Revisiting the concept “dialogue” in public relations

Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 5–13

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

Revisiting the concept “dialogue” in public relations Petra Theunissen ∗ , Wan Norbani Wan Noordin 1 School of Communication Studies, Faculty of Design & Creative Technologies, AUT University, Private Bag 92006, Auckland 1142, New Zealand

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 2 October 2010 Received in revised form 14 September 2011 Accepted 14 September 2011 Keywords: Public relations Dialogue Two-way symmetric communication Risk

a b s t r a c t This paper follows a critical approach in exploring the philosophical underpinnings and key features of dialogue in public relations practice and thinking. It argues that dialogue has been uncritically equated to two-way symmetrical communication, which has not done justice to the nature of dialogue, and has effectively stifled concrete development of a dialogic theory in public relations. The paper draws from a range of literature, including mainstream public relations and communication philosophy—in particular the philosophy of Martin Buber. The purpose of this paper is to inform public relations thinking by encouraging debate rather than proposing a new theoretical approach. As such, it sets out to explore the concept of dialogue and its philosophical underpinning, considers its practical application and suggests that it should not be seen as superior to persuasion. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The term “dialogue” has become ubiquitous in public relations writing and scholarship, and even more so in the light of the ever-evolving Internet and its social media application (see e.g. Briones, Kuch, Fisher Liu, & Jin, 2011; Henderson & Bowley, 2010; Taylor, Kent, & White, 2001; Yang, Kang, & Johnson, 2010). Authors such as Mersham, Theunissen, and Peart (2009), for example, suggest that the Internet is forcing practitioners to return to dialogue and conversation: Public relations will be increasingly about dialogues and conversation rather than traditional one-way monologues of the past, adapting to the free exchange of opinions across groups and collectives that previously were merely recipients of communication messages. (Mersham et al., 2009, p. 10) Not surprisingly, numerous writings in the area of dialogic communication in public relations focus on social media applications and their uses (see e.g. Bortree & Seltzer, 2009; Gordon & Berhow, 2009; Rybalko & Seltzer, 2010). While these studies contribute to our understanding of social media in the practice of public relations, they do not sufficiently contribute to developing a clear philosophical understanding of the theory of dialogue. In a discipline that has adopted functionalism as an extension of the systems theory (see L’Etang, 2008) and has become process-driven, dialogic theory per se appears to have made little inroads in mainstream public relations thinking. While functionalism and the systems theory have important roles to play in public relations theory, these paradigms have resulted in unintended consequences. One of these is that “dialogue” has been uncritically equated to “two-way symmetrical” communication as if they were two sides of the same coin, and in instances where dialogue is mentioned, the focus remains on two-way communication rather than dialogue per se:

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +64 21 183 7080; fax: +64 9 921 9987. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Theunissen), [email protected] (W.N. Wan Noordin). 1 Tel.: +64 21 286 1002. 0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.09.006

