-profit organizations (Cho, Schweickart, & Haase, 2014; Lovejoy, Waters, & Saxton, 2012; Porter, Anderson, & Nhotsavang, 2015; Waters, Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009), and engagement during crises (Ott & Theunissen, 2015); (2) Employee engagement (Gill, 2015; Karanges, Johnston, Beatson & Lings, 2015; Men, 2012; Welch, 2011); and (3) Public/Stakeholder engagement (Gregory, 2004; Kang, 2014; Johnston, 2014; Kim & Kim, 2015; Luoma-aho, 2015; Taylor & Kent, 2014; Taylor et al., 2003; Willis, 2015). The following section reviews this body of work, interrogates the literature, and raises pertinent points for consideration from the perspectives of publics and organizations. It then proposes a theory-based model and definition of engagement in public relations. Although digital engagement comprises the bulk of research on engagement within the field of public relations, the literature review will start with the work on the concept of public/stakeholder engagement, as that offers some theoretical directions to compare and contrast with literature from the other two clusters. 2.1. Public/Stakeholder engagement The Encyclopedia of Public Relations’ entry titled “Engagement (Stakeholders)” states: “Public relations is founded on the principle that engagement requires an understanding of and dialogue with stakeholders.” The entry underscores the importance of understanding of and dialogue with stakeholders in maintaining and strengthening relationships between organizations and their publics (Tench, 2013). Indeed, in most of the literature that attempts to conceptualize public/stakeholder engagement, the notion of engagement has been used most often in conjunction with concepts such as consultation, listening, involvement, openness, and, most importantly, dialogue. These enablers have been further theorized to lead to communicative and relational outcomes, such as cooperation, meaning making, mutual understanding, adjustment, and adaptation between organizations and their publics (Bowen et al., 2010; Comor & Bean, 2012; Gregory, 2004; Kim & Kim, 2015; O’Byrne & Daymon, 2014; Taylor & Kent, 2014; Taylor et al., 2003). In one of the few studies to theorize the meaning of public/stakeholder engagement, Taylor and Kent (2014), after reviewing the literature on engagement in public relations and highlighting the lax definitions of the concept, situated the notion of engagement within dialogue. They conceptualized engagement as an approach and an orientation to ethical communication that could generate mutual understanding between organizations and their publics. To the authors, “engagement is part of dialogue and through engagement, organizations and publics can make decisions that create social capital” (p. 384). Specifically, Taylor and Kent (2014) situated engagement within dialogue’s dimension of propinquity, which refers to an organization’s openness to interacting with publics and to the idea that publics ought to be consulted in a timely and relevant manner. Kim and Kim (2015) examined public relations strategy formulation for public engagement. They found that practitioners employed buffering strategies to enact engagement as one-way dissemination of messages, while some others employed bridging strategies that considered engagement a sense-making effort for building and maintaining relationships using dialogue. Similarly, Comor and Bean (2012), while explaining the communicative mechanisms of American public diplomacy, equated engagement with the process of interaction and dialogue. Critiquing the apparent use of dialogic forms of engagement in U.S. public diplomacy, Comor and Bean (2012) argued that engagement with foreign publics more closely resembles persuasive communication aimed at persuading foreign publics to empathize with American policies, rather than being open-ended conversations aimed at giving voice to multiple viewpoints. Similar to these studies, most scholars who have contributed to conceptualizing definitions of public/stakeholder engagement have emphasized processes of consultation, dialogue, involvement, and open and ethical communication between interacting organizations and their publics (Gregory, 2004; O’Byrne & Daymon, 2014; Taylor et al., 2003), thus equating engagement with communicative interactions between organizations and their publics. One definition of public engagement is an exception, as it treats the concept as being beyond communicative dimensions. Kang (2014) defines public engagement as “a psychologically motivated affective state that brings voluntary extra-role behaviors, and is characterized by affective commitment, positive affectivity and empowerment that an individual public experiences in interactions with an organization over time” (p. 402). This definition adds an affective component to the communicative dimension of engagement that is foregrounded in the definitions reviewed so far. Scholars have also connected engagement with organization-public relationship management, issues management, and ethical communication. Engagement is enacted through dialogue before and after a relationship is established and issues are resolved (Taylor et al., 2003; Wilson, 1996). A thorough and careful analysis of the above body of work reveals two key aspects. First, by associating engagement with dialogue (Taylor & Kent, 2014; Tench, 2013) and by defining engagement in terms of consultation, interaction, and dissemination of messages (Comor & Bean, 2012; Kim & Kim, 2015), engagement is clearly equated with communicative interaction between organizations and their publics. Second, by situating engagement within dialogue (Taylor & Kent, 2014), the idea of engagement is clearly placed within the rhetorical, collaborative modes of communication (dialogue, two-way/multi-way symmetrical models of communication), as 2
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G.S. Dhanesh
opposed to the typically unidirectional, controlling modes of communication (propaganda, public information model, dissemination of messages, asymmetrical models of communication). Situating engagement within dialogue thus leads to a dichotomy between the conceptualization of engagement as collaboration and engagement as control (Sloan, 2009). Further, the notion of engagement as collaboration, based on principles of dialogue, openness, and listening, is often promoted as the preferred ethical mode of communication over the notion of engagement as control, enacted through one-way dissemination of messages (Cho & De Moya, 2016). However, another strand of scholarship has critiqued the promotion of the rhetorical, collaborative modes of communication based on openness and dialogue over the controlling modes of communication based on information dissemination and asymmetrical forms of communication. These scholars have interrogated the role of power, encompassing concepts such as dark dialogue, passive aggression, and unequal access to resources during interactions between organizations and their publics (Willis, 2015; Comor & Bean, 2012; McKie & Munshi, 2007; Stoker & Tusinski, 2006). Interrogating the normative superiority of the rhetorical mode of communication based on dialogue, McKie and Munshi (2007) argued that the two-way symmetrical form of communication is normative at best and, at worst, “misleading in its promise of equality of exchange amid realities of uneven power” (p. 36). Even an ethically informed mode of engagement cannot avoid power asymmetries in the relationships between organizations and their publics (Comor & Bean, 2012). Dialogue requires equality among interactants and the equitable sharing of information resources. However, even organizations most committed to the concept of dialogue might be unable in practice to create conditions of equality while communicating with key publics (Stoker & Tusinski, 2006). Further, Pieczka (1997) argued that the two-way symmetrical model is rather utopian and unrealistic for organizations because they have to relinquish organizational goals and objectives imperative for survival. Finally, Cancel, Mitrook, and Cameron (1999) questioned how organizations would deal with morally repugnant publics, especially when an organization’s standpoint is based on moral grounds. Grunig (2001) countered criticisms of the two-way symmetrical model by contending that the mixed-motive model, which balances the interests of the organization and its publics, more accurately describes the original conceptualization of the two-way symmetrical model. He drew upon the concepts of collaborative advocacy and cooperative antagonism to argue that the act of balancing the interests of the organization and its publics can oscillate between advocacy and collaboration. Other scholars have also suggested multiple frameworks to handle power asymmetries in relationships between organizations and their publics. McKie (2010) has argued that asymmetries manifested as inequalities are a key characteristic of the turbulent age of asymmetry and paradox, and he calls for a justice-based approach to handling asymmetry. Willis (2015) proposed critical social auditing, which promotes values-driven behavior rather than focusing on reporting and administrative compliance. Holtzhausen (2012) suggested the adoption of postmodernist activist roles by boundary-spanning practitioners. In recent work that critiques the normative, equality-based dialogic approach to engagement, Davidson (2016) proposed the notion of agonism that celebrates conflict as a democratic good. However, Davidson also draws limitations around the type of organizations that can engage in agonistic communicative interactions between organizations and publics. An agonistic approach is highly suited for counter-hegemonic organizations/movements, for organizations that have a mandate to mobilize and empower socially disenfranchised groups, and for practitioners responsible for organizing public consultations in organizations that value a progressive ethos. However, this approach might not work well for organizations with a history of adopting a hegemonic approach towards interactions between organizations and publics. Accordingly, organizations must choose the mode of engagement that best suits their needs and the needs of their publics. To sum, most theoretical conceptualizations of engagement that straddle the rhetorical and relational approaches to public relations have equated engagement with communicative interaction between organizations and their publics. Further, engagement has been treated dichotomously, anchored by notions of engagement as collaboration and engagement as control. The notion of engagement as collaboration has been foregrounded as the preferred ethical mode of communication between organizations and their publics. However, an opposing strand of scholarship has interrogated this reification of engagement, arguing that dialogue is fundamentally based on the notion of equality between interactants, and true equality is a near improbability in praxis. Now, we will turn to discuss the literature on employee engagement. 2.2. Employee engagement A review of literature on employee engagement within the field of public relations revealed three key points. First, studies on employee engagement seem to have a firmer theoretical base, drawing from theories in psychology and organizational behavior to conceptualize engagement with three dimensions: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. (Karanges et al., 2015; Men, 2012; Welch, 2011). Welch (2011) suggested a definition of organization engagement as “a dynamic, changeable psychological state, which links employees to their organizations, manifest in organization member role performances expressed physically, cognitively and emotionally, and influenced by organization-level internal communication” (p. 337). The idea of employee engagement visualizes an employee who is cognitively, affectively, and behaviorally “present,” absorbed, and dedicated while performing an organizational role. Second, most of the work on employee engagement tends to be instrumental (Taylor & Kent, 2014), with studies examining the beneficial organizational consequences of employee engagement, such as increased productivity, decreased attrition, increased internal reputation, and enhanced corporate social responsibility (Mittins, Abratt, & Christie, 2011; Schaufeli, Salanova, GonzálezRomá, & Bakker, 2002). Finally, sometimes engagement is conflated with related concepts such as employee satisfaction and commitment (Gill, 2015). The next section will review the largest body of literature on engagement within public relations: digital engagement. 3
