All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Reflective Communication Management, a Public View on Public Relations
Unformatted Document Text:  9 to luring the (connotative) meanings of certain target groups into the meanings of the sender (i.e., the organization). The Relationship Model The interactive/two-way axis, combined with the rationality/denotative axis, leads to a relational approach of communication management. In this model communication management is seen as establishing and maintaining mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and its publics (Ledingham & Bruning, 2000; see also Cutlip et al., 2000). The aim of the relationship is the creation of consensus (which is a new denotative meaning) on important issues to avoid conflict and assure cooperation (Ehling 1992:633). To accomplish this it is important not to focus on communication processes towards publics/target groups, but on communication processes between parties. Theoretically this approach is based on the "balance theories" of communication (see for an overview McQuail & Windahl, 1986). An influential theory in this relationship model has become the co-orientation model of Newcomb, which has been further developed by Broom and Dozier (see Dozier & Ehling, 1992:179). The key aspect of this model is the relationship between A and B, which is related to a communication process about X (something out there). Newcomb (1953) postulated a "strain to symmetry," resulting in a widening of the area of agreement by engaging in communication: where there is balance, each participant will resist change, and where there is imbalance, attempts will be made to restore balance. Key problems in the Broom & Dozier co-orientation model are the agreement of corporate views with the public’s views of an issue, as well as the perceived agreement of the corporate estimate of the public’s views and the public’s estimate of corporate views. Quality communication management seeks for accuracy among all these relationships. It is obvious that in this model the organization, as well as its public, is no longer predefined as merely senders and receivers, but each is seen as an actor. In this approach successful communication management is seen as negotiating with the public for an acceptable meaning of issues, which is a matter of balancing the give and take (Grunig, 1992a). Relational communication management is primarily negotiation management. In this model the management of the process of meaning creation is restricted to the co-creation of a new definition of the situation (consensus), i.e., a new denotative meaning. The Dialogue Model The interactive/two-way axis, combined with the limited rationality/connotative axis, leads to a discursive approach of communication management. Communication management is seen as the facilitation of dialogic interaction between organization and its publics (see e.g., Burkart, 1996). Heath (2000b) refers to this process as "enactment of meanings." The aim of these dialogues is the development of learning processes (Deetz et al., 2000:xiii). Deetz et al. discuss the process through which people develop their interpretations of an event. The discussion focuses on how language, stories, and ritual frame or reframe

Authors: Van Ruler, A. A. Betteke. and Vercic, Dejan.
first   previous   Page 9 of 31   next   last



background image
9
to luring the (connotative) meanings of certain target groups into the meanings of the sender (i.e., the
organization).
The Relationship Model
The interactive/two-way axis, combined with the rationality/denotative axis, leads to a relational approach
of communication management. In this model communication management is seen as establishing and
maintaining mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and its publics (Ledingham &
Bruning, 2000; see also Cutlip et al., 2000). The aim of the relationship is the creation of consensus
(which is a new denotative meaning) on important issues to avoid conflict and assure cooperation (Ehling
1992:633). To accomplish this it is important not to focus on communication processes towards
publics/target groups, but on communication processes between parties. Theoretically this approach is
based on the "balance theories" of communication (see for an overview McQuail & Windahl, 1986). An
influential theory in this relationship model has become the co-orientation model of Newcomb, which has
been further developed by Broom and Dozier (see Dozier & Ehling, 1992:179). The key aspect of this
model is the relationship between A and B, which is related to a communication process about X
(something out there). Newcomb (1953) postulated a "strain to symmetry," resulting in a widening of the
area of agreement by engaging in communication: where there is balance, each participant will resist
change, and where there is imbalance, attempts will be made to restore balance. Key problems in the
Broom & Dozier co-orientation model are the agreement of corporate views with the public’s views of an
issue, as well as the perceived agreement of the corporate estimate of the public’s views and the public’s
estimate of corporate views. Quality communication management seeks for accuracy among all these
relationships. It is obvious that in this model the organization, as well as its public, is no longer
predefined as merely senders and receivers, but each is seen as an actor. In this approach successful
communication management is seen as negotiating with the public for an acceptable meaning of issues,
which is a matter of balancing the give and take (Grunig, 1992a). Relational communication management
is primarily negotiation management. In this model the management of the process of meaning creation is
restricted to the co-creation of a new definition of the situation (consensus), i.e., a new denotative
meaning.
The Dialogue Model
The interactive/two-way axis, combined with the limited rationality/connotative axis, leads to a discursive
approach of communication management. Communication management is seen as the facilitation of
dialogic interaction between organization and its publics (see e.g., Burkart, 1996). Heath (2000b) refers to
this process as "enactment of meanings." The aim of these dialogues is the development of learning
processes (Deetz et al., 2000:xiii). Deetz et al. discuss the process through which people develop their
interpretations of an event. The discussion focuses on how language, stories, and ritual frame or reframe


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 9 of 31   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.