6

P. Theunissen, W.N. Wan Noordin / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 5–13

Two-way communication principles, unlike one-way principles, are best for maximizing the capabilities of e-mail and the Internet, including Listservs, chatrooms, electronic bulletin boards, and discussion groups. By promoting dialogue and conversations rather than one-directional information flows–these new technologies help organizations create and continuously maintain ties to key publics. (Lattimore, Baskin, & Aronoff, 2004, p. 385) What is often forgotten is that the concepts “dialogue” and “two-way symmetrical communication” are based on underlying philosophical differences (and differences in communicative processes and exchanges). Not recognizing such an important facet effectively stifles growth and development of further public relations theory. By revisiting the concept “dialogue” in public relations and exploring its philosophical foundation, this article hopes to address some commonly glossed-over issues, thereby encouraging further thought and discussion. One of the key issues addressed in this article lies in the fact that “dialogue”, as it stands, is not only deeply philosophical but also abstract in nature. While these characteristics make it attractive as an ideal towards which to strive, it is difficult to operationalize such abstract notions in practice. Further to this, exploring the philosophical underpinnings raises questions about its suitability for organizations that wish to influence and control their environments. It is questioned implicitly whether dialogue truly reflects the pragmatics of public relations practice, whether it is realistically possible for an organization to engage in “dialogue” with its stakeholders where a specific interest is served, and whether it is even desirable to do so. 2. Dialogue and two-way symmetrical communication Since Grunig and Hunt’s seminal work Managing Public Relations (1984) the systems perspective and its four models of public relations practice have increasingly dominated public relations thinking. The authors contributed to assimilating the concept of dialogue in mainstream public relations discourse and scholarship by linking it to their fourth model, twoway symmetrical communication. In this model, it was suggested that two-way symmetrical communication provided the forum for discussion, dialogue and discourse (see Leeper, 1996). While the academic arguments surrounding the four models have lead to a modified understanding thereof including the provision of a mixed motive approach, the popularity of the four models and systems approach as an explanation for how public relations is practiced is indisputable. It is evident from discussions in textbooks (see e.g. Lattimore et al., 2004; Tymson, Lazar, & Lazar, 2006) that the systems approach and its four models are now widely accepted within the mainstream public relations paradigm and appear to have, at some point, superseded the notion of relationship-building and dialogic theory. While dialogue is touted as desirable, few, if any textbooks offer useful suggestions on how to create conditions for dialogue to thrive other than entering in dialogue and discussion. Dialogic theory barely features. The reasons are evident: the systems approach and the four models offered an opportunity for public relations practitioners seeking legitimacy and professionalization to argue their case, and allowed scholars and practitioners to gloss over potentially complex ethical issues that an acknowledgment of public relations as a form of persuasion is likely to bring (Fawkes, 2007). According to Podnar and Golob (2009), Grunig regarded the asymmetric model (persuasion) not only as weak in its ethics and social responsibility but also being unable to recognize the interdependence between organizations and its stakeholders. They state that he argued for more understanding and less persuasion. Prior to this, Leeper (1996) made the case that J. Grunig and L. Grunig viewed ethics in public relations as a process rather than an outcome, and that symmetrical communication provides a platform to exercise dialogue, discussion and discourse. Seen from the systems perspective, two-way symmetrical communication in the form of dialogue is preferred to two-way asymmetrical communication (persuasion), implying the one is a progression of the other: more balanced and therefore more beneficial to all. Based on their analysis of Public Opinion Quarterly Podnar and Golob (2009) state that public relations thinking has changed by acknowledging the asymmetrical model’s weaknesses, and that it has thus moved forward since 1970. Regardless, this perceived change has not necessarily translated into practice as studies by researchers such as Jun and Jung (2005) show. That there has been no change in practice is also implicit in assertions by authors such as Grunig (2009) when he discusses the illusion of control that still persists when using social media for public relations purposes. Thus, the suggestion that there has been progression in public relations practice and thinking has not been proven beyond all doubt, and yet it is uncritically accepted as fait accompli. Furthermore, Kent and Taylor’s (2002) suggestion that the terms “dialogic” and “dialogue” among public relations scholars and practitioners have become evident in public relations research and theory, and that this shows that the profession is increasingly moving towards a two-way relational communication model, implies that this model had not existed previously. Labeling dialogue as “symmetric communication” and persuasion as “asymmetric” places persuasion in an inferior position. It advances a progressive linear relationship between the two, i.e. that dialogue necessarily follows persuasion and is “better” because it is more balanced. Yet, in their discussion of a dialogue project conducted in New Zealand, Zorn, Roper and Motion (in Heath et al., 2006), for example, refer to increased risk and vulnerability involved when engaging in dialogue. In one of their practical sessions, a participant suggested that the self-disclosure that had taken place had left them open to persuasion (exploitation) by public relations practitioners. It can therefore be argued that dialogue could potentially precede persuasion, implying a dialectic relationship rather than a linear, progressive one. A key issue with equating dialogue with symmetrical communication lies in the fact that at the core of this systems approach are the concepts of “control” and “self-regulation”. Heylighen and Joslyn (2001) explain that it is about “how

P. Theunissen, W.N. Wan Noordin / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 5–13

7

systems use information, models and control actions to steer towards and maintain their goals, while counteracting various disturbances” (p. 2). This cybernetic view of public relations dominates discussion about two-way communication, and per implication dialogue. Public relations in this respect has become about controlling messages, information and the process of communication, evaluating its results and showing that it contributes to the organization’s bottom line as per the Excellence Theory. It focuses on a desired outcome, and plans all communication activities accordingly. The alternative term “communication management”, which is often used to replace “public relations”, is indicative of this need to achieve a pre-determined outcome. Effectively, the systems approach to public relations has come to mean a watering-down of the complexity of the communication process to a step-by-step planning process that attempts to have the organization adapt to its environment, aiming to achieve two-way symmetrical communication. The underlying assumption is that the planning process will bring the organization in balance with the environment, and per implication, dialogue is perceived as the perfect state of harmony where the organization’s interest is reconciled with that of the public (Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2002). Holtzhausen (2000) states that given the fact that over the years the idea of symmetry (and subsequent “mutual understanding”) has come to mean “consensus” a scholar may be forgiven for assuming that two-way symmetrical communication is about seeking agreement. But, as she points out, consensus does not automatically imply that dialogue or discourse has taken place. Rather it is often the result of persuasion—or what Grunig and Hunt in 1984 labeled as “asymmetrical communication”. She further suggests that the implementation of symmetrical communication as intended is difficult, and puts forward the use of the term “dissymmetry” suggesting multiple viewpoints that need to be reconciled rather than a lack of balance or harmony. She argues that “despite practitioners’ efforts to implement participatory and ethical practices in organizations, barriers still exist that make adherence to the true spirit of symmetry difficult, if not sometimes impossible” (Holtzhausen, 2000, p. 93). One of the challenges facing the concept of “symmetry”—and per implication dialogue—relates to relinquishing control over the result or outcome. Giving up control is not something managers are likely to do, and yet is a requirement for achieving dialogue (see Mersham et al., 2009). This is the crux of the argument: systems theory as it is applied in public relations is inherently about control and balance while dialogue is about giving up some control in the sense of needing to achieve a desired outcome and to contain its content. By doing so, the participant in the dialogic encounter accepts that that the outcome is not always predictable and that the precise outcome cannot always be achieved. It is a philosophical disposition rather than a physical action. Arguably, the emphasis on the systems approach and achieving symmetry, has resulted in scholars increasingly viewing public relations as a management process rather than a communication process, and it is therefore asserted here that the adoption of the systems approach has indirectly contributed to criticism such as that from Holtzhausen (2000) who accuses public relations of having become “part and parcel of the maintenance of metanarratives and domination in society” by having given “preference to public relations as a management function of capitalist organizations” (p. 100). She argues that public relations has become an ideology in itself—one that is resistant to change and whose main purpose is to gain and maintain power (in the world of business and management). In fact, Duffy (2000) points out that public relations—like many other areas—is subject to commodification. In her critique of public relations textbooks she suggests that business is motivated by five key principles, namely to make profit by increasing revenues through publicity, to improve operation efficiency through employee communication, to get as much freedom as possible through influencing public opinion so they can operate their business without (governmental) constraints, to increase competitiveness through managing issues (and we could add crisis management as part of this), and to promote corporate values and acceptance of these values. Duffy (2000) suggests that all these principles are supported by public relations. If we were to consider these drivers dispassionately, it is evident that none of these require the organization to engage in dialogue. All of them, however, require publicity, and, in particular, persuasion. If it is not necessary to engage in dialogue with stakeholders, then for what reason would an organization do so? In answer to this question, one might argue that some organizations may genuinely wish to build relationships because they truly value their relationship with stakeholders. They may also merely wish to ensure their longevity by being perceived to be engaging in dialogue. Pearson (1989) advocates that “dialogue is a precondition of any legitimate corporate conduct that affects a public of that organization” (p. 128), and thus the core ethical responsibility of public relations should be managing all communication systems that link the organization to its publics as closely as possible to the constructs of dialogue (Pearson as cited in Toth, 1992). The organization would therefore be willing to engage in dialogue but it must understand the nature of dialogue in order to relinquish control over the communication situation and to allow stakeholders to express themselves honestly and openly. Without such willingness and understanding, there is limited likelihood for an organization to engage successfully in true dialogue. When the motives for engaging in dialogue are about persuading its stakeholders, risk to and vulnerability of the stakeholders increases, raising ethical concerns. Transparency as to the intent of the dialogue and trust that the intent is above board thus appear to be pre-requisites not for effective dialogue in public relations. This links to Penman and Turnbull’s (2010) discussion on good communication, and it would be fair to say that effective dialogue is based on four premises, namely that participants act authentically, that they focus on the future while allowing change to occur, collaborate and share insights and knowledge, and that they are present within the dialogical process. While dialogue, according to Pearson (1989), is a condition for ethical conduct, proposing that an organization engages in dialogue does not imply that it engages only in dialogue in order to be ethical; rather, it uses all forms of communication. Akin to the mixed motive approach, an organization will move between publicity, persuasion and dialogue at various stages of its relationship with stakeholders, and this will shift throughout any long-term relationship. Regardless, it is important to keep in mind that dialogue is not a more balanced form of communication, nor will it automatically result in balance