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G.S. Dhanesh
2.3. Digital engagement Keeping pace with the explosive growth of social media as a tool for communication among publics and between organizations and their publics, research on digital engagement has been spanning areas such as civic engagement, use by non-profits, and engagement during crises. However, across these areas too, the same two themes that were identified in the literature on theoretical conceptualizations of engagement emerged: (1) the conceptualization of social media engagement as communicative interaction and, (2) the dichotomous notions of engagement as control based on transactional modes of communication (public information, two-way asymmetry, dissemination of organizational messages) and engagement as collaboration online based on participatory modes of communication (dialogue, co-creation of content). First, most of the work on social-media engagement has conceptualized engagement as communicative interaction, manifested as clicks, likes, views, shares, comments, tweets, recommendations, and other user-generated content (Jiang et al., 2016; Men & Tsai, 2013; 2014; Agostino, 2013). Men and Tsai (2013) conceptualized public engagement on social media as a behavioral construct with hierarchical activity levels. These levels range from passive message consumption to active two-way conversation, participation, and online recommendation. Similarly, Agostino (2013) equated engagement with the level of communicative interaction between citizens and the public administration, and he suggested measuring engagement with the number of actions by citizens, such as the number of “tweets” on a social media page and the number of comments on YouTube. An exception to limiting engagement to communicative interaction is Yang and Kang (2009), who created a scale for blog engagement based on cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral dimensions. Also stepping away from a communicative interaction-based definition of engagement, Bowen (2013) wrote from the perspective of organizations: “Digital engagement can be defined as an organization creating active and interested relationships with publics using Internet channels, such as product endorsements by prominent bloggers” (p. 119). Similarly, Calder et al. (2009) defined engagement as the experiences that people have in a media platform; specifically, “a collection of experiences” that relate to “a consumer’s beliefs about how a site fits into his/her life” (p. 322). Despite these attempts at unshackling the definition of online engagement from its limited conceptualization as communicative interaction, the dominant understanding of social-media engagement appears to be equated with communicative interaction online, measured by likes, tweets, and such. The second theme that emerged from the review of literature on the behaviors of organizations and publics online was the dichotomous notions of engagement as control and engagement as collaboration. Engagement as control is based on traditional, unidirectional modes of communication, and engagement as collaboration is based on multi-directional, participatory modes of communication. Most of this research on social-media engagement has been organization-centric (Agostino, 2013; Lovari & Parisi, 2015; Ott & Theunissen, 2015), with a handful of studies that center on publics (Avidar et al., 2015; De Moya & Jain, 2013; Lovari & Parisi, 2015; Paek, Hove, Jung & Cole, 2013). Arguing from the perspective of organizations, Agostino built on Rowe and Frewer’s (2000) idea that public engagement is implemented at two levels, public communication and public participation. Agostino (2013) argued that while online public communication aims at offering a unidirectional flow of information from organizations to their stakeholders (engagement as control), public participation aims at instituting a dialogue with stakeholders based on a two-way information flow (engagement as collaboration). However, scholars have found that although engagement through dialogue and two-way symmetrical communication is highly recommended, in reality, organizations engage mostly in one-way broadcasting strategies inherent in the public information model or the two-way asymmetrical communication model. Thus, most organizations do not adequately capitalize on the two-way dialogic potential promised by social media. Organizations have continued to employ social media in more-or-less the same way they have used traditional media, for disseminating organizational messages and broadcasting general information about the organization. They are not utilizing the potential of social media to keep the conversations going and to build and maintain relationships with key publics (Cho et al., 2014; Lovari & Parisi, 2015; Lovejoy et al., 2012; McAllister, 2012; Men & Tsai, 2013; Ott & Theunissen, 2015). Porter et al. (2015) reason that the reluctance to engage in open, dialogic and participatory forms of communication could be due to practitioners’ and executives’ fears of social media risks, such as lack of control over organizational messages, intellectual property leaks, and external attacks on the organization. However, reluctance to enter conversations with publics has its consequences. Wigley and Lewis (2012) found that less-engaged companies received more mentions on Twitter. They argued that organizations’ relative silence online provides a vacuum that gets filled with information from audiences. From the perspective of publics, studies have found that online users adopt varying communication behaviors depending on their interests and motives in specific issues. Based on these communication behaviors, online users range from passive readers or message consumers to active, participatory publics who create content, share and forward information, and even mobilize online and offline communities into action (Lovari & Parisi, 2015; Linders, 2012; Men & Tsai, 2013, 2014). Research has shown that along this passiveactive continuum, passive online-content consumption is much higher than active-content creation (Men & Tsai, 2013, 2014). The same passivity can be observed when it comes to engaging with organizations over social media. Avidar et al. (2015) found that while most people access social media for information and for interacting with friends and families, they are unwilling to engage with organizations, specifically over smartphones. The authors also found that publics were more willing to interact with businesses and nonprofit associations only if motivated by personal benefits, such as connection with nearby communities, organizations, and events. Avidar et al. (2015) found that users perceive social-media engagement as more beneficial to organizations than to themselves. However, they were willing to engage with organizations if organizations adopted two-way communication strategies aimed at initiating conversations with them. Publics are savvy enough to distinguish between organizations’ trying to build a relationship with 4
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G.S. Dhanesh
them and organizations’ taking advantage of the opportunities to disseminate messages on Facebook (Avidar et al., 2015). Publics are willing to respond to open, dialogic, and two-way symmetrical communication strategies over social media, but they do not respond to public information or two-way asymmetrical communication because they do not want to offer organizations easy access to their online lives (Cho et al., 2014). To summarize, these findings and the insights they provide imply that most online users are passive (Men & Tsai, 2013, 2014) and that those who engage with organizations over social media do so only if they are driven by their interests in specific issues and/or if they perceive personal benefits of connecting with communities and organizations (Avidar et al., 2015). Indeed, extending the importance of salience to groups of individuals, Davidson (2016) wrote, “…it is the passionate attachment to collective identifications that motivates participation” (p. 153). Accordingly, this paper argues that salience is a driving factor for stakeholder engagement. However, following the 80/20 rule, or the Pareto Principle, which states that roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes, fewer active publics can have a greater impact on organizations than a larger group of passive publics. For instance, Wigley and Lewis (2012) found that active users of Twitter are three times more likely to impact a company’s reputation via social media than the average consumer. Further, Freberg et al. (2011) found that real engagement stems from the generation of social capital by social-media influencers. Due to the increased activism of minority vocal publics, organizations might tend to interact more online with opinion leaders, influencers, and active, connected publics. Indeed, Lovari and Parisi (2015) investigated citizens’ voices and patterns of engagement within Italian municipalities’ Facebook-like web page. They found that social media have changed Italian public communication by enhancing organizational transparency as well as relational and communicative practices with connected citizens. These insights have important implications for theorizing engagement within a public relations framework. 3. Points for consideration The above review of the literature on the concept of engagement within public relations has highlighted three pertinent points: (1) Engagement has been equated with communicative interaction between organizations and their publics in both theoretical conceptualizations of engagement and scholarship on digital engagement; with the exception of literature from the field of employee engagement, which argues for including affective and cognitive dimensions of engagement, at least from the perspective of employees (2) Engagement has been treated dichotomously, ranging on a continuum from the notion of engagement as control to engagement as collaboration; with conceptualizations of collaborative engagement reified over controlling (3) The notion of engagement based on collaboration, participation, and co-creation has been critiqued due to inherent asymmetries of power and equality among interacting entities. The review has also highlighted two additional points from the perspective of publics and organizations, which follow. 3.1. From the perspective of publics: passivity and the issue of salience The review of literature has revealed publics’ reluctance to be active as contributors, co-creators, and information sharers on social media (Avidar et al., 2015; Men & Tsai, 2013, 2014) as well as the related aspects of interest, salience, and motivation (Davidson, 2016). Further, as theorized within the area of employee engagement, engagement is multidimensional with cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions (Welch, 2011). It draws the whole person, including his/her thoughts, feelings, and/or action, into a meaningful interaction with the organization. Social media constitute only the latest means of carrying out engagement (Comor & Bean, 2012). In other words, if publics are interested in a topic affectively and cognitively, then both offline and online means of communicating with an organization can help them manifest engagement through communicative behavior. On the other hand, if publics are not engaged cognitively and affectively, then they are not going to communicate with the relevant organization, however much the organization may provide two-way dialogic communication platforms. So, if digital publics, or publics in general, respond to specific issues according to their interests and motivations, and if most digital publics are only readers and not active contributors, co-creators, information sharers, and advocates, then what does that indicate? Does it imply that most stakeholders are not interested in and not motivated to act on most issues? Does that point to public disengagement? Or it does it merely imply a lack of communicative engagement? According to the situational theory of publics, when an individual is faced with an issue that is salient to the individual, then that individual will seek information related to the issue. However, not all these information seekers will choose to communicate with the organization about the issue. Instead, on receiving information, perhaps from another source, the individual might decide to change a related opinion, attitude, or behavior, which could materially affect the organization concerned. That is, this individual is affectively, cognitively, and even behaviorally engaged with an issue that is highly salient to the individual, but is not communicatively interacting with organizations who could be impacted by the individual’s actions. Principles of strategic communication inform us that although affected individuals are not directly communicating with the organization, the individuals could seek information from direct or mediated sources as well as active, connected influencers, and thus could be persuaded in multiple directions concerning an issue, a company, or an organization. So, with whom do organizations engage? With the silent majority who might be cognitively and affectively engaged with the topic but not communicatively engaged with the organization? Or with the vocal minority of communicatively engaged individuals and publics? By defining engagement as communicative interaction, organizations run the risk of rendering invisible the majority of emotionally and cognitively engaged but communicatively not-yet-engaged publics. Hence, it might be productive for scholars defining engagement to consider multiple dimensions of engagement, including 5
