Comments on: What comes after Grunig? Take a look at these two documents before you reply… http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2009/09/what-comes-after-grunig-take-a-look-at-these-two-documents-before-you-reply/ Global discussion of public relations from local perspectives Mon, 21 May 2012 00:30:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Toni Muzi Falconi http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2009/09/what-comes-after-grunig-take-a-look-at-these-two-documents-before-you-reply/comment-page-2/#comment-1848 Toni Muzi Falconi Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:54:06 +0000 http://www.prconversations.com/?p=592#comment-1848 I have often written highly of Stuart Ewen's book as it is one of the landmarks of our body of knowledge. I defintely agree with and endorse your suggestion that, before expressing opinions or interpretations, one should read critically Grunig's books. I wish you had also... In any case, teo minor points: 1. I do not see a direct relationship between the concepts of two way and that of symmetrical communicationM and certainly is no relationship between the concepts of democratical and symmetrical communication; 2. your points a,c,d and e -with the sole exception of b- all point to the development of an effective relationship between any social, public or private organization and its stakeholders. This has been going on for centuries and what Jim says, after having dome extensive descriptive research in hundreds of organizations way back in the late eighties (long before social media....), is simply that the more the relationship is balanced between the subjects the more effective is the communication process. I have often written highly of Stuart Ewen’s book as it is one of the landmarks of our body of knowledge.
I defintely agree with and endorse your suggestion that, before expressing opinions or interpretations, one should read critically Grunig’s books.
I wish you had also…
In any case, teo minor points:
1.
I do not see a direct relationship between the concepts of two way and that of symmetrical communicationM and certainly is no relationship between the concepts of democratical and symmetrical communication;
2.
your points a,c,d and e -with the sole exception of b- all point to the development of an effective relationship between any social, public or private organization and its stakeholders. This has been going on for centuries and what Jim says, after having dome extensive descriptive research in hundreds of organizations way back in the late eighties (long before social media….), is simply that the more the relationship is balanced between the subjects the more effective is the communication process.

]]> By: irfan erdogan http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2009/09/what-comes-after-grunig-take-a-look-at-these-two-documents-before-you-reply/comment-page-2/#comment-1847 irfan erdogan Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:20:45 +0000 http://www.prconversations.com/?p=592#comment-1847 I think we first ask what comes with Gtrunig before asking what caomes after Grunig Grunig's works should be considered simply as public relations of the public relations industry; Grunig's ideas on communication in organisations and role of public relations are mostly baseless justifications for the promotion of public relations business. How can a person think of a two-way of communication (a symmetrical communication) within a business environment and between an organisation and potential buyers? Two-way of communication requires all of the followings: Rights and means to be able to (a) initiate a communication, (b) fill the content of communication, (c) change the subject of communication during the interaction, (d) stop an ongoing communication, (e) decide on (or significantly influence on) where to produce, how to produce, where and how to distribute and how to share the outcomes. There can be no two-way democratical or symmetrical relationship if any of the above requirements is missing. Stuart Ewen's book Pr: A Social history of Spin is an excellent source if you really want to know the real nature of the public realtions beyond the prevailing mystifications and factoids. I suggest that (a) we should critically read Grunig’s Model and (b) develop theories that is not geared toward the justifications, marketing and promotion of public relations business, but geared toward to understand and explain the nature of public relations in a society. I think we first ask what comes with Gtrunig before asking what caomes after Grunig
Grunig’s works should be considered simply as public relations of the public relations industry; Grunig’s ideas on communication in organisations and role of public relations are mostly baseless justifications for the promotion of public relations business. How can a person think of a two-way of communication (a symmetrical communication) within a business environment and between an organisation and potential buyers? Two-way of communication requires all of the followings: Rights and means to be able to (a) initiate a communication, (b) fill the content of communication, (c) change the subject of communication during the interaction, (d) stop an ongoing communication, (e) decide on (or significantly influence on) where to produce, how to produce, where and how to distribute and how to share the outcomes. There can be no two-way democratical or symmetrical relationship if any of the above requirements is missing. Stuart Ewen’s book Pr: A Social history of Spin is an excellent source if you really want to know the real nature of the public realtions beyond the prevailing mystifications and factoids.
I suggest that (a) we should critically read Grunig’s Model and (b) develop theories that is not geared toward the justifications, marketing and promotion of public relations business, but geared toward to understand and explain the nature of public relations in a society.