8

P. Theunissen, W.N. Wan Noordin / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 5–13

with the environment or ensure harmony in organization–stakeholder relationships. In fact true dialogue can have quite the opposite effect. Good and honest communication may lead to disagreement and conflict (Mersham & Skinner, 1999) because it exposes differences as well as similarities, and it is therefore proposed here that in order to engage in dialogue, practitioners need not only understand the practice of dialogic communication but also dialogue as a philosophical concept. 3. Dialogue as a philosophical concept Dialogic theory of public relations is entrenched in philosophy and relational communication theory (McAllister-Spooner, 2009), and the concept “dialogue” has been constructed, analyzed, debated and discussed in various ways, evolving from the assertion of multiple interests, fields and disciplines. In an attempt to understand the various approaches and meanings of dialogue, dialectic and rhetoric, Mifsud and Johnson (2000) come to the conclusion that the meaning shifts depending on which discourse community uses related terms. As a result it discourages a firm single position, and it is these multitude of understandings that inadvertently spill over into public relations practice. Like Heath et al. (2006), Kelleher (2007) contends that the concept of dialogue is heavily philosophical, describing a process rather than an outcome. He argues that public relations practitioners and scholars can only be involved in this kind of dialogue when “they find themselves in a humanistic exchange of empathy with one another” (p. 49)—something for which a public relations practitioner cannot plan (Kelleher, 2007). Kelleher’s statement reflects the choice of public relations practitioner: someone who has the ability and skill to empathize with another human being, who is not only sympathetic but can relate on a deeper level to others. Thus, the practitioner’s personality, beliefs and values are as important—if not more so—than his or her skills to “manage” communication. In their analysis of the broadcast Buber-Rogers dialogue in 1957, Cissna and Anderson (1994) state that there are four distinct perspectives of dialogue. One of these is based on the work of Martin Buber and another originates from the work of Mikhail Bakhtin that views dialogue as form of “cultural knowing” (p. 13). A third perspective is centered on the work of conversation analysts who use the term to refer to details of conversation between people. The fourth perspective is a philosophical one relating to our understanding of text and its interpretation, which belongs to neither the participants nor their traditions (Cissna & Anderson, 1994), similar to that of Kögler (1999). All four perspectives impact on the development of dialogic theory, and thus on dialogic theory in public relations. But what still needs to be developed is a clear appreciation of which perspective underlies practitioners’ understanding of dialogue. Given the functions of public relations: engaging in discussions, producing written and visual material to name but a few, it may even be required to develop a fifth, and new, perspective. In his discussion on sustained dialogue as a method to manage ethnic and racial conflict, Saunders (1999) suggests that “some people in conflict reject dialogue because they think of it as ‘just a talk without purpose or destination”’ (p. 81), and at its most basic level dialogue is indeed a talk or discussion between two or more people. But herein lie three difficulties for the practice of public relations. Firstly, it suggests that dialogue is little more than an everyday communication encounter, which does not distinguish it from other forms of communication, such as negotiation or a story being told. It also belies the tacit experience of those in a dialogic encounter. A second difficulty with perceiving dialogue as a “talk” between people is that it suggests that an organization engaging in dialogue with its environment is equated to a natural person, implying it has similar rights and responsibilities as citizens or individuals. Duffy (2000) points out that this is not the case (and by law, they are indeed not). However, we often think of organizations as living identities, and we could feasibly recognize organizations as active participants in the dialogic process, albeit perhaps in a more abstract, metaphorical sense. A third difficulty is that it suggests a linearity and simplicity in the dialogic process which effectively invalidates its inherent complexity. It is a multifaceted, sustained process that does not guarantee a specific, desired outcome or result. In that sense it carries risk and is unpredictable. Indeed, dialogue is continuous and can become part of other dialogues. There are several opportunities for dialogue to exist simultaneously, indicating that it can take place on many different levels: internally (in our thoughts), externally within our interaction with other individuals, within units of society and in larger contexts such as globally (Heath in Heath et al., 2006). In their paper on the origin and use of dialogue in public relations, Kent and Taylor (2002) traced the concept back to the work of Martin Buber who suggested that dialogue involved meeting others as equal partners in the process and not as a means to achieving a goal. This is what is referred to as the “I-thou” relationship as opposed to the “I-it” relationship, meeting somewhere in-between where excessive concern for the self or for the other is disbanded (Heath in Heath et al., 2006). Dialogue, Heath states, “presumes some innocence, some intimate awareness of others that stresses between” (p. 353) where “between” roughly relates to a philosophical place where the participants meet each other with respect and regard for the other person, showing implicit tolerance of differences. Kent and Taylor (2002) argue that Buber’s work is based on the premises of “reciprocity”, “mutuality”, “involvement” and “openness” (p. 22), which have been transferred to public relations. In his work, Buber emphasized that when participants engage in dialogue they must be prepared to change (i.e. be open to change). Thus, a focus on a predetermined outcome is set aside momentarily. In her comparative analysis of the works of Buber and Bakhtin, Moroco (2008) argues that based on Buber’s philosophical perspectives, genuine dialogue is derived from the inclusion or acknowledging the Other’s viewpoint. She then concludes that “monologue is to objectify the self and dialogue appreciates the other” (p. 27). Kögler (1999) expresses a similar sentiment when he discusses Gadamer’s view on the ways we can experience other people. One of these is having knowledge of human