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G.S. Dhanesh
cognitive, affective, and behavioral, and to re-examine the notion of disengagement. What manifests as public disengagement could merely be communicative disengagement. 3.2. From the perspective of organizations: hesitancy and the issue of control The review of literature has highlighted organizations’ reluctance to open up and engage in symmetrical, dialogic communication with their publics (Cho et al., 2014; Lovari & Parisi, 2015; Lovejoy et al., 2012; McAllister, 2012; Men & Tsai, 2013), motivated mostly by their need to maintain control of strategic communication (Porter et al., 2015), especially during crises (Ott & Theunissen, 2015). Discussing engagement between organizations and publics during crises, Ott and Theunissen (2015) argued that the enactment of genuine dialogue during a crisis is difficult. Although genuine dialogue is not easily achieved during a social-media crisis, the authors posit, organizations should nevertheless provide spaces for discussion and conversation. These spaces are fraught, however, with finely nuanced aspects of the control-collaboration engagement dialectic. When offering spaces for conversation, organizations relinquish some control over their traditional crisis communication, which typically is highly controlled and consistent. However, relinquishing control can help organizations as it provides space for loyal fans and supporters to defend the organization in more genuinely authentic ways than official corporate statements can. On the other hand, organizations can also retain some control over the conversation by removing offensive and abusive content. Further, Ott and Theunissen argue that dialogue is most effective when entered into with stakeholders who are affected by the crisis. Indeed, attempting to engage a wide range of diffused stakeholders is likely to fuel anger (Ott & Theunissen, 2015). Organizations need to maintain control of strategic organizational communication in order to mitigate social-media risks, such as external attacks on the organization (Porter et al., 2015), especially during crises (Ott & Theunissen, 2015). Scholars must also consider the challenges to open, dialogic communication inherent in the imbalance of power between organizations and their publics (Comor & Bean, 2012; McKie, 2010; Willis, 2015) as well as the value in uni-directional, non-reciprocal forms of communication (Stoker & Tusinski, 2006). Considering those aspects, it is important to acknowledge the situational relevance and importance of all models of engagement, ranging from one-way, transactional forms of engagement as control to two-way or multi-way forms of engagement as collaboration. One-way forms of engagement are probably most suited for passive publics, while two- or multi-way forms of engagement are most suited for active publics, who seek collaboration. Having reviewed the literature on engagement in the field of public relations and having considered key points of this literature from the perspective of publics and organizations, this study will now offer a model and definition of engagement that addresses the pertinent points raised in this paper. 4. A Proposed model & definition of engagement Based on a critique of the extant literature and drawing from strategic issues management, the situational theory of publics, and the concepts of dialogue and ethical communication, this study proposes the following model of engagement (Fig. 1) and a definition. The basic building block of the model is salience. Topics of mutual interest and salience connect publics and organizations. However, even before the first instance of communication from members of the interested public, they are affectively and cognitively engaged with the issue. These dimensions of engagement trigger a search for information that could potentially range from relatively passive forms of information-seeking, which can be measured online and offline through behaviors such as clicks, views, and brochures picked up, to more active forms of information-seeking online and offline, such as commenting, sharing, recommending,
Fig. 1. The model of engagement between organizations and publics.
6
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G.S. Dhanesh
Fig. 2. The antecedent, states, and consequences of engagement.
advocating, joining a protest rally, attending events, and garnering support both for and against organizational action. Following the tenets of the situational theory of publics, organizations can vary their models of communication depending on affected publics’ place on a continuum of communicative behavior. While public information models, one-way dissemination of information, and broadcast strategies of communication could be useful for relatively passive seekers and consumers of information, organizations could employ more dialogic, conversational, participatory, and collaborative forms of communication aimed at active seekers and proactive consumers of information. The range of communicative strategies available to organizations, as represented in the pyramid, corresponds to similar categories found in the literature. For instance, Bowen et al. (2010) labeled the continuum of strategies ranging from one-way dissemination to multi-way conversations as transactional, transitional, and transformative, in the context of community engagement. Similarly, Morsing and Schultz (2006) labeled the strategies as informing, responding, and involving, while Johnston (2014) called them information, consultation, and participation. Whatever labels they go by, organizational communication strategies fall along the continuum between notions of engagement as control and engagement as collaboration. Thus, organizations need to employ strategies from all along this continuum depending on the communicative behavior of target publics. Indeed, building on Peters’ (1999) argument that dialogue is a lofty goal for communication that “may blind us to the more subtle splendors of dissemination or suspended dialogue” (p. 62), Stoker and Tusinski (2006) contended that there is value in nonreciprocal forms of communication. Thus, all models of communication coexist and are required depending on the situation faced by the organization and its publics. In the proposed model (Fig. 2), the main antecedent is the salience of the issue to publics and organizations. From the perspective of publics, being engaged encompasses cognitive (problem recognition, constraint recognition), affective (emotional connection to the issue), and behavioral (material or communicative manifestation of thought and emotion, offline or online) dimensions. Engagement refers to the whole self-thought, feeling, and action — entering into an interaction between affected partners, which leads to consequences such as meeting the respective goals of interactants, mutual adjustment, and adaptation. Following upon the proposed model, this paper suggests a definition for engagement: Engagement is an affective, cognitive, and behavioral state wherein publics and organizations who share mutual interests in salient topics interact along continua that range from passive to active and from control to collaboration, and is aimed at goal attainment, adjustment, and adaptation for both publics and organizations. 5. Implications This paper has important theoretical, practical, and social implications. Theoretically, it helps to clarify the conceptualization of engagement as a multidimensional concept, considering relevant aspects from the perspective of publics and organizations. The paper highlights the importance of salience that connects organizations with their publics, and it pushes the definitional boundaries of engagement to include affective and cognitive elements. It also questions the reification of the notion of engagement as collaboration over that of control, and it argues for a definition and model that acknowledge the need for both collaborative and controlling modes of engagement depending on the nature of the publics. Being a concept that has its origins in practice, a clearer theoretical understanding of engagement can help practitioners address matters of engagement more effectively. Expanding the definition of engagement beyond communicative interaction and arguing for situational use of communication models enable practitioners to employ insights from psychology and behavioral sciences to manage their palette of engagement strategies. As for social implications, 7
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G.S. Dhanesh
enabling publics and organizations to understand engagement in a holistic manner can bring benefits to both publics and organizations. Such understanding can help them interact, fully aware of situational communicative behavior, thus enabling mutual goal attainment. 6. Future research The review of literature has revealed multiple opportunities and directions for future research from the perspective of publics and organizations. There is a need for public-centric research on engagement that needs to be met. Scholars can examine the notions of non-engagement and disengagement from the perspective of publics. Research can also examine motivations for engagement, nonengagement, and disengagement. As for organization-centric research, studies can examine organizations’ motivations for adopting traditional models of persuasion and avoiding genuine, translucent interactions with publics. Although scholars critique the duplicity and inherent hegemony of dialogic models of communication and, by extension, engagement, there is scant work on how to address asymmetries in organization-public interactions. Research could focus on models of communication that address multiple asymmetries. Studies could also examine the rise of content creation for meaningful, authentic stakeholder engagement. And finally, studies that examine characteristics of the boundary-spanning social-media public relations practitioner would serve to strengthen organization-centric research. 7. Conclusion After reviewing the literature on engagement within public relations, this paper critiqued two main ideas. First, the paper critiqued the limiting conceptualization of engagement as communicative interaction and redefined engagement to include affective and cognitive dimensions by highlighting the importance of issue salience and communicative non-engagement. The paper also proposed a model for engagement with antecedents, states, and consequences and an expanded definition of engagement, from communicative interaction to include cognitive and affective components. This expanded definition mitigates the risk of ignoring the majority of publics who might be communicatively non-engaged but affectively, cognitively, and even behaviorally engaged, with real implications for organizations. Second, this paper critiqued the foregrounding of the notion of engagement based on dialogue over the notion of engagement as control. Instead, this paper supported extant scholarship that argues for the coexistence of all models of engagement, ranging from the one-way and asymmetrical strategies of engagement as control to the open, dialogic strategies of engagement as collaboration. Each of these engagement models, ranging from control to collaboration, corresponds to the communicative behavior of publics, ranging from communicatively passive to active. Focusing on engagement solely as communicative interaction threatens to ignore the majority of publics, who are communicatively passive. To conclude, this paper has examined the extant body of work on the concept of engagement within public relations, critiqued the literature, and highlighted points for consideration from the perspective of publics and organizations. It has also built on existing scholarship and its critique to propose a more comprehensive model and definition for the concept of engagement within the field of public relations. References Agostino, D. (2013). Using social media to engage citizens: A study of Italian municipalities. Public Relations Review, 39, 232–234. Avidar, R., Ariel, Y., Malka, V., & Levy, E. C. (2015). Smartphones, publics and OPR: Do publics want to engage? Public Relations Review, 41, 214–221. Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010). When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 297–318. Bowen, S. A. (2013). Using classic social media cases to distill ethical guidelines for digital engagement. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 28(2), 119–133. Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 321–331. Cancel, A. E., Mitrook, M. A., & Cameron, G. T. (1999). Testing the contingency theory of accommodation in public relations. Public Relations Review, 25, 171–197. Cho, M., & De Moya, M. (2016). Empowerment as a key construct for understanding corporate community engagement. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(4), 272–288. Cho, M., Schweickart, T., & Haase, A. (2014). Public engagement with nonprofit organizations on Facebook. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 565–567. Comor, E., & Bean, H. (2012). America’s ‘engagement’ delusion: Critiquing a public diplomacy consensus. International Communication Gazette, 74(3), 203–220. Davidson, S. (2016). Public relations theory: An agonistic critique of the turns to dialogue and symmetry. Public Relations Inquiry, 5, 145–167. De Moya, M., & Jain, R. (2013). When tourists are your friends: Exploring the brand personality of Mexico and Brazil on Facebook. Public Relations Review, 39(1), 23–29. DiStatso, M. W. (2012). Measuring public relations Wikipedia engagement: How bright is the rule? Public Relations Journal, 6(2), 1–24. Edelman, R. (2008). Is public engagement the future of public relations? Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/is-public-engagement-the-future-of-publicrelations/. Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K., & Freberg, L. (2011). Who are the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 90–92. Gill, R. (2015). Why the PR strategy of storytelling improves employee engagement and adds value to CSR: An integrated literature review. Public Relations Review, 41, 662–674. Gregory, A. (2004). The ethics of engagement in the UK public sector: A case in point. Journal of Communication Management, 8(1), 83–94. Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present, and future. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 11–30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Holtzhausen, D. R. (2012). Public relations as activism: Postmodern approaches to theory and practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Housholder, E., & LaMarre, H. L. (2015). Political social media engagement: Comparing campaign goals with voter behavior. Public Relations Review, 41, 138–140. Jiang, H., Luo, Y., & Kulemeka, O. (2016). Social media engagement as an evaluation barometer: Insights from communication executives. Public Relations Review,
8
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G.S. Dhanesh
42(4), 679–691. Johnston, K. A. (2014). Public relations and engagement: Theoretical imperatives of a multidimensional concept. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 381–383. Kang, M. (2014). Understanding public engagement: Conceptualizing and measuring its influence on supportive behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 399–416. Karanges, E., Johnston, K., Beatson, A., & Lings, I. (2015). The influence of internal communication on employee engagement: A pilot study. Public Relations Review, 41(129), 131. Kim, S., & Kim, J.-N. (2015). Bridge or buffer: Two ideas of effective corporate governance and public engagement. Journal of Public Affairs: An International Journal, 16(2), 118–127. Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defying a typology for citizens coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454. Lovari, A., & Parisi, L. (2015). Listening to digital publics: Investigating citizens’ voices and engagement within Italian municipalities’ Facebook Pages. Public Relations Review, 41, 205–213. Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Reviw, 38, 313–318. Luoma-aho, V. (2015). Understanding Stakeholder Engagement: Faith-holders, Hateholders & Fakeholders. RJ-IPR: Research Journal of the Insitute for Public Relations, 2(1), Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/understanding-stakeholder-engagement-faith-holders-hateholders-fakeholders/. McAllister, S. M. (2012). How the world’s top universities provide dialogic forums for marginalized voices. Public Relations Review, 38, 319–327. McKie, D., & Munshi, D. (2007). Reconfiguring public relations: Ecology, equity and enterprise. London: Routledge. McKie, D. (2010). Signs of the times: Economics sciences, futures and public relations. In R. Heath (Ed.), SAGE handbook of public relations (pp. 85–97). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Men, L. R., & Tsai, W.-H. S. (2013). Beyond liking or following: Understanding public engagement on social networking sites in China. Public Relations Review, 39, 13–22. Men, L. R., & Tsai, W.-H. (2014). Perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes of organization-public engagement on corporate social networking sites. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 417–435. Men, L. R., & Tsai, W.-H. S. (2015). Infusing social media with humanity: Corporate character, public engagement, and relational outcomes. Public Relations Review, 41(3), 395–403. Men, L. R. (2012). CEO credibility, perceived organizational reputation, and employee engagement. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 171–173. Mittins, M., Abratt, R., & Christie, P. (2011). Storytelling in reputation management: The case of Nashua Mobile South Africa. Management Decision, 49(3), 405–421. Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15, 323–338. O’Byrne, S., & Daymon, C. (2014). Irresponsible engagement and the citizen investor. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 455–473. Ott, L., & Theunissen, P. (2015). Reputations at risk: Engagement during social media crises. Public Relations Review, 41, 97–102. Paek, H.-J., Hove, T., Jung, Y., & Cole, R. T. (2013). Engagement across three social media platforms: An exploratory study of a cause-related PR campaign. Public Relations Review, 39, 526–533. Peters, J. D. (1999). Speaking into the air: A history of the idea of communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pieczka, M. (1997). Understanding in public relations. Australian Journal of Communication, 24(2), 65–79. Porter, M. C., Anderson, B., & Nhotsavang, M. (2015). Anti-social media: Executive Twitter engagement and attitudes about media credibility. Journal of Communication Management, 19(3), 270–287. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25, 3–29. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. Sloan, P. (2009). Redefining stakeholder engagement: From control to collaboration. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 36, 25–40. Stoker, K. L., & Tusinski, K. A. (2006). Reconsidering public relations' infatuation with dialogue: Why engagement and reconciliation can be more ethical than symmetry and reciprocity. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 21(2–3), 156–176. Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384–398. Taylor, M., Vasquez, G. M., & Doorley, J. (2003). Merck and AIDS activists: Engagement as a framework for extending issues management. Public Relations Review, 29, 257–270. Tench, R. (2013). Engagement (Stakeholders). In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc. Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations areusing Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35, 102–106. Welch, M. (2011). The evolution of the employee engagement concept: Communication implications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(4), 328–346. Wigley, S., & Lewis, B. K. (2012). Rules of engagement: Practice what you tweet. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 165–167. Willis, P. (2015). Public relations, passive aggression and critical social auditing: Reflections on organisational inaction in stakeholder engagement. Journal of Public Affairs, 15(2), 220–226. Wilson, L. J. (1996). Strategic cooperative communities: A synthesis of strategic, issues management, and relationship building approaches in public relations. In H. M. Culbertson, & N. Chen (Eds.), International Public Relations: A Comparative Analysis (pp. 67–80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Yang, S.-U., & Kang, M. (2009). Measuring blog engagement: Testing a four-dimensional scale. Public Relations Review, 35, 323–324.
9
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Public Relations Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pubrev
Full Length Article
Putting Engagement in its PRoper place: State of the field, definition and model of Engagement in Public Relations Ganga S. Dhanesh College of Communication and Media Sciences, Zayed University, P.O. Box 19282, Dubai, United Arab Emirates
AR TI CLE I NF O
AB S T R A CT
Keywords: Engagement Dialogue Public relations Communication management
Although engagement has been a catchword in public relations practice and theory for over a decade, the term has been applied rather loosely to imply any form of communicative interaction between publics and organizations. Despite lack of clarity on the concept of engagement, research has been thriving, propelled by the increasing prevalence of social media and organizations’ consequent rush to digitally engage publics. This paper assesses the use of engagement in the field of public relations and critiques the equation of engagement with communicative interaction, with its foregrounding engagement as collaboration over that of engagement as control. It also builds upon theoretical conceptualizations of public/stakeholder engagement, employee engagement, and digital engagement to propose a practice-relevant and theoretically informed model and definition of engagement: Engagement is an affective, cognitive, and behavioral state wherein publics and organizations who share mutual interests in salient topics interact along continua that range from passive to active and from control to collaboration, and is aimed at goal attainment, adjustment, and adaptation for both publics and organizations.
1. Introduction Engagement has been a buzzword in public relations practice and theory for over a decade, its importance further fueled by Edelman’s (2008) vision of public engagement as the future of public relations. Although the concept has its origins in practice, it has garnered scholarly attention with a special issue in the Journal of Public Relations Research in 2014, a call for papers from the 23rd International Public Relations Research Symposium, BledCom 2016, and a related special issue in Public Relations Review. Research on engagement in public relations has mushroomed, especially in the area of digital engagement (Avidar, Ariel, Malka, & Levy, 2015; Lovari & Parisi, 2015; Men & Tsai, 2014, 2015). However, there are few studies on employee engagement (Gill, 2015; Welch, 2011) and even fewer on theoretical conceptualizations of public/stakeholder engagement (Taylor & Kent, 2014; Taylor, Vasquez & Doorley, 2003). There also has been little theoretical explication of the concept of engagement within public relations, except for rare attempts such as those by Taylor and Kent (2014), who situated engagement within the concept of ethical communication and dialogue, specifically within dialogue’s dimension of propinquity. Despite a lack of clarity on the concept, research on engagement has been booming, driven by the rising popularity of social media and organizations’ scramble to digitally engage organizational publics. The field of public relations lacks a practice-relevant, theoretically informed model and definition of engagement that can inform practice and chart future directions of research. Accordingly, this paper reviews the literature on the concept of engagement within the field of public relations, identifies key points for consideration, proposes a model and definition for engagement, and suggests directions for future research.
