See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254311035

The Government Communication Decision Wheel:

Toward a Public Relations Model for the Public Sector

Article  in  Journal of Public Relations Research · August 2007

DOI: 10.1080/10627260701402473

CITATIONS READS

84 1,969

2 authors, including:

Brooke Liu
University of Maryland, College Park
54 PUBLICATIONS   1,378 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Comprehensive Testing of Imminent Threat Public Messages for Mobile Devices View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brooke Liu on 26 July 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC RELATIONS RESEARCH, 19(4), 377–393
Copyright © 2007, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

The Government Communication

Decision Wheel: Toward a Public
Relations Model for the Public Sector
Brooke Fisher Liu
College of Communication, DePaul University

J. Suzanne Horsley
Department of Communication, University of Utah

We argue that the existing public relations and communication models do not ade-
quately account for the unique environmental characteristics of the public sector. By
reviewing the public sector environment literature, we identify 8 attributes that affect
government public relations: politics, focus on serving the public, legal constraints,
extreme media and public scrutiny, lack of managerial support for public relations
practitioners, poor public perception of government communication, lagging profes-
sional development, and federalism. We then review 5 existing public relations mod-
els, arguing that none of these models fully incorporates the unique environmental
characteristics of the public sector. We conclude by proposing a new model: the gov-
ernment communication decision wheel.

Just as tensions were peaking after the September 11 attacks, rumors began to
spread of an anthrax attack. This lethal form of bioterrorism forced the Centers for
Disease Control’s scientists and public relations experts to communicate quickly
about an alien substance that was not yet fully understood. Scientists had yet to de-
termine the biological traits of anthrax spores or how they could be contained from
spreading to the public at large. At the same time, public relations personnel had to
communicate with the public and media without inciting unnecessary fear, often
without being able to first talk with the CDC scientists (Ehling, 1992; Robinson &
Newstetter, 2003; Sieb & Fitzpatrick, 1995; Wright, 1981).

Correspondence should be sent to Brooke Fisher Liu, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, DePaul University,
College of Communication, 2320 N. Kenmore Ave., Chicago, IL 60614. E-mail: prof.liu@yahoo.com
378 LIU AND HORSLEY

The anthrax crisis is just one of the many emergencies that government agen-
cies must properly respond to and manage quickly, efficiently, and accurately to
protect the public’s safety. The government’s level of responsibility far exceeds
that of the private sector when the public’s safety is at risk. Although the stakes are
higher, the amount of scholarly research does not reflect the importance of govern-
ment communication (Garnett, 1992; Garnett & Kouzmin, 1997; Graber, 2003;
Horsley & Barker, 2002). In this study, we highlight the differences between pub-
lic and private sector environments and propose that a unique model is needed for
public relations practiced in the public sector.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Currently, the public relations field does not distinguish between the public and
private sectors, applying the same models to all scenarios. By understanding the
unique environmental characteristics of the public sector, we demonstrate a need
for a new theoretical approach to public sector public relations.

The Public Sector Environment

Public relations practices in the government are undoubtedly influenced by the de-
velopment of routines in the broader profession. Individuals move between private
industry and government, taking knowledge they have learned in one arena and ap-
plying it to another. In addition, individuals work in a variety of organizations,
many of which are hybrids of the two sectors. Nevertheless, the public sector envi-
ronment creates unique constraints and opportunities that ultimately distinguish
government public relations from corporate public relations. These constraints and
opportunities include: politics, public good, legal constraints, devaluation of com-
munication, poor public perceptions, lagging professional development, and fed-
eralism

Politics. Politics encompass the essence of the public sector. As Appleby

(1973) wrote, “other institutions, admittedly, are not free from politics, but govern-
ment is politics” (p. 63). Thus, although corporations also deal with internal and
external politics, government organizations are defined by political actions and re-
lationships. In the public sector, politics may restrict creativity and innovation in
developing communication programs because elected officials do not want to ap-
pear too far out of the mainstream (Horsley & Barker, 2002). Politics also intro-
duces greater diversity in external influences outside of government, such as pub-
lic interest groups, and a greater need for support from the people (Allison, 2004;
Graber, 2003).
 THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION DECISION WHEEL 379

Public good. Another key distinguishing characteristic of the public sector is

that government agencies are established to serve citizens. As Viteritti (1997) ex-
plained, “Meaningful communication between government and the people is not
merely a managerial practicality. It is a political, albeit moral, obligation that origi-
nates from the basic covenant that exists between the government and the people”
(p. 82). Conversely, corporate organizations are established to make profits. Thus,
government agencies generally are more concerned with the social purpose of their
work, rather than market pressures (Avery, Brucchi, & Keane, 1996; Rainey,
2003). Of course, government agencies are not immune to market pressures—they
often have to compete against each other for funding and resources. Likewise, pri-
vate enterprises can serve the public good through corporate social responsibility
programs. Nevertheless, the focus on the public good allows government agencies
to provide important services that the market may not deem necessary, such as risk
communication (Schneider, 1995).

Legal constraints. Although the public good may guide government ac-
tions, legal constraints often limit the ability of agencies to communicate fully and
openly. Federal agencies must comply with the Freedom of Information Act; states
and local governments have their own access-to-information laws. In addition, Ti-
tle 18, Section 1913 of the United States Code prohibits lobbying by government
officials and spending public funds on advertising. This law does not interfere with
normal communication activities (Graber, 2003). It creates tension, however, be-
tween what is considered to be public communication and what is considered to be
advertising.

Media scrutiny. Public sector organizations also face a higher level of media
scrutiny. Allison1 (2004) argued that government decision-making is covered more
often in the media than the actions of private companies and the media can influ-
ence the timing of government decisions. Allison described the relationship be-
tween government and media as “mutually dependent” (p. 404), a depiction that
does not apply to the media and private companies (p. 404). Lee (2001) referred to
this relationship as “public reporting” (p. 33), meaning that a fundamental duty of
government officials is to constantly report decisions and actions via the media, to
maintain an informed citizenry (p. 33). Some researchers, however, do not view
the relationship between the government and the media as complementary (e.g.,
Wamsley & Schroeder, 1996). These researchers note that the government is never
free from the 24–7 news cycle. Thus, to avoid negative media coverage, govern-

1Original source: Proceedings of the Public Management Research Conference, November 19–20

1979 (1980). Washington, D.C.: Office of Personnel Management, OPM Document 127–53–1, pp.
27–38.
380 LIU AND HORSLEY

ment employees tend to follow the status quo and improvise less (Garnett, 1997;
Graber, 2003; Hicbert, 1981; Schneider, 1995).

Devaluation of communication. Another primary environmental con-

straint on government public relations is the lack of importance often placed on
communication by management. This devaluing of the communication role has
had several tangible repercussions. For example, during agency budget cuts and re-
organizations, public relations positions are usually the first to go, leaving un-
skilled communicators to fill the void (Garnett, 1997). In the first year of his presi-
dency, Richard Nixon stated that public relations efforts “represent a questionable
use of the taxpayers’ money for the purpose of promoting and soliciting support
for various agency activities” (Lee, 1997, p. 318). Because of this climate in which
communication is undervalued, many qualified communicators leave government
service for organizations that demonstrate more respect for their work and offer
better salaries (Garnett, 1997).

Poor public perception. Public perception can also devalue government

communication