P. Theunissen, W.N. Wan Noordin / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 5–13

9

nature (Menschenkenntnis). But using our understanding of how people behave arguably objectifies those with whom we attempt to interact (akin to the I-it relationship) and thus prevents us from achieving true dialogue. This form of experience represents an orientation in one’s interaction with fellow individuals, whereby one analyzes and determines the typical behavior of these people in order to better to cope with their predictable actions and reactions. In this orientation, the other is clearly not an end in herself but is objectified as a means for attaining one’s own life plan. (Kögler, 1999, p. 145) There is inherent risk in the practice of public relations that when we apply a systematic planning process we objectify the stakeholder (and organization): on the one hand we use our knowledge of human behavior to build relationships and on the other hand we use it to deliberately persuade and gain publicity. In neither cases—philosophically speaking—is true dialogue achieved simply because the other never becomes a “thou”. Where a dialogic process is attempted, it becomes a means to an end. Kögler continues to argue that science seems to do exactly that: objectify the individual and “deprive the other of what is most genuinely and truly hers” (1999, p. 146). In practice, this would mean that when we categorize and look for similarities to make the communication process more manageable, we effectively objectify our stakeholders. Thus, it appears that engaging in dialogue with another in the philosophical sense is an ideal that may not always realistically achievable. Buber‘s view is based on a metaphysical exploration of dialogue, requiring us to be aware of our own reality, and to recognize explicitly that which we simply see as natural or which we take for granted. In putting forward her view of dialogue, Kersten (in Heath et al., 2006) points out that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to step outside one’s own reality and meet another person on an equal footing without preconceptions or preconceived ideas. It is perhaps even more so for an organization wishing to engage in dialogue to achieve an outcome, and perhaps, categorizing people into manageable groups. But, having said this, in his discussion on productive dialogue, Kögler (1999) suggests that prior knowledge is needed to reach an understanding. During the dialogic process participants create a new space that is outside the participants yet belongs to each—akin to Buber’s notion of the “between”. This space is borne from our understanding of the situation and context, and it is in this space that a meaningful relationship is built. 4. Building relationships through dialogue Cissna and Anderson (1998) refer to dialogue as “a quality of relationships” (p. 64) no matter how brief an encounter between two or more people might be and propose that dialogue is a way of thinking about human associations that underline “their dialogic qualities” (p. 64). This way of thinking includes attitudes, talking, acting and meeting consequences and contexts (Cissna & Anderson, 1998). Dialogue in this sense focuses on relationships and strives for mutuality. However, mutuality should not be deduced to equality. Cissna and Anderson (1998) point out that no relationship exhibits complete equality. At any given time, one person is more knowing, more vulnerable or more powerful than the other. They presume that this might be a result of roles. Because dialogue is often deemed to place stakeholders as equals with the organization, emphasizing the relationship between the organization and its publics (Kent & Taylor, 2002), it is regarded as more ethical than persuasion that clearly favors one party‘s interests. But, inequalities can also be present in dialogue as such. In her discussion on race dialogue Kersten (in Heath et al., 2006) points out that “any dialogue form that implicitly or explicitly reproduces the dominant culture and structure of racism will reproduce the very relations it seeks to address” (p. 364). The same can be said for any dialogue that reproduces existing (dominant) structures or culture, including organizational culture and power structures. In such cases, the legitimacy of and attempts to engage in dialogue are likely to be questioned by the organization’s stakeholders and viewed with suspicion—in particular if no trust relationship has been established prior to attempting to engage in dialogue. Thus, as part of the dialogic process it is essential that participants be afforded the opportunity to question or bring to the fore whether the structure or system for the dialogic encounter is appropriate (Pearson, 1989). It may very well be that, for example, the public relations industry’s infatuation with social media as a way of engaging in dialogue with a specific stakeholder group may be misplaced. Should this be the case, the participants should be allowed to question this. In other words, deciding what is acceptable should not be the sole decision of the organization but it should be shared by all participants in the dialogic process. Dialogue, Cissna and Anderson (1998) suggest, is a momentary phenomenon, serendipitous and concludes before we are ready but it is not restricted to the briefest moments of occurrence. In fact, Saunders (1999) puts forward the idea of sustained dialogue, i.e. dialogue that preserves over time. “However revealing one session in a dialogue may be, dialogue is unlikely to change relationships fundamentally unless it is sustained over time” (Saunders, 1999, p. 88). Thus, to use dialogue for relationship development it needs to be integral to the general communication approach by the organization; not a once-off attempt. Bokeno and Gantt (2000), for example, view dialogue as “mutually constructive, critically reflective, participatory and emergent engagement of relationship between self, other and the world” (p. 250) while Roper, Zorn, and Weaver (2004) state that dialogue involves purposeful attempts to “increase understanding or shared meaning, raise awareness of taken for granted assumptions and beliefs, enhance learning, encourage collaboration and enhance the quality of decisions and actions” (p. 11). Dialogue is therefore viewed as a means to create knowledge and understanding, which are integral to relationships. However, Bokeno and Gantt (2000) are skeptical about the practicality of dialogue in an organizational setting as they relate dialogue at its worst or at its most insidious to a “collective forum for manufactured consent or concertive

