I am however very happy that I did look at game theory again, because it seemed even more appropriate to PR now than when I first looked at it. So I won’t pack it away again! Thanks very much for the reference. I will have a look and am sure some of the others, who first broached the subject, will do so too.

I am not convinced that ‘tendential’ symmetry (your term) is quite the same as ‘mixed motives’ (Murphy’s term). Even though I quoted Jim saying above that ‘mixed motives’ has the same meaning as symmetry, to me it feels different. I think ‘mixed motives’ is closer to what he really wanted to describe and is therefore a better concept for what he really meant, but it is not the same as symmetry. ‘Collaborative advocacy’ and ‘co-operative antagonism’ gives me the same sense as ‘mixed motives’ but symmetry falls in another league. Symmetry gives the feeling of ideal, normative, perfect, absolute, pure collaboration while the former three gives the feeling of pragmatic, real-world, a compromise—the mediation of conflict, the establishment of equilibrium among conflicting parties.

The difference between ’symmetry’ and ‘mixed motives’ almost gives me the feeling of the core difference between the German sociologists Habermas and Luhmann (a la Susanne Holmstrőm’s two PR paradigms): of ‘mutual understanding’ as the core of symmetrical communication (Habermas) versus ‘consent on dissent’ (to agree to disagree, so to speak) as the core of the reflective paradigm (which is very much Luhmann). It is idealistic to think that we can ever reach mutual understanding between organisation and stakeholders. They are too different. That can never be. All PR can try or strive for, is to interpret organisation and stakeholders to each other, to have them acknowledge each other’s differences and try to work around them—try to mediate the conflict, try to establish equilibrium amongst conflicting parties. While symmetrical communication is ethical (the right thing to do, according to Habermas), reflective communication is functional, motivated by self-interest (according to Luhmann).

I don’t know whether this makes any sense. All I know is that I have left the realm of knowledge and am floundering in the realm of feeling and instinct.

Alan Kelly http://www.plays2run.com/blog/index.php

CEO & Founder, The Playmaker’s Standard, LLC
Author, The Elements of Influence and Co-Creator, Plays for the Presidency
Adjunct Professor, USC Annenberg School for Communication
akelly@plays2run.com | http://www.plays2run.com
(t) 301.990.9406 | (m) 301.529.9113 | (f) 301.990.9507

Best, Fraser

If power distance between the two subjects in a relationship increases, then it is tendentially asymmetric and vice versa.

By the way, one area where I disagree with Jim is in the application of the four principal indicators related to the evaluation of a relationship.

While Jim indicates that a relationship may be evaluated according to the levels of trust, power distance, satisfaction and committment between the stakeholder and the organization; I am instead convinced that -if my objective is to evaluate a relationship with the intention of improving it- then I should inquire on the status of the relationship as such between the two subjects.
Again, by using the same indicators.

This not only (and I and my colleagues have continuosly been using it in practice with increasing success over the last three years now..)by asking both subjects how they value their relationship with the other (and not the organization as such)along those four indicators, but also by reversing the question and asking one subject how it thinks the other subject would react to the same question.

This gives the analyst a very good picture of where the gaps in the relationship, as well as in its reciprocal perception, are more relevant and which priorities should be addressed in order to improve that relationship, before it goes sour.

I agree with you that Jim Grunig never intended to prescribe a perfectly symmetrical model. He actually acknowledges this in his later work after criticism of the symmetrical model, mainly by the critical scholars, who regarded the symmetrical world-view of communication as total accommodation of stakeholder interests, sacrificing the organisation’s self-interest in the process.

In 1999, Jim reacted to the different criticisms of his statement that the two-way symmetrical model was the normative ideal, by stating that an organisation does not have to abandon its self-interest in practising this model because “organizations get more of what they want when they give up some of what they want.” Rather, symmetry implies a balance of the two parties’ interests since total accommodation of a stakeholder’s interest would be as asymmetrical as unbridled advocacy of the organisation’s interest. Also, persuasion is still a relevant concept in the symmetrical model, the difference being that PR practitioners sometimes must persuade (top) management and at other times persuade the stakeholders to change their attitudes or behaviour. Furthermore, the symmetrical model will not always be successful because there are indeed limits to collaboration—as pointed out by Leichty (1997). Jim agreed with Leichty in this regard, but states that although it may be unethical to accommodate a repugnant stakeholder, it is not unethical to talk with its representatives.