E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.001 Received 20 September 2016; Received in revised form 27 March 2017; Accepted 2 April 2017 0363-8111/ © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Dhanesh, G.S., Public Relations Review (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2017.04.001
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G.S. Dhanesh
2. Literature review Most of the seminal scholarly work on engagement has taken place in the fields of applied psychology, organizational behavior and human resource management (on employee/work engagement and burnout), education (on student engagement), political science (on political/civic engagement), and marketing/advertising (on customer engagement). A thorough review of the literature on engagement within public relations and communication management revealed three main clusters of work: (1) Digital engagement (Avidar et al., 2015; Bowen, 2013; DiStatso, 2012; Jiang, Luo & Kulemeka, 2016; Men & Tsai, 2013, 2014, 2015; Wigley & Lewis, 2012; Yang & Kang, 2009), including civic engagement (Agostino, 2013; Comor & Bean, 2012; Housholder & LaMarre, 2015; Lovari & Parisi, 2015), engagement by non-profit organizations (Cho, Schweickart, & Haase, 2014; Lovejoy, Waters, & Saxton, 2012; Porter, Anderson, & Nhotsavang, 2015; Waters, Burnett, Lamm, & Lucas, 2009), and engagement during crises (Ott & Theunissen, 2015); (2) Employee engagement (Gill, 2015; Karanges, Johnston, Beatson & Lings, 2015; Men, 2012; Welch, 2011); and (3) Public/Stakeholder engagement (Gregory, 2004; Kang, 2014; Johnston, 2014; Kim & Kim, 2015; Luoma-aho, 2015; Taylor & Kent, 2014; Taylor et al., 2003; Willis, 2015). The following section reviews this body of work, interrogates the literature, and raises pertinent points for consideration from the perspectives of publics and organizations. It then proposes a theory-based model and definition of engagement in public relations. Although digital engagement comprises the bulk of research on engagement within the field of public relations, the literature review will start with the work on the concept of public/stakeholder engagement, as that offers some theoretical directions to compare and contrast with literature from the other two clusters. 2.1. Public/Stakeholder engagement The Encyclopedia of Public Relations’ entry titled “Engagement (Stakeholders)” states: “Public relations is founded on the principle that engagement requires an understanding of and dialogue with stakeholders.” The entry underscores the importance of understanding of and dialogue with stakeholders in maintaining and strengthening relationships between organizations and their publics (Tench, 2013). Indeed, in most of the literature that attempts to conceptualize public/stakeholder engagement, the notion of engagement has been used most often in conjunction with concepts such as consultation, listening, involvement, openness, and, most importantly, dialogue. These enablers have been further theorized to lead to communicative and relational outcomes, such as cooperation, meaning making, mutual understanding, adjustment, and adaptation between organizations and their publics (Bowen et al., 2010; Comor & Bean, 2012; Gregory, 2004; Kim & Kim, 2015; O’Byrne & Daymon, 2014; Taylor & Kent, 2014; Taylor et al., 2003). In one of the few studies to theorize the meaning of public/stakeholder engagement, Taylor and Kent (2014), after reviewing the literature on engagement in public relations and highlighting the lax definitions of the concept, situated the notion of engagement within dialogue. They conceptualized engagement as an approach and an orientation to ethical communication that could generate mutual understanding between organizations and their publics. To the authors, “engagement is part of dialogue and through engagement, organizations and publics can make decisions that create social capital” (p. 384). Specifically, Taylor and Kent (2014) situated engagement within dialogue’s dimension of propinquity, which refers to an organization’s openness to interacting with publics and to the idea that publics ought to be consulted in a timely and relevant manner. Kim and Kim (2015) examined public relations strategy formulation for public engagement. They found that practitioners employed buffering strategies to enact engagement as one-way dissemination of messages, while some others employed bridging strategies that considered engagement a sense-making effort for building and maintaining relationships using dialogue. Similarly, Comor and Bean (2012), while explaining the communicative mechanisms of American public diplomacy, equated engagement with the process of interaction and dialogue. Critiquing the apparent use of dialogic forms of engagement in U.S. public diplomacy, Comor and Bean (2012) argued that engagement with foreign publics more closely resembles persuasive communication aimed at persuading foreign publics to empathize with American policies, rather than being open-ended conversations aimed at giving voice to multiple viewpoints. Similar to these studies, most scholars who have contributed to conceptualizing definitions of public/stakeholder engagement have emphasized processes of consultation, dialogue, involvement, and open and ethical communication between interacting organizations and their publics (Gregory, 2004; O’Byrne & Daymon, 2014; Taylor et al., 2003), thus equating engagement with communicative interactions between organizations and their publics. One definition of public engagement is an exception, as it treats the concept as being beyond communicative dimensions. Kang (2014) defines public engagement as “a psychologically motivated affective state that brings voluntary extra-role behaviors, and is characterized by affective commitment, positive affectivity and empowerment that an individual public experiences in interactions with an organization over time” (p. 402). This definition adds an affective component to the communicative dimension of engagement that is foregrounded in the definitions reviewed so far. Scholars have also connected engagement with organization-public relationship management, issues management, and ethical communication. Engagement is enacted through dialogue before and after a relationship is established and issues are resolved (Taylor et al., 2003; Wilson, 1996). A thorough and careful analysis of the above body of work reveals two key aspects. First, by associating engagement with dialogue (Taylor & Kent, 2014; Tench, 2013) and by defining engagement in terms of consultation, interaction, and dissemination of messages (Comor & Bean, 2012; Kim & Kim, 2015), engagement is clearly equated with communicative interaction between organizations and their publics. Second, by situating engagement within dialogue (Taylor & Kent, 2014), the idea of engagement is clearly placed within the rhetorical, collaborative modes of communication (dialogue, two-way/multi-way symmetrical models of communication), as 2
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G.S. Dhanesh
opposed to the typically unidirectional, controlling modes of communication (propaganda, public information model, dissemination of messages, asymmetrical models of communication). Situating engagement within dialogue thus leads to a dichotomy between the conceptualization of engagement as collaboration and engagement as control (Sloan, 2009). Further, the notion of engagement as collaboration, based on principles of dialogue, openness, and listening, is often promoted as the preferred ethical mode of communication over the notion of engagement as control, enacted through one-way dissemination of messages (Cho & De Moya, 2016). However, another strand of scholarship has critiqued the promotion of the rhetorical, collaborative modes of communication based on openness and dialogue over the controlling modes of communication based on information dissemination and asymmetrical forms of communication. These scholars have interrogated the role of power, encompassing concepts such as dark dialogue, passive aggression, and unequal access to resources during interactions between organizations and their publics (Willis, 2015; Comor & Bean, 2012; McKie & Munshi, 2007; Stoker & Tusinski, 2006). Interrogating the normative superiority of the rhetorical mode of communication based on dialogue, McKie and Munshi (2007) argued that the two-way symmetrical form of communication is normative at best and, at worst, “misleading in its promise of equality of exchange amid realities of uneven power” (p. 36). Even an ethically informed mode of engagement cannot avoid power asymmetries in the relationships between organizations and their publics (Comor & Bean, 2012). Dialogue requires equality among interactants and the equitable sharing of information resources. However, even organizations most committed to the concept of dialogue might be unable in practice to create conditions of equality while communicating with key publics (Stoker & Tusinski, 2006). Further, Pieczka (1997) argued that the two-way symmetrical model is rather utopian and unrealistic for organizations because they have to relinquish organizational goals and objectives imperative for survival. Finally, Cancel, Mitrook, and Cameron (1999) questioned how organizations would deal with morally repugnant publics, especially when an organization’s standpoint is based on moral grounds. Grunig (2001) countered criticisms of the two-way symmetrical model by contending that the mixed-motive model, which balances the interests of the organization and its publics, more accurately describes the original conceptualization of the two-way symmetrical model. He drew upon the concepts of collaborative advocacy and cooperative antagonism to argue that the act of balancing the interests of the organization and its publics can oscillate between advocacy and collaboration. Other scholars have also suggested multiple frameworks to handle power asymmetries in relationships between organizations and their publics. McKie (2010) has argued that asymmetries manifested as inequalities are a key characteristic of the turbulent age of asymmetry and paradox, and he calls for a justice-based approach to handling asymmetry. Willis (2015) proposed critical social auditing, which promotes values-driven behavior rather than focusing on reporting and administrative compliance. Holtzhausen (2012) suggested the adoption of postmodernist activist roles by boundary-spanning practitioners. In recent work that critiques the normative, equality-based dialogic approach to engagement, Davidson (2016) proposed the notion of agonism that celebrates conflict as a democratic good. However, Davidson also draws limitations around the type of organizations that can engage in agonistic communicative interactions between organizations and publics. An agonistic approach is highly suited for counter-hegemonic organizations/movements, for organizations that have a mandate to mobilize and empower socially disenfranchised groups, and for practitioners responsible for organizing public consultations in organizations that value a progressive ethos. However, this approach might not work well for organizations with a history of adopting a hegemonic approach towards interactions between organizations and publics. Accordingly, organizations must choose the mode of engagement that best suits their needs and the needs of their publics. To sum, most theoretical conceptualizations of engagement that straddle the rhetorical and relational approaches to public relations have equated engagement with communicative interaction between organizations and their publics. Further, engagement has been treated dichotomously, anchored by notions of engagement as collaboration and engagement as control. The notion of engagement as collaboration has been foregrounded as the preferred ethical mode of communication between organizations and their publics. However, an opposing strand of scholarship has interrogated this reification of engagement, arguing that dialogue is fundamentally based on the notion of equality between interactants, and true equality is a near improbability in praxis. Now, we will turn to discuss the literature on employee engagement. 2.2. Employee engagement A review of literature on employee engagement within the field of public relations revealed three key points. First, studies on employee engagement seem to have a firmer theoretical base, drawing from theories in psychology and organizational behavior to conceptualize engagement with three dimensions: cognitive, affective, and behavioral. (Karanges et al., 2015; Men, 2012; Welch, 2011). Welch (2011) suggested a definition of organization engagement as “a dynamic, changeable psychological state, which links employees to their organizations, manifest in organization member role performances expressed physically, cognitively and emotionally, and influenced by organization-level internal communication” (p. 337). The idea of employee engagement visualizes an employee who is cognitively, affectively, and behaviorally “present,” absorbed, and dedicated while performing an organizational role. Second, most of the work on employee engagement tends to be instrumental (Taylor & Kent, 2014), with studies examining the beneficial organizational consequences of employee engagement, such as increased productivity, decreased attrition, increased internal reputation, and enhanced corporate social responsibility (Mittins, Abratt, & Christie, 2011; Schaufeli, Salanova, GonzálezRomá, & Bakker, 2002). Finally, sometimes engagement is conflated with related concepts such as employee satisfaction and commitment (Gill, 2015). The next section will review the largest body of literature on engagement within public relations: digital engagement. 3