]]> By: Jim Grunig http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2009/09/what-comes-after-grunig-take-a-look-at-these-two-documents-before-you-reply/comment-page-1/#comment-1846 Jim Grunig Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:39:57 +0000 http://www.prconversations.com/?p=592#comment-1846 Sabiha, Toni asked me to provide the reference for this book. It was published in Portuguese in Brazil. Toni posted my three chapters in the pre-translation English. The book has not been published in English. Grunig, J. E., Ferrari, M. A., & França, F. (2009). Relações públicas: Teoria, contexto e relacionamentos (Public relations: Theory, context, and relationships) São Paulo, Brazil: Difusao Editora. Sabiha,

Toni asked me to provide the reference for this book. It was published in Portuguese in Brazil. Toni posted my three chapters in the pre-translation English. The book has not been published in English.

Grunig, J. E., Ferrari, M. A., & França, F. (2009). Relações públicas: Teoria, contexto e relacionamentos (Public relations: Theory, context, and relationships) São Paulo, Brazil: Difusao Editora.

]]> By: Sabiha http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2009/09/what-comes-after-grunig-take-a-look-at-these-two-documents-before-you-reply/comment-page-1/#comment-1845 Sabiha Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:01:54 +0000 http://www.prconversations.com/?p=592#comment-1845 Hi Toni, I've been trying to find the publication date of James Grunig's book Public Relations: Theory, Context and Relationships and Relationships to which you have embedded a link. Would you happen to know when it was published? I would be very grateful for any information on retailers. Sabiha Kadri Hi Toni,
I’ve been trying to find the publication date of James Grunig’s book Public Relations: Theory, Context and Relationships and Relationships to which you have embedded a link. Would you happen to know when it was published? I would be very grateful for any information on retailers.
Sabiha Kadri

]]> By: Sean Williams http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2009/09/what-comes-after-grunig-take-a-look-at-these-two-documents-before-you-reply/comment-page-1/#comment-1844 Sean Williams Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:24:52 +0000 http://www.prconversations.com/?p=592#comment-1844 Bill Brody wrote: "the fact that most practitioners define their roles individually in response to client or organizational needs." This is more profound than you realize! I certainly hope that this is the case. If we are not helping our clients fulfill their needs than the best description of our role is "unemployed." This, I believe, is at the root of the resistance to Excellence Theory: Excellence wants us to believe that it's the singular path to enlightenment, the true faith and the golden chalice of wisdom. But there are too many needs for which Excellence just doesn't fit. We had better contribute mightily to business effectiveness if we want to be more than an historical footnote. Finding out how to quantify (as in objective, repeatable models) is a task for the academy, to be sure. Whether any of us on the practitioner side can muster the energy to assist in that effort is an open question. Bill Brody wrote: “the fact that most practitioners define their roles individually in response to client or organizational needs.”

This is more profound than you realize!

I certainly hope that this is the case. If we are not helping our clients fulfill their needs than the best description of our role is “unemployed.”

This, I believe, is at the root of the resistance to Excellence Theory: Excellence wants us to believe that it’s the singular path to enlightenment, the true faith and the golden chalice of wisdom. But there are too many needs for which Excellence just doesn’t fit.

We had better contribute mightily to business effectiveness if we want to be more than an historical footnote. Finding out how to quantify (as in objective, repeatable models) is a task for the academy, to be sure. Whether any of us on the practitioner side can muster the energy to assist in that effort is an open question.

]]> By: Bill Brody http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2009/09/what-comes-after-grunig-take-a-look-at-these-two-documents-before-you-reply/comment-page-1/#comment-1843 Bill Brody Fri, 02 Oct 2009 13:19:45 +0000 http://www.prconversations.com/?p=592#comment-1843 Public relations as a discipline has been attempting to better define itself for decades without perceptible progress. These conditions arise in large part out of the fact that most practitioners define their roles individually in response to client or organizational needs. I spent more than 20 years in consulting without ever using the words "public relations" in dealing with clients or prospective clients. I presented my firm as a developer and manager of communication systems designed to solve clients' business problems and enjoyed considerable success. Debating the boundaries of "public relations," in my view, is an exercise in futility. Newcomers to the discipline may want to use precise phraseology to circumscribe their practices, but each of us ultimately will be judged professionally by what we do and how well we do it. Public relations as a discipline has been attempting to better define itself for decades without perceptible progress. These conditions arise in large part out of the fact that most practitioners define their roles individually in response to client or organizational needs.

I spent more than 20 years in consulting without ever using the words “public relations” in dealing with clients or prospective clients. I presented my firm as a developer and manager of communication systems designed to solve clients’ business problems and enjoyed considerable success.