At this time (1999), Jim Grunig summarised his conceptualisation of the two-way symmetrical theory as follows: “Symmetrical PR does not take place in an ideal situation where competing interests come together with good will to resolve their differences because they have a goal of social equilibrium and harmony. Rather it takes place in situations where groups come together to protect and enhance their self-interest. Argumentation, debate, and persuasion take place. But dialogue, listening, understanding, and relationship building also occur because they are more effective in resolving conflict than are one-way attempts at compliance gaining.”

The quantitative and qualitative results of the Excellence Study suggested a new contingency model with both symmetrical and asymmetrical elements (Dozier, Grunig & Grunig, 1995). Whereas Jim and Lauri Grunig placed the two-way asymmetrical model at one end of a continuum and the two-way symmetrical model at the other end in the Excellence book in 1992, the new contingency model regards either end of the continuum as asymmetrical. The reason is that if PR strategy is placed at either end it would favour the interests of either the organisation or the stakeholder to the exclusion of the other. In the new model, the middle of the continuum is a symmetrical zone. PR practitioners thus engage in ‘mixed-motive communication’ (sound familiar, Toni?) by negotiating with both stakeholders and their top management to reach an outcome or relationship in the win-win zone.

The new contingency model is a two-way, excellent model of PR that subsumes the former two-way symmetrical and asymmetrical PR models. Sometimes, asymmetrical tactics may be used to gain the best position for organisations within the win-win zone. Nevertheless, the two-way model can still be considered symmetrical since these practices take place from within a symmetrical world-view that respects the integrity of long-term relationships. It also means that the two-way model treats top management as another stakeholder influenced by PR programmes.

This new contingency model of excellent, two-way PR is a positive as well as a normative theory. As a positive theory, it indicates how excellent PR departments balance divided loyalties as they try to serve the interests of their organisation as well as their stakeholders. As a normative theory, the new model indicates the ideal communication situation where organisations strive to reach the win-win zone as they build relationships with their stakeholders.

Jim Grunig admitted that ‘symmetry’ might not have been the best choice of a name for the fourth model, since it has led to some misunderstanding. He regards ‘mixed-motives’ (Murphy, 1991), ‘collaborative advocacy’ (Spicer, 1997) and ‘co-operative antagonism’ (Raiffa, 1982) as having the same meaning as ‘symmetry’.

Some scholars see the term ‘game theory’ as a misnomer and suggest that “the theory of interdependent decision-making” is a more descriptive alternative. William Ehling (1985) saw PR along these lines, i.e. PR is the “appli-cation of scientific decision-making techniques to the mediation of conflict between an organisation and its stakeholders.”

Priscilla Murphy (1991) offered an original approach to applying game theory to PR, particularly in situations that require negotiation. The central concerns of game theory are the same as those of PR, and can be used in analysing PR situations that involve conflict of interest. Mutual adaptation lies at the root of all game theory, taking the view that most conflict situations are essentially bargaining situations. The theory of games focuses on the mediation of conflict, the establishment of equilibrium among conflicting parties, the functions of power and domination, and questions of fairness and ethics. The basic assumption of game theory is that social relationships can be modelled as games of strategy. Game theorists model strategic conflicts by considering the parties involved as players in a game.

Game theory emphasises reflexivity, another assumption of PR research, which refers to the ability of players to adjust their behaviour according to other players’ expectations. Putting this in PR terms, an organisation and its stakeholders continuously adapt their roles to meet or pre-empt the perceived positions of the others. This is similar to Ehling’s definition of PR as conflict and co-operation based on ‘communication as conversation’ in which sender and receiver have reciprocal, dyadic roles. Such reflexivity – a positioning of one’s stance according to one’s perceptions of another’s perceptions of one — is a defining component of organisational-stakeholder interaction in PR. Ehling’s conceptualisation of co-operation and conflict being on the opposite ends of a continuum is also central to games theory.