10

P. Theunissen, W.N. Wan Noordin / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 5–13

control” (p. 249) centred around an organization’s main goal: to efficiently use all the resources needed in order to reach their bottom line—to make profit. In arguing against the use of dialogue in public relations, Stoker and Tusinski (2006) state that public relations has embraced “dialogue’s emphasis on equality, agreement, and mutual benefit” (p. 160). While their argument is markedly rooted in a particular moral perspective, their comments are not without merit. They believe that dialogue emphasizes “selectivity and controlled interpersonal communication” which will eventually lead to “tyranny, seduction, pandering, and missed connections” (Stoker & Tusinski, 2006, p. 162). They deem the introduction of dialogue as robbing organizations and participants of their “individuality and uniqueness” (p. 162) and that engaging in dialogue implies selecting those publics with whom we are most likely to reach agreement. It is worth noting that in their discussion they equate mutual understanding with agreement, and imply that “change” will create mediocrity. However, dialogue does not imply agreement or mutual understanding—rather an openness to meet the “other” as a human being and a willingness to change. Nor does it mean that all participants “become the same”. Nevertheless, they make a valid point that even organizations are inclined to enter dialogue with those they believe have a stake in the organization, and with whom they believe they can reach some form of “understanding”, or as Heath et al. (2006) point out: a predetermined outcome. Heath suggests that “we tend to look for the quality of our ideas and deny that in others with whom we disagree”. He continues to ask “Can we hear and listen to others neutrally?” (Heath in Heath et al., 2006, p. 353). Thus, while dialogue is perceived as necessary for relationship-building it is fraught with practical challenges that may impede on achieving the ultimate dialogic situation. 5. Common features of dialogue and practical application Regardless of our perspectives on dialogue, Pearce in Heath et al. (2006) suggests that all dialogue in its public relations context has certain common features, such as the inclusion of as many stakeholders as possible, engaging with the participants as human beings and not just as representatives of interest groups, focusing on listening and speaking, and constructing situations (environments) that allow, encourage and invite participants to speak from the heart rather than just uttering catchphrases. It requires commitment to the process rather than a focus on a preconceived outcome. In his response, Heath (in Heath et al., 2006) agrees, stating that a willingness to suspend the outcome and focusing on the process are key starting points for effective dialogue. This willingness is not unlike Saunders’ (1999) advice that the first step in engaging in sustained dialogue is the firm decision to engage. Willingness to engage is made concrete in the form of a decision, which requires commitment on part of the participants. This commitment would mean affording resources (e.g. money, people and time) to the dialogue process—similar to the fifth dialogic principle proposed by McAllister and Taylor (2007), which comprises genuineness, commitment to conversation and investment of both parties in the relationship. To put it simply, without willingness, dialogue cannot be brought to fruition. Because dialogue is a process and not an outcome, opportunities for expression should be created (Deetz in Heath et al., 2006). Ideally, organizations should foster greater public interaction using the mass and new media, and have a procedural approach to dialogue by establishing practices that facilitate the organization-stakeholder dialogue. Per implication, while the organization cannot (and should not) control the outcome and process per se, they can control the environment in which dialogue takes place. This requires time, effort and resources in which both parties need to invest—not just the organization. Not only should there be a willingness to participate but it must be understood that it is a shared responsibility. However, since organizations generally have greater access to resources, they should also carry more responsibility to create environments conducive to dialogue—environments where participants feel “safe” and can speak without fear of the knowledge being abused. Building trust is therefore essential and a prerequisite for dialogue. This is not unlike the third dialogic principle proposed by McAllister and Taylor (2007), namely empathy, referring to the support and trust that needs to be evident if dialogue is to succeed. The remaining three dialogic principles proposed by them to aide online dialogue, and in particular websites, include mutuality, which refers to the recognition of the relationship between an organization and its stakeholders; propinquity, which resembles a type of “rhetorical exchange” (p. 26) meaning that the organization and publics are ready to consult and be consulted by each other, and risk that is inherent in all organizational and interpersonal relationships. It is evident that for dialogue to succeed, both organizational commitment and the recognition of the value of relationshipbuilding are needed. Kent and Taylor (2002) state that dialogue can be incorporated into public relations activities through building interpersonal relationships, that is, where organizational leaders and members engage in dialogue at a personal level, cultivating mediated dialogic relationships but, like Bokeno and Gantt (2000), they admit that operationalizing dialogue is not easy. It should be remembered that dialogue is not the only form of communication, and very often, we need to engage in monologue before entering a dialogue (Pearson, 1989 as cited in Holtzhausen, 2000) but it is not always clear where monologue ends and dialogue begins, or vice versa. Both monologue and dialogue are requirements for effective public relations. In their analysis of the dialogue between Buber and Rogers in 1957, Cissna and Anderson (1994) mention that Buber and Rogers had both read material written by the other prior to engaging in a public dialogue. While it is not discussed, it is evident that each had an awareness of the other through being exposed to monologues (writings). Monologue thus creates awareness, much in the same way that publicity and advocacy in the form of persuasion create awareness, and as Ledingham and Bruning (1998) point out, dialogue and awareness are both necessary for relationship-building. In order to practice public relations with a relational focus, both the organization and the publics need to be aware that they can affect each other (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998). Knowing who the stakeholders are, is thus viewed as an important requirement for dialogue public relations practice, but, because communication is mainly initiated and managed by the