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G.S. Dhanesh
2.3. Digital engagement Keeping pace with the explosive growth of social media as a tool for communication among publics and between organizations and their publics, research on digital engagement has been spanning areas such as civic engagement, use by non-profits, and engagement during crises. However, across these areas too, the same two themes that were identified in the literature on theoretical conceptualizations of engagement emerged: (1) the conceptualization of social media engagement as communicative interaction and, (2) the dichotomous notions of engagement as control based on transactional modes of communication (public information, two-way asymmetry, dissemination of organizational messages) and engagement as collaboration online based on participatory modes of communication (dialogue, co-creation of content). First, most of the work on social-media engagement has conceptualized engagement as communicative interaction, manifested as clicks, likes, views, shares, comments, tweets, recommendations, and other user-generated content (Jiang et al., 2016; Men & Tsai, 2013; 2014; Agostino, 2013). Men and Tsai (2013) conceptualized public engagement on social media as a behavioral construct with hierarchical activity levels. These levels range from passive message consumption to active two-way conversation, participation, and online recommendation. Similarly, Agostino (2013) equated engagement with the level of communicative interaction between citizens and the public administration, and he suggested measuring engagement with the number of actions by citizens, such as the number of “tweets” on a social media page and the number of comments on YouTube. An exception to limiting engagement to communicative interaction is Yang and Kang (2009), who created a scale for blog engagement based on cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral dimensions. Also stepping away from a communicative interaction-based definition of engagement, Bowen (2013) wrote from the perspective of organizations: “Digital engagement can be defined as an organization creating active and interested relationships with publics using Internet channels, such as product endorsements by prominent bloggers” (p. 119). Similarly, Calder et al. (2009) defined engagement as the experiences that people have in a media platform; specifically, “a collection of experiences” that relate to “a consumer’s beliefs about how a site fits into his/her life” (p. 322). Despite these attempts at unshackling the definition of online engagement from its limited conceptualization as communicative interaction, the dominant understanding of social-media engagement appears to be equated with communicative interaction online, measured by likes, tweets, and such. The second theme that emerged from the review of literature on the behaviors of organizations and publics online was the dichotomous notions of engagement as control and engagement as collaboration. Engagement as control is based on traditional, unidirectional modes of communication, and engagement as collaboration is based on multi-directional, participatory modes of communication. Most of this research on social-media engagement has been organization-centric (Agostino, 2013; Lovari & Parisi, 2015; Ott & Theunissen, 2015), with a handful of studies that center on publics (Avidar et al., 2015; De Moya & Jain, 2013; Lovari & Parisi, 2015; Paek, Hove, Jung & Cole, 2013). Arguing from the perspective of organizations, Agostino built on Rowe and Frewer’s (2000) idea that public engagement is implemented at two levels, public communication and public participation. Agostino (2013) argued that while online public communication aims at offering a unidirectional flow of information from organizations to their stakeholders (engagement as control), public participation aims at instituting a dialogue with stakeholders based on a two-way information flow (engagement as collaboration). However, scholars have found that although engagement through dialogue and two-way symmetrical communication is highly recommended, in reality, organizations engage mostly in one-way broadcasting strategies inherent in the public information model or the two-way asymmetrical communication model. Thus, most organizations do not adequately capitalize on the two-way dialogic potential promised by social media. Organizations have continued to employ social media in more-or-less the same way they have used traditional media, for disseminating organizational messages and broadcasting general information about the organization. They are not utilizing the potential of social media to keep the conversations going and to build and maintain relationships with key publics (Cho et al., 2014; Lovari & Parisi, 2015; Lovejoy et al., 2012; McAllister, 2012; Men & Tsai, 2013; Ott & Theunissen, 2015). Porter et al. (2015) reason that the reluctance to engage in open, dialogic and participatory forms of communication could be due to practitioners’ and executives’ fears of social media risks, such as lack of control over organizational messages, intellectual property leaks, and external attacks on the organization. However, reluctance to enter conversations with publics has its consequences. Wigley and Lewis (2012) found that less-engaged companies received more mentions on Twitter. They argued that organizations’ relative silence online provides a vacuum that gets filled with information from audiences. From the perspective of publics, studies have found that online users adopt varying communication behaviors depending on their interests and motives in specific issues. Based on these communication behaviors, online users range from passive readers or message consumers to active, participatory publics who create content, share and forward information, and even mobilize online and offline communities into action (Lovari & Parisi, 2015; Linders, 2012; Men & Tsai, 2013, 2014). Research has shown that along this passiveactive continuum, passive online-content consumption is much higher than active-content creation (Men & Tsai, 2013, 2014). The same passivity can be observed when it comes to engaging with organizations over social media. Avidar et al. (2015) found that while most people access social media for information and for interacting with friends and families, they are unwilling to engage with organizations, specifically over smartphones. The authors also found that publics were more willing to interact with businesses and nonprofit associations only if motivated by personal benefits, such as connection with nearby communities, organizations, and events. Avidar et al. (2015) found that users perceive social-media engagement as more beneficial to organizations than to themselves. However, they were willing to engage with organizations if organizations adopted two-way communication strategies aimed at initiating conversations with them. Publics are savvy enough to distinguish between organizations’ trying to build a relationship with 4
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G.S. Dhanesh
them and organizations’ taking advantage of the opportunities to disseminate messages on Facebook (Avidar et al., 2015). Publics are willing to respond to open, dialogic, and two-way symmetrical communication strategies over social media, but they do not respond to public information or two-way asymmetrical communication because they do not want to offer organizations easy access to their online lives (Cho et al., 2014). To summarize, these findings and the insights they provide imply that most online users are passive (Men & Tsai, 2013, 2014) and that those who engage with organizations over social media do so only if they are driven by their interests in specific issues and/or if they perceive personal benefits of connecting with communities and organizations (Avidar et al., 2015). Indeed, extending the importance of salience to groups of individuals, Davidson (2016) wrote, “…it is the passionate attachment to collective identifications that motivates participation” (p. 153). Accordingly, this paper argues that salience is a driving factor for stakeholder engagement. However, following the 80/20 rule, or the Pareto Principle, which states that roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes, fewer active publics can have a greater impact on organizations than a larger group of passive publics. For instance, Wigley and Lewis (2012) found that active users of Twitter are three times more likely to impact a company’s reputation via social media than the average consumer. Further, Freberg et al. (2011) found that real engagement stems from the generation of social capital by social-media influencers. Due to the increased activism of minority vocal publics, organizations might tend to interact more online with opinion leaders, influencers, and active, connected publics. Indeed, Lovari and Parisi (2015) investigated citizens’ voices and patterns of engagement within Italian municipalities’ Facebook-like web page. They found that social media have changed Italian public communication by enhancing organizational transparency as well as relational and communicative practices with connected citizens. These insights have important implications for theorizing engagement within a public relations framework. 3. Points for consideration The above review of the literature on the concept of engagement within public relations has highlighted three pertinent points: (1) Engagement has been equated with communicative interaction between organizations and their publics in both theoretical conceptualizations of engagement and scholarship on digital engagement; with the exception of literature from the field of employee engagement, which argues for including affective and cognitive dimensions of engagement, at least from the perspective of employees (2) Engagement has been treated dichotomously, ranging on a continuum from the notion of engagement as control to engagement as collaboration; with conceptualizations of collaborative engagement reified over controlling (3) The notion of engagement based on collaboration, participation, and co-creation has been critiqued due to inherent asymmetries of power and equality among interacting entities. The review has also highlighted two additional points from the perspective of publics and organizations, which follow. 