Debating the boundaries of “public relations,” in my view, is an exercise in futility. Newcomers to the discipline may want to use precise phraseology to circumscribe their practices, but each of us ultimately will be judged professionally by what we do and how well we do it.

]]> By: Bill Huey http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2009/09/what-comes-after-grunig-take-a-look-at-these-two-documents-before-you-reply/comment-page-1/#comment-1842 Bill Huey Fri, 02 Oct 2009 12:53:23 +0000 http://www.prconversations.com/?p=592#comment-1842 But at the end of it all, we are still left with this question: What does PR want to be when it grows up? In the 30+ years I have been involved with PR, practitioners have been urged to adopt or become the following: ·Futurists like John Naisbitt (anyone remember John Naisbitt?) ·Corporate Consciences ·Storytellers and Historians ·Issues Managers ·Relationship Managers ·MBAs in Funny Clothes ·Internal Consultants and Counselors to Management ·Strategists ·IMC Experts ·Corporate Cultural Anthropologists (my favorite) ·Communication Social Scientists ·Social Media Mavens ·Conversation Architects You can probably think of several more. PR is like an undergraduate trying on majors, or a 22-year-old kid trying on careers and identities. But at the end of it all, we are still left with this question: What does PR want to be when it grows up?

In the 30+ years I have been involved with PR, practitioners have been urged to adopt or become the following:

·Futurists like John Naisbitt (anyone remember John Naisbitt?)
·Corporate Consciences
·Storytellers and Historians
·Issues Managers
·Relationship Managers
·MBAs in Funny Clothes
·Internal Consultants and Counselors to Management
·Strategists
·IMC Experts
·Corporate Cultural Anthropologists (my favorite)
·Communication Social Scientists
·Social Media Mavens
·Conversation Architects

You can probably think of several more. PR is like an undergraduate trying on majors, or a 22-year-old kid trying on careers and identities.

]]> By: Timothy Coombs http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2009/09/what-comes-after-grunig-take-a-look-at-these-two-documents-before-you-reply/comment-page-1/#comment-1841 Timothy Coombs Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:56:03 +0000 http://www.prconversations.com/?p=592#comment-1841 Bob: Sorry I missed that early debate you linked to in your last post. I was trained at Purdue University at a time when the program had a rhetorical focus. In my PhD work in issue management and public affairs we did not read Grunig. Excellence has its place in the grand discussion of public relations but I agree with your point that it should not dominate the conversation. While small, the number of scholars pursuing other views of PR is growing with the likes of David McKie being very vocal and Bob Heath proving a counter with focus on meaning (coming from rhetoric) to name but a few. We are seeing textbooks that use Excellence as an historical point and not the framework for the practice. In our recent book PR Strategy and Application, the focus is on PR as managing influence infusing a critical element into discussion of the profession. Course are starting to reflect this change as well because they can use these alternative books. While still in the minority, those who embrace and use alternative views are slowly emerging from the fog. I strongly believe this trend will continue and will greatly improve the field with an infuse of desperately needed new ideas. Bob:
Sorry I missed that early debate you linked to in your last post. I was trained at Purdue University at a time when the program had a rhetorical focus. In my PhD work in issue management and public affairs we did not read Grunig. Excellence has its place in the grand discussion of public relations but I agree with your point that it should not dominate the conversation. While small, the number of scholars pursuing other views of PR is growing with the likes of David McKie being very vocal and Bob Heath proving a counter with focus on meaning (coming from rhetoric) to name but a few. We are seeing textbooks that use Excellence as an historical point and not the framework for the practice. In our recent book PR Strategy and Application, the focus is on PR as managing influence infusing a critical element into discussion of the profession. Course are starting to reflect this change as well because they can use these alternative books. While still in the minority, those who embrace and use alternative views are slowly emerging from the fog. I strongly believe this trend will continue and will greatly improve the field with an infuse of desperately needed new ideas.