P. Theunissen, W.N. Wan Noordin / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 5–13

11

organization, it is mostly the organization that decides who the stakeholders are, resulting in a less than ideal situation if the organization truly wishes to engage in dialogical communication. Grunig (2009) points out that it is the stakeholders who decide whether they have a stake in the organization—not the other way around. Thus, stakeholders should be seen as active and aware participants, not simply “targeted audiences” for the organization’s messages or campaigns. Not only is this a fundamental requirement for dialogue but, in the vein of ethical public relations, having active participants would be the ultimate public relations achievement, and not—as is advanced through the systems theory—the achievement of harmony or “balance” with the environment. In other words, the measurement of success for public relations that applies dialogic theory is not the absence of conflict but rather the absence of control over the conversation itself. But it is unlikely that such a measurement would be accepted by organizations that aim to reduce risk. In fact, dialogue can hold potential risks that need to be acknowledged. 6. Potential risks of dialogue for organizations A key feature of dialogue is its inherent unpredictability, and because its end result or outcome is unpredictable, it is possible that the change the participants hope for may not be in their favor (Heath et al., 2006). Because dialogue can expose differences as well as similarities, it may in fact not lead to agreement but rather to disagreement. Thus, it may not resolve conflict within the relationship, and the subsequent change in an organization-stakeholder relationship may not benefit of the organization and/or stakeholder. Therefore, the dialogic process carries risk, and it is thus not surprising to find that dialogue is often equated to “risk” or “danger” by various authors. Leitch and Neilson (2001) state that “genuine dialogue is a problematic concept for systems public relations because it has the potential to produce unpredictable and dangerous outcomes” and continue to say that “to reduce both uncertainty and the potential for damage, system organizations may attempt to determine in advance the terms of any public debate in which they engage” (p. 135). Thus, organizations are unlikely to engage in dialogue as proposed by scholars such as Martin Buber. In his discussion on sustainable dialogue Saunders (1999) similarly states that “dialogue is dangerous; it often involves risks” (p. 84) and continues to outline the risks for individuals. He suggests that unlike other forms of communication participants are required to share their deepest hopes, interests and fears. Dialogue reveals the “self”, the individual and what shapes his or her identity. In the same vein, dialogue has the potential to reveal the organization, its “true” self and not the manufactured image that many organizations carefully present to its stakeholders. For organizations such as these (who believe that public relations’ main purpose is to create and maintain an image), dialogue holds indeed great risk. It may expose its true (authentic) identity, which may not be palatable to a discerning stakeholder. Thus, the fear of exposure and loss of control over their image and reputation may prevent such organizations from engaging in true dialogue. Another risk potentially lies in the notion of the bottom line. While all organizations function in complex, uncertain environments, those whose main purpose is to make profit have an inherent need to measure and evaluate return on investments (ROI) through quantifiable (accounting) measures. But how do we quantify relationships or the success of a dialogic encounter? Public relations practitioners can argue the success of their persuasive efforts by pointing to agreement achieved, but if the outcome of dialogue is unpredictable and may even lead to further disagreement, then how can we prove our success? Organizations aim to mitigate risk by managing it through reducing unpredictability of potential outcomes. One can only presume that for a business that craves control and proof of return on investment, unpredictability and ambiguity of the outcome of dialogue in the vein of, for example, Buber’s assertions would be deemed too risky. A further factor leading to risk is the one identified by Taylor (in Heath et al., 2006) who suggests that, according to the triadic hypothesis, successful dialogue with one group can lead to alienation of the third group. If we were to extrapolate his argument to public relations and in particular the systems perspective, we could argue that an organization and its multiple stakeholders exist in a balanced situation (environment). When the organization engages in constructive dialogue with one group a new space of shared understanding is formed around these two groups (i.e. a potential coalition), which inevitably creates an imbalance in the system, leading to potential conflict between the new coalition and the third party. To illustrate his theory, Taylor (in Heath et al., 2006) cites a case where a national police force had engaged in a project to upgrade its internal communication systems—a very needed and supported project. Five years later the project had failed with its subsequent public relations fallout. On researching the case, Taylor found that while one disparate group improved their relationships through genuine dialogue, relationships around them fell apart. “The more they bonded, the more intense the opposition to and rejection of their work was elsewhere in the organization” (Taylor in Heath et al., 2006, p. 357). 7. Conclusion For public relations theory to move forward and develop, it is important to take a step back and understand the underlying philosophical differences between the systems theory and dialogic theory, and to recognize that while dialogue has potential value, it is no more ethical than or preferred to persuasion. Dialogue is an ongoing communication process where the content and outcome are not controlled in the strictest managerial sense. Conceivably, an organization may create an environment where dialogic moments can be nurtured but the success of these moments will depend on the extent to which organizations embrace its underlying philosophy and whether they afford appropriate resources to creating such an environment. It is interesting to note that dialogic discourse in public relations scholarship relies on the idea of embedded ethics—an ideal towards which many practitioners and scholars strive. But, while the dialogical process can promote ethical behavior, it