Murphy also made suggestions as to how the two-way symmetrical model of PR could be slightly refined by examining some of the premises and effects of asymmetric and symmetric models in the light of game theory. Asymmetric models resemble zero-sum (win-loose) games (i.e. what one player gains, the other must necessarily lose). In such games of pure opposition/competition, one player can gain only at the expense of the other, hence there are no prospects of mutually profitable collaboration. Asymmetric PR is based on assumptions similar to zero-sum game theory. Practitioners mould public opinion to benefit the organisation at the expense of the public good. An asymmetric world-view, according to Jim Grunig, is based on manipulating public behaviour by means of attitude and behaviour change and means of persuasive communication.

The ‘win-lose’ (zero-sum) bargaining situation is a common negotiation mode in business-to-business transactions, founded on power or persuasion. Little attention is paid to what the other party wants, needs, or desires. Two-way symmetric communication, on the other hand, resembles games of pure co-operation.

However, most interactions between organisations and their stakeholders are not inherently win-loose (zero-sum). As boundary spanners, practitioners often practise symmetrical communication by taking the needs of both organisations and stakeholders into consideration. In that way, both parties can live with the outcome. This approach of two-way symmetric communication shares important features with games called pure co-operation (pure common-interest). In the communication process, source and receiver are equal participants seeking mutual understanding and balanced, two-way effects. In games theory, fully co-operative partners might have different needs, values, and opinions, but they are completely open with one another — expecting total honesty, full disclosure, and thinking of themselves as a cohesive entity. In pure co-ordination games, every player tries to anticipate the others’ choices and obtain a mutually beneficial outcome—therefore there is no conflict of interest. Their sole objective is to co-ordinate their strategies in such a way as to obtain an outcome they all prefer.

Although the pure symmetrical model in communication is very attractive, it probably does not represent organisational behaviour since purely co-operative behaviour is seldom found in the real world. Murphy therefore suggests that the concept of symmetric communication be refined along a continuum ranging from conflict to co-operation. Games that occupy the broad middle range of the continuum are called “mixed-motive” games — referring to the interests of the players neither being strictly co-incident nor strictly opposed. Each side retains a strong sense of its own interests, yet each is motivated to co-operate in a limited way to attain at least some resolution of the conflict. In a mixed-motive game, the parties aim to find an equilibrium—a balance between the players’ interests in such a way that neither player would have any cause to regret his action given what the other player chose to do. Such an equilibrium offers a stable solution to conflict.

Most PR situations are located somewhere along the continuum of mixed-motive games, some more toward the win-loose/conflict extreme and others more toward the symmetry/co-operation extreme. A definition of PR as a mixed-motive game helps to reconcile the symmetric versus asymmetric (bargaining versus persuasion) PR models. Behaviour is seen as a sliding scale of co-operation and competition in which organisational needs must be balanced against stakeholders’ needs, but never lose their primacy. This balance-of-influence view is not only realistic but also ethical, bringing together the conflict between asymmetric (pure competition) and symmetric (pure common interest) models. It preserves the central importance of one’s own interests, yet acknowledges the power of opposing viewpoints. Such a mixed-model helps to solve the central ethical dilemma in PR — the tension between partisan values (organisational loyalty) and mutual values (public interest).

Game theory is the science of conflict resolution — however, in urging symmetric compromise it never ignores the asymmetric centrality of self-interest or the usefulness of maintaining tension among competing interests. According to Murphy, viewing PR as a mixed-motive game permits a richer view of conflict and co-operation than that allowed by strict prescriptions for symmetry.

I know this is quite ‘heavy’ reading, but at least it gives some idea of how Murphy sees the application of game theory to PR.