3.1. From the perspective of publics: passivity and the issue of salience The review of literature has revealed publics’ reluctance to be active as contributors, co-creators, and information sharers on social media (Avidar et al., 2015; Men & Tsai, 2013, 2014) as well as the related aspects of interest, salience, and motivation (Davidson, 2016). Further, as theorized within the area of employee engagement, engagement is multidimensional with cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions (Welch, 2011). It draws the whole person, including his/her thoughts, feelings, and/or action, into a meaningful interaction with the organization. Social media constitute only the latest means of carrying out engagement (Comor & Bean, 2012). In other words, if publics are interested in a topic affectively and cognitively, then both offline and online means of communicating with an organization can help them manifest engagement through communicative behavior. On the other hand, if publics are not engaged cognitively and affectively, then they are not going to communicate with the relevant organization, however much the organization may provide two-way dialogic communication platforms. So, if digital publics, or publics in general, respond to specific issues according to their interests and motivations, and if most digital publics are only readers and not active contributors, co-creators, information sharers, and advocates, then what does that indicate? Does it imply that most stakeholders are not interested in and not motivated to act on most issues? Does that point to public disengagement? Or it does it merely imply a lack of communicative engagement? According to the situational theory of publics, when an individual is faced with an issue that is salient to the individual, then that individual will seek information related to the issue. However, not all these information seekers will choose to communicate with the organization about the issue. Instead, on receiving information, perhaps from another source, the individual might decide to change a related opinion, attitude, or behavior, which could materially affect the organization concerned. That is, this individual is affectively, cognitively, and even behaviorally engaged with an issue that is highly salient to the individual, but is not communicatively interacting with organizations who could be impacted by the individual’s actions. Principles of strategic communication inform us that although affected individuals are not directly communicating with the organization, the individuals could seek information from direct or mediated sources as well as active, connected influencers, and thus could be persuaded in multiple directions concerning an issue, a company, or an organization. So, with whom do organizations engage? With the silent majority who might be cognitively and affectively engaged with the topic but not communicatively engaged with the organization? Or with the vocal minority of communicatively engaged individuals and publics? By defining engagement as communicative interaction, organizations run the risk of rendering invisible the majority of emotionally and cognitively engaged but communicatively not-yet-engaged publics. Hence, it might be productive for scholars defining engagement to consider multiple dimensions of engagement, including 5
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G.S. Dhanesh
cognitive, affective, and behavioral, and to re-examine the notion of disengagement. What manifests as public disengagement could merely be communicative disengagement. 3.2. From the perspective of organizations: hesitancy and the issue of control The review of literature has highlighted organizations’ reluctance to open up and engage in symmetrical, dialogic communication with their publics (Cho et al., 2014; Lovari & Parisi, 2015; Lovejoy et al., 2012; McAllister, 2012; Men & Tsai, 2013), motivated mostly by their need to maintain control of strategic communication (Porter et al., 2015), especially during crises (Ott & Theunissen, 2015). Discussing engagement between organizations and publics during crises, Ott and Theunissen (2015) argued that the enactment of genuine dialogue during a crisis is difficult. Although genuine dialogue is not easily achieved during a social-media crisis, the authors posit, organizations should nevertheless provide spaces for discussion and conversation. These spaces are fraught, however, with finely nuanced aspects of the control-collaboration engagement dialectic. When offering spaces for conversation, organizations relinquish some control over their traditional crisis communication, which typically is highly controlled and consistent. However, relinquishing control can help organizations as it provides space for loyal fans and supporters to defend the organization in more genuinely authentic ways than official corporate statements can. On the other hand, organizations can also retain some control over the conversation by removing offensive and abusive content. Further, Ott and Theunissen argue that dialogue is most effective when entered into with stakeholders who are affected by the crisis. Indeed, attempting to engage a wide range of diffused stakeholders is likely to fuel anger (Ott & Theunissen, 2015). Organizations need to maintain control of strategic organizational communication in order to mitigate social-media risks, such as external attacks on the organization (Porter et al., 2015), especially during crises (Ott & Theunissen, 2015). Scholars must also consider the challenges to open, dialogic communication inherent in the imbalance of power between organizations and their publics (Comor & Bean, 2012; McKie, 2010; Willis, 2015) as well as the value in uni-directional, non-reciprocal forms of communication (Stoker & Tusinski, 2006). Considering those aspects, it is important to acknowledge the situational relevance and importance of all models of engagement, ranging from one-way, transactional forms of engagement as control to two-way or multi-way forms of engagement as collaboration. One-way forms of engagement are probably most suited for passive publics, while two- or multi-way forms of engagement are most suited for active publics, who seek collaboration. Having reviewed the literature on engagement in the field of public relations and having considered key points of this literature from the perspective of publics and organizations, this study will now offer a model and definition of engagement that addresses the pertinent points raised in this paper. 4. A Proposed model & definition of engagement Based on a critique of the extant literature and drawing from strategic issues management, the situational theory of publics, and the concepts of dialogue and ethical communication, this study proposes the following model of engagement (Fig. 1) and a definition. The basic building block of the model is salience. Topics of mutual interest and salience connect publics and organizations. However, even before the first instance of communication from members of the interested public, they are affectively and cognitively engaged with the issue. These dimensions of engagement trigger a search for information that could potentially range from relatively passive forms of information-seeking, which can be measured online and offline through behaviors such as clicks, views, and brochures picked up, to more active forms of information-seeking online and offline, such as commenting, sharing, recommending,
Fig. 1. The model of engagement between organizations and publics.
6
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G.S. Dhanesh
Fig. 2. The antecedent, states, and consequences of engagement.
advocating, joining a protest rally, attending events, and garnering support both for and against organizational action. Following the tenets of the situational theory of publics, organizations can vary their models of communication depending on affected publics’ place on a continuum of communicative behavior. While public information models, one-way dissemination of information, and broadcast strategies of communication could be useful for relatively passive seekers and consumers of information, organizations could employ more dialogic, conversational, participatory, and collaborative forms of communication aimed at active seekers and proactive consumers of information. The range of communicative strategies available to organizations, as represented in the pyramid, corresponds to similar categories found in the literature. For instance, Bowen et al. (2010) labeled the continuum of strategies ranging from one-way dissemination to multi-way conversations as transactional, transitional, and transformative, in the context of community engagement. Similarly, Morsing and Schultz (2006) labeled the strategies as informing, responding, and involving, while Johnston (2014) called them information, consultation, and participation. Whatever labels they go by, organizational communication strategies fall along the continuum between notions of engagement as control and engagement as collaboration. Thus, organizations need to employ strategies from all along this continuum depending on the communicative behavior of target publics. Indeed, building on Peters’ (1999) argument that dialogue is a lofty goal for communication that “may blind us to the more subtle splendors of dissemination or suspended dialogue” (p. 62), Stoker and Tusinski (2006) contended that there is value in nonreciprocal forms of communication. Thus, all models of communication coexist and are required depending on the situation faced by the organization and its publics. In the proposed model (Fig. 2), the main antecedent is the salience of the issue to publics and organizations. From the perspective of publics, being engaged encompasses cognitive (problem recognition, constraint recognition), affective (emotional connection to the issue), and behavioral (material or communicative manifestation of thought and emotion, offline or online) dimensions. Engagement refers to the whole self-thought, feeling, and action — entering into an interaction between affected partners, which leads to consequences such as meeting the respective goals of interactants, mutual adjustment, and adaptation. Following upon the proposed model, this paper suggests a definition for engagement: Engagement is an affective, cognitive, and behavioral state wherein publics and organizations who share mutual interests in salient topics interact along continua that range from passive to active and from control to collaboration, and is aimed at goal attainment, adjustment, and adaptation for both publics and organizations. 5. Implications This paper has important theoretical, practical, and social implications. Theoretically, it helps to clarify the conceptualization of engagement as a multidimensional concept, considering relevant aspects from the perspective of publics and organizations. The paper highlights the importance of salience that connects organizations with their publics, and it pushes the definitional boundaries of engagement to include affective and cognitive elements. It also questions the reification of the notion of engagement as collaboration over that of control, and it argues for a definition and model that acknowledge the need for both collaborative and controlling modes of engagement depending on the nature of the publics. Being a concept that has its origins in practice, a clearer theoretical understanding of engagement can help practitioners address matters of engagement more effectively. Expanding the definition of engagement beyond communicative interaction and arguing for situational use of communication models enable practitioners to employ insights from psychology and behavioral sciences to manage their palette of engagement strategies. As for social implications, 7
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G.S. Dhanesh