12

P. Theunissen, W.N. Wan Noordin / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 5–13

cannot compel organizations to behave ethically (Kent & Taylor, 2002) nor can it force an organization to engage in dialogue with its stakeholders. Unless their existence and future success is reliant on the ongoing relationship built through dialogue, there is no incentive for business organizations to engage in the dialogic process in its truest sense. Indeed, if one were to perceive organizations as autopoietic social systems, then their interactional openness translates into their preparedness to interact and exchange information with the environment but not into automatic changes in their operations. Such changes will be determined by the organization (system) itself (Seidl & Becker, 2005). Such an understanding about the underpinnings of dialogue brings into question the underlying paradigm that many scholars hold about following a systems approach in public relations planning. These scholars believe that a system interacting with its environment should adapt in order to survive, suggesting that change pressures from external sources (such as advocacy groups) will necessitate a change within the organization, and if not, the organization will cease to exist. But adapting (or reacting) to change pressures surely is a persuasive process as opposed to a dialogic process. It seems logical that it would be in an organization’s best interest to create balance through persuasion rather than dialogue because dialogue may inadvertently destabilize the situation further by exposing disagreement. Furthermore, pressure from, for example, stakeholders may not always be ethical and it would be realistic for an organization to refuse engagement in such instances. What if, for example, the organization values human life or cares for the environment, but its shareholders are upset about dropping profits and are placing pressure on the organization to reduce wages or move operations elsewhere? Would it not be more ethical for the organization to engage in persuasion to change the shareholders’ point of view as opposed to engaging in dialogue? Regardless of how we perceive such situations, it is evident that current planning processes and a focus on achieving specific end results do not support the philosophy of dialogue. While it is feasible for organizations to engage in dialogue with various stakeholders, it is important to remember that dialogue is an abstract and complex concept; not a simple twoway conversation. Regrettably, the systems model as it has been applied in public relations thinking encourages a linear and mechanistic view of such a multifarious and dynamic communication process. By equating dialogue to the two-way symmetrical model, public relations theorists are effectively doing a disservice to the complexity of human and organizational communication, and are have moved no closer to developing a concrete dialogic theory of public relations. References Bokeno, R. M. & Gantt, V. W. (2000). Dialogic mentoring. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(2), 237–270. Bortree, D. S. & Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. Public Relations Review, 35, 317–319. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.05.002 Briones, R. L., Kuch, B., Fisher Liu, B. & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 37, 37–43. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.12.006 Cissna, K. N. & Anderson, R. (1994). The 1957 Martin Buber-Carl Rogers Dialogue, as dialogue. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 34(11), 10–45. doi:10.1177/00221678940341003 Cissna, K. N. & Anderson, R. (1998). Theorizing about dialogic moments; The Buber-Rogers position and postmodern themes. Communication Theory, 8(1), 63–104. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1998.tb00211.x Duffy, M. E. (2000). There’s no two-way symmetric about it: A postmodern examination of public relations textbooks. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 17(September (3)), 294–315. doi:10.1080/15295030009388397 Fawkes, J. (2007). Public relations models and persuasion ethics: A new approach. Journal of Communication Management, 11(4), 313–331. doi:10.1108/13632540710843922 Gordon, J. & Berhow, S. (2009). University websites and dialogic features for building relationships with potential students. Public Relations Review, 35, 150–152. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2008.11.003 Grunig, J. E. (2009). Paradigms of global public relations in an age of digitilization. PRism, 6(2), 1–19. Retrieved from:. http://praxis.massey.ac.nz/prism online journ.html Grunig, J. E., Grunig, L. A. & Dozier, A. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grunig, J. E. & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Belmont, CA: Thomson. Heath, R. L., Pearce, W. B., Shotter, J., Taylor, J. R., Kersten, A., Zorn, T., et al. (2006). The processes of dialogue. Management Communication Quarterly, 19(February (3)), 341–345. doi:10.1177/0893318905282208 Henderson, A. & Bowley, R. (2010). Authentic dialogue? The role of “friendship” in a social media recruitment campaign. Journal of Communication Management, 14(3), 237–257. doi:10.1108/13632541011064517 Heylighen, F. & Joslyn, C. (2001). Cybernetics and second-order cybernetics. In R. A. Meyers (Ed.), Encyclopedia of physical science & technology (pp. 1–24). New York: Academic Press. Holtzhausen, D. (2000). Postmodern values in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1), 93–114. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00131-5 Jun, S. & Jung, J. (2005). A cross-cultural study of the world wide web and public relations. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(1), 24–40. doi:10.1108/13563280510578187 Kelleher, T. (2007). Public relations online-lasting concepts for changing media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kent, M. L. & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X Kögler, H. H. (1999). The power of dialogue. Critical hermeunitics after Gadamer and Foucalt. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (translated by P. Hendrickson). Lattimore, D., Baskin, O. & Aronoff, C. (2004). (Public relations: The profession and the practice) (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Ledingham, J. A. & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organization–public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24(1), 55–65. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(98)80020-9 Leeper, R. V. (1996). Moral objectivity. Jurgen Habermas’s discourse ethics, and public relations. Public Relations Review, 22(2), 133–150. doi:10.1016/S03638111(96)90003-X Leitch, S. & Neilson, D. (2001). Bringing publics into public relations: New theoretical frameworks for practice. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 127–138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. L’Etang, J. (2008). Public relations: Concepts, practice and critique. London: Sage Publishers. McAllister-Spooner, S. M. (2009). Fulfilling the dialogic promise: A ten-year reflective survey on dialogic Internet principles. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 320–322. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.03.008 McAllister, S. M. & Taylor, M. (2007). Community college website as tools for fostering dialogue. Public Relations Review, 33(2), 230–232. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2007.02.017