]]> By: Bob Batchelor http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2009/09/what-comes-after-grunig-take-a-look-at-these-two-documents-before-you-reply/comment-page-1/#comment-1840 Bob Batchelor Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:15:47 +0000 http://www.prconversations.com/?p=592#comment-1840 This conversation took an interesting turn...now the profession is "post-Grunig?!" Certainly, if one examines the documents Toni links to above, Grunig is not "post-Grunig" or "post Excellence." If anything, I see his post-retirement work as attempting to solidify the commitment to Excellence. And, if we're all "post-Grunig" now, where were all you post-Grunigites last year when we engaged in a lengthy discussion of the merits and demerits of the so-called Excellence Theory: http://www.prconversations.com/?p=471 I think it's great that we emphasize the practical aspects of the field, which many of you have done above. But, the scholarly community has not embraced an environment that disputes Grunig. Sure, there are pockets of scholars who have moved beyond or are looking for a more effective paradigm, but Grunig and Excellence still dominates research agendas. My contention is that this is at the detriment of the development of the field. For an example of how passionately Excellence is still argued, take a look at the post and comments I linked to earlier in this comment. Certainly the professional world never accepted Excellence as fervently as academics, but Grunig is still at the heart of what most are teaching. We seemed to move pretty easily and quickly past this. This conversation took an interesting turn…now the profession is “post-Grunig?!”

Certainly, if one examines the documents Toni links to above, Grunig is not “post-Grunig” or “post Excellence.” If anything, I see his post-retirement work as attempting to solidify the commitment to Excellence.

And, if we’re all “post-Grunig” now, where were all you post-Grunigites last year when we engaged in a lengthy discussion of the merits and demerits of the so-called Excellence Theory: http://www.prconversations.com/?p=471

I think it’s great that we emphasize the practical aspects of the field, which many of you have done above. But, the scholarly community has not embraced an environment that disputes Grunig.

Sure, there are pockets of scholars who have moved beyond or are looking for a more effective paradigm, but Grunig and Excellence still dominates research agendas. My contention is that this is at the detriment of the development of the field.

For an example of how passionately Excellence is still argued, take a look at the post and comments I linked to earlier in this comment. Certainly the professional world never accepted Excellence as fervently as academics, but Grunig is still at the heart of what most are teaching. We seemed to move pretty easily and quickly past this.

]]> By: Bill Brody http://www.prconversations.com/index.php/2009/09/what-comes-after-grunig-take-a-look-at-these-two-documents-before-you-reply/comment-page-1/#comment-1839 Bill Brody Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:21:55 +0000 http://www.prconversations.com/?p=592#comment-1839 Sean makes a critical point. We can debate theoretical constructs ad infinitum and fail professionally in the absence of client or employer honesty and trustworthiness (see "The Great Trust Offensive" in the Sept. 17 edition of Business Week. Years ago, I was admonished to ensure that performance precedes promotion. The substance of the message: the attributes of organizations and their products or services always will overpower any countervailing communication efforts. That's even more the case in today's "wired world." Stakeholders who consider themselves to have been misled by organizations can "let the world know about it" in a matter of minutes. Messages too easily can appear to be contradicted by quality or performance. Even advertising copy can inadvertently contradict manufacturer claims. What do you think of the following paragraph, which appeared in a full page Wall Street Journal advertisement for Lexus automobiles: “The HS hybrid features four driving modes: Normal mode. Electric mode. ECO mode and Power mode. So the driver gets to decide how efficient or powerful they want their car to be.” I wonder how many readers noticed the singular/plural problem and wondered whether sloppiness in grammar might be reflected in the product. Lexus' claim to the "pursuit of excellence" came immediately to my mind. Contradicting reality, in essence, is an exercise in futility. Sooner or later, reality will overpower messages. In other words, putting more lipstick on a pig (with apologies to pig fanciers) doesn’t make it any less a pig. Sean makes a critical point. We can debate theoretical constructs ad infinitum and fail professionally in the absence of client or employer honesty and trustworthiness (see “The Great Trust Offensive” in the Sept. 17 edition of Business Week.

Years ago, I was admonished to ensure that performance precedes promotion. The substance of the message: the attributes of organizations and their products or services always will overpower any countervailing communication efforts.

That’s even more the case in today’s “wired world.” Stakeholders who consider themselves to have been misled by organizations can “let the world know about it” in a matter of minutes.

Messages too easily can appear to be contradicted by quality or performance. Even advertising copy can inadvertently contradict manufacturer claims. What do you think of the following paragraph, which appeared in a full page Wall Street Journal advertisement for Lexus automobiles:

“The HS hybrid features four driving modes: Normal mode. Electric mode. ECO mode and Power mode. So the driver gets to decide how efficient or powerful they want their car to be.”

I wonder how many readers noticed the singular/plural problem and wondered whether sloppiness in grammar might be reflected in the product. Lexus’ claim to the “pursuit of excellence” came immediately to my mind.

Contradicting reality, in essence, is an exercise in futility. Sooner or later, reality will overpower messages. In other words, putting more lipstick on a pig (with apologies to pig fanciers) doesn’t make it any less a pig.

]]>