enabling publics and organizations to understand engagement in a holistic manner can bring benefits to both publics and organizations. Such understanding can help them interact, fully aware of situational communicative behavior, thus enabling mutual goal attainment. 6. Future research The review of literature has revealed multiple opportunities and directions for future research from the perspective of publics and organizations. There is a need for public-centric research on engagement that needs to be met. Scholars can examine the notions of non-engagement and disengagement from the perspective of publics. Research can also examine motivations for engagement, nonengagement, and disengagement. As for organization-centric research, studies can examine organizations’ motivations for adopting traditional models of persuasion and avoiding genuine, translucent interactions with publics. Although scholars critique the duplicity and inherent hegemony of dialogic models of communication and, by extension, engagement, there is scant work on how to address asymmetries in organization-public interactions. Research could focus on models of communication that address multiple asymmetries. Studies could also examine the rise of content creation for meaningful, authentic stakeholder engagement. And finally, studies that examine characteristics of the boundary-spanning social-media public relations practitioner would serve to strengthen organization-centric research. 7. Conclusion After reviewing the literature on engagement within public relations, this paper critiqued two main ideas. First, the paper critiqued the limiting conceptualization of engagement as communicative interaction and redefined engagement to include affective and cognitive dimensions by highlighting the importance of issue salience and communicative non-engagement. The paper also proposed a model for engagement with antecedents, states, and consequences and an expanded definition of engagement, from communicative interaction to include cognitive and affective components. This expanded definition mitigates the risk of ignoring the majority of publics who might be communicatively non-engaged but affectively, cognitively, and even behaviorally engaged, with real implications for organizations. Second, this paper critiqued the foregrounding of the notion of engagement based on dialogue over the notion of engagement as control. Instead, this paper supported extant scholarship that argues for the coexistence of all models of engagement, ranging from the one-way and asymmetrical strategies of engagement as control to the open, dialogic strategies of engagement as collaboration. Each of these engagement models, ranging from control to collaboration, corresponds to the communicative behavior of publics, ranging from communicatively passive to active. Focusing on engagement solely as communicative interaction threatens to ignore the majority of publics, who are communicatively passive. To conclude, this paper has examined the extant body of work on the concept of engagement within public relations, critiqued the literature, and highlighted points for consideration from the perspective of publics and organizations. It has also built on existing scholarship and its critique to propose a more comprehensive model and definition for the concept of engagement within the field of public relations. References Agostino, D. (2013). Using social media to engage citizens: A study of Italian municipalities. Public Relations Review, 39, 232–234. Avidar, R., Ariel, Y., Malka, V., & Levy, E. C. (2015). Smartphones, publics and OPR: Do publics want to engage? Public Relations Review, 41, 214–221. Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010). When suits meet roots: The antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 297–318. Bowen, S. A. (2013). Using classic social media cases to distill ethical guidelines for digital engagement. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 28(2), 119–133. Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 321–331. Cancel, A. E., Mitrook, M. A., & Cameron, G. T. (1999). Testing the contingency theory of accommodation in public relations. Public Relations Review, 25, 171–197. Cho, M., & De Moya, M. (2016). Empowerment as a key construct for understanding corporate community engagement. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 10(4), 272–288. Cho, M., Schweickart, T., & Haase, A. (2014). Public engagement with nonprofit organizations on Facebook. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 565–567. Comor, E., & Bean, H. (2012). America’s ‘engagement’ delusion: Critiquing a public diplomacy consensus. International Communication Gazette, 74(3), 203–220. Davidson, S. (2016). Public relations theory: An agonistic critique of the turns to dialogue and symmetry. Public Relations Inquiry, 5, 145–167. De Moya, M., & Jain, R. (2013). When tourists are your friends: Exploring the brand personality of Mexico and Brazil on Facebook. Public Relations Review, 39(1), 23–29. DiStatso, M. W. (2012). Measuring public relations Wikipedia engagement: How bright is the rule? Public Relations Journal, 6(2), 1–24. Edelman, R. (2008). Is public engagement the future of public relations? Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/is-public-engagement-the-future-of-publicrelations/. Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K., & Freberg, L. (2011). Who are the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 90–92. Gill, R. (2015). Why the PR strategy of storytelling improves employee engagement and adds value to CSR: An integrated literature review. Public Relations Review, 41, 662–674. Gregory, A. (2004). The ethics of engagement in the UK public sector: A case in point. Journal of Communication Management, 8(1), 83–94. Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present, and future. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 11–30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Holtzhausen, D. R. (2012). Public relations as activism: Postmodern approaches to theory and practice. New York, NY: Routledge. Housholder, E., & LaMarre, H. L. (2015). Political social media engagement: Comparing campaign goals with voter behavior. Public Relations Review, 41, 138–140. Jiang, H., Luo, Y., & Kulemeka, O. (2016). Social media engagement as an evaluation barometer: Insights from communication executives. Public Relations Review,
8
Public Relations Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
G.S. Dhanesh
42(4), 679–691. Johnston, K. A. (2014). Public relations and engagement: Theoretical imperatives of a multidimensional concept. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 381–383. Kang, M. (2014). Understanding public engagement: Conceptualizing and measuring its influence on supportive behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 399–416. Karanges, E., Johnston, K., Beatson, A., & Lings, I. (2015). The influence of internal communication on employee engagement: A pilot study. Public Relations Review, 41(129), 131. Kim, S., & Kim, J.-N. (2015). Bridge or buffer: Two ideas of effective corporate governance and public engagement. Journal of Public Affairs: An International Journal, 16(2), 118–127. Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defying a typology for citizens coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454. Lovari, A., & Parisi, L. (2015). Listening to digital publics: Investigating citizens’ voices and engagement within Italian municipalities’ Facebook Pages. Public Relations Review, 41, 205–213. Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Reviw, 38, 313–318. Luoma-aho, V. (2015). Understanding Stakeholder Engagement: Faith-holders, Hateholders & Fakeholders. RJ-IPR: Research Journal of the Insitute for Public Relations, 2(1), Retrieved from http://www.instituteforpr.org/understanding-stakeholder-engagement-faith-holders-hateholders-fakeholders/. McAllister, S. M. (2012). How the world’s top universities provide dialogic forums for marginalized voices. Public Relations Review, 38, 319–327. McKie, D., & Munshi, D. (2007). Reconfiguring public relations: Ecology, equity and enterprise. London: Routledge. McKie, D. (2010). Signs of the times: Economics sciences, futures and public relations. In R. Heath (Ed.), SAGE handbook of public relations (pp. 85–97). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Men, L. R., & Tsai, W.-H. S. (2013). Beyond liking or following: Understanding public engagement on social networking sites in China. Public Relations Review, 39, 13–22. Men, L. R., & Tsai, W.-H. (2014). Perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes of organization-public engagement on corporate social networking sites. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 417–435. Men, L. R., & Tsai, W.-H. S. (2015). Infusing social media with humanity: Corporate character, public engagement, and relational outcomes. Public Relations Review, 41(3), 395–403. Men, L. R. (2012). CEO credibility, perceived organizational reputation, and employee engagement. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 171–173. Mittins, M., Abratt, R., & Christie, P. (2011). Storytelling in reputation management: The case of Nashua Mobile South Africa. Management Decision, 49(3), 405–421. Morsing, M., & Schultz, M. (2006). Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15, 323–338. O’Byrne, S., & Daymon, C. (2014). Irresponsible engagement and the citizen investor. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 455–473. Ott, L., & Theunissen, P. (2015). Reputations at risk: Engagement during social media crises. Public Relations Review, 41, 97–102. Paek, H.-J., Hove, T., Jung, Y., & Cole, R. T. (2013). Engagement across three social media platforms: An exploratory study of a cause-related PR campaign. Public Relations Review, 39, 526–533. Peters, J. D. (1999). Speaking into the air: A history of the idea of communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pieczka, M. (1997). Understanding in public relations. Australian Journal of Communication, 24(2), 65–79. Porter, M. C., Anderson, B., & Nhotsavang, M. (2015). Anti-social media: Executive Twitter engagement and attitudes about media credibility. Journal of Communication Management, 19(3), 270–287. Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. J. (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25, 3–29. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. Sloan, P. (2009). Redefining stakeholder engagement: From control to collaboration. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 36, 25–40. Stoker, K. L., & Tusinski, K. A. (2006). Reconsidering public relations' infatuation with dialogue: Why engagement and reconciliation can be more ethical than symmetry and reciprocity. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 21(2–3), 156–176. Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384–398. Taylor, M., Vasquez, G. M., & Doorley, J. (2003). Merck and AIDS activists: Engagement as a framework for extending issues management. Public Relations Review, 29, 257–270. Tench, R. (2013). Engagement (Stakeholders). In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Public Relations. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc. Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations areusing Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35, 102–106. Welch, M. (2011). The evolution of the employee engagement concept: Communication implications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(4), 328–346. Wigley, S., & Lewis, B. K. (2012). Rules of engagement: Practice what you tweet. Public Relations Review, 38(1), 165–167. Willis, P. (2015). Public relations, passive aggression and critical social auditing: Reflections on organisational inaction in stakeholder engagement. Journal of Public Affairs, 15(2), 220–226. Wilson, L. J. (1996). Strategic cooperative communities: A synthesis of strategic, issues management, and relationship building approaches in public relations. In H. M. Culbertson, & N. Chen (Eds.), International Public Relations: A Comparative Analysis (pp. 67–80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Yang, S.-U., & Kang, M. (2009). Measuring blog engagement: Testing a four-dimensional scale. Public Relations Review, 35, 323–324.
9