P. Theunissen, W.N. Wan Noordin / Public Relations Review 38 (2012) 5–13

13

Mersham, G. M. & Skinner, C. (1999). New insights into communication and public relations. Johannesburg: Heinemann. Mersham, G., Theunissen, P. & Peart, J. (2009). Public relations and communication management. An Aotearoa/New Zealand perspective. North Shore, NZ: Pearson. Mifsud, M. L. & Johnson, S. D. (2000). Dialogic, dialectic, and rhetoric: Exploring human dialogue across discipline. Southern Communication Journal, 65(2/3), 91–104. Moroco, L. J. (2008). Unconventional dialogic distinctions between Buber and Bakhtin. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the NCA 94th annual convention, TBA San Diego, CA,. Retrieved from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p258682 index.html (online PDF) Pearson, R. A. (1989). A theory of public relations. Unpublished Dissertation. Ohio University. Penman, R. & Turnbull, S. (2010). From listening. . .into the dialogical space at the radical centre. In Paper presented at the ANZCA 2010 conference on media, democracy and change Canberra, Australia, July. Podnar, K. & Golob, U. (2009). Reconstruction of public relations history through publications in Public Opinion Quarterly. Journal of Communication Management, 13(1), 55–76. doi:10.1108/13632540910931391 Roper, J., Zorn, T. & Weaver, C. K. (2004). Science dialogues: The communicative properties of science and technology dialogue. A project for the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology Hamilton. New Zealand: Department of Management Communication, University of Waikato. Rybalko, S. & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: How Fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relations Review, 36, 336–341. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.08.004 Saunders, H. H. (1999). A public peace process. Sustained dialogue to transform racial and ethnic conflicts. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Seidl, D. & Becker, K. H. (2005). Niklas Luhman and organization studies. Kristianstad, Sweden: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press. Stoker, K. L. & Tusinski, K. A. (2006). Reconsider public relations’ infatuation with dialogue: Why engagement and reconciliation can be more ethical than symmetry and reciprocity. Journal of Mass Media, 27(2–3), 156–176. doi:10.1207/s15327728jmme2102&3 5 Taylor, M., Kent, M. L. & White, W. (2001). How activist organizations are using the Internet to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 27(3), 263–284. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(01)00086-8 Toth, E. L. (1992). The case for pluralistic studies of public relations: Rhetorical, critical and systems perspectives. In E. Toth, & R. L. Heath (Eds.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Tymson, C., Lazar, P. & Lazar, R. (2006). The New Australian and New Zealand public relations manual. Chatswood: Tymson Communications Pty Ltd. Yang, S., Kang, M. & Johnson, P. (2010). Effects of narratives, openness to dialogic communication, and credibility on engagement in crisis communication through organizational blogs. Communication Research, 37(4), 473–497. doi:10.1177/0093650210362682