Maybe a volunteer will want to peruse what else (and there sure is quite a lot..depending on the specific perspective selected) is on this blog and attempt to put it all together in a (more or less) systematic shape in order to produce another pdf as Cathy Arrow courageosly did with the ‘what is pr’ theme (download the pdf from the right hand column of this website).

By the way, the italian very cool brand new 2.0 Ferpi website (www.ferpi.it) launched the pdf in english a few days ago, and I have been informed that downloads have reached a significant number in the first three days!
I can’t help wondering what would happen should the same opportunity be offered to members of other professional associations on their websites or to students by inspired and concerned public relations professors around the world!

Getting back to the point, one approach could be:

a- since the beginning of the public relations profession the ‘event organising’ function has been, together with media relations and public affairs, a central pillar.
In the second part of the 20th century event organization went into such a state of frenzy (with the adoption of marketing by social, cultural and political organizations) to induce contemporary historian Daniel Boorstin to publish in the early sixties ‘The Image: what happened to the american dream’, an inspiring critical pamphlet against the pervasiveness in our society of pseudo-events in order to attract the attention of influential publics by all sorts of organizations.
This frenzy has not only continued but has significantly increased in the first years of the current century, specifically (but not solely) caused by the rise of the Internet and a few years later, social media.
This, of course, if we agree (anyone disagree?) that pseudo-events are also such in virtual relationship environments…

b- While all this was, and is, happening under our eyes, many other variables impacting on our day-to-day professional activities (only to refer to something I have already written here… those shattering (shattered?) paradigms…see this post..)require the more concerned part of our community to revise, rethink, rephrase and re-enact our more common practices in order to ensure more effectiveness, responsibility and sustainability (mind you…in the sense that the latter two are conditions of the first…not for do-gooding reasons, in order to add value to our role within the organizations we work for or with.

c- we are all well aware that traditional and mainstream approaches to event organization have largely satisfied many palates over time but, like most of our consolidated practices, also need thorough rethinking and reconceptualizing.
For example, one point is that while in the past (present?) we gave (give?) for granted that events be spaces in which convened influential publics have an opportunity to listen to the convenor and, eventually but not necessarily, respond; today the convenor’s role is also (where not principally) that of facilitating, incentivating and, eventually but not necessarily, participating into dialogue amongst those influential publics on issues and themes which are also indirectly of interest to the convenor…

d- from this perspective we are called upon to evaluate that the act of creating a (real or virtual) space which is attractive to our influential publics is at least as important for effective relationships as the act of creating the very content of what the organisartion wishes for those influential publics to take home with them once the pseudo-event is over..and this exalts the creative part of our profession like never before…

I will stop here, hoping to rouse ideas from new commenters as well as suggestions from those who have already done so.

1. Markus – is part of the problem that the majority of attendees at events are more comfortable with the passive postion of listening to experts. Although more is gained from participation, I’ve found it often difficult to get people to be brave enough to speak up, let alone share or engage. But when you get it right, it is much better. I used some example scenarios for a new media workshop earlier this year (alongside a more traditional presentation and panel session) and it worked really well at engaging the attendees and getting more into the topics being covered.

2. I find game theory also fascinating as a PR learning tool – there’s a great paper we use by Murphy who applies game theory to crisis management that helps show alternative strategies. Also, I adapted the Prisoner’s Dilema or Red:Blue game to illustrate the challenges of living a CSR strategy. It not only works in terms of engaging participants in the real world challenges of living your values, but serves as great shorthand reference when we talk about leadership strategies, etc.

3. There’s been a lot of talk in UK media recently of the need for young people (including children) to have their own spaces for free play. The concern is that they have increasingly been controlled by adults and lack the ability to be spontaneous and imaginative in their freetime. I have been stimualted by this post to wonder if the same isn’t true of organisations. Have we not lost the ability to have fun and be free in developing relationships with others in our own spaces. That may be having a coffee or a beer with journalists (both parties being under pressure not to be out of the office) or organising events with publics without seeking to persuade them about a particular organisational policy.

Bring on the games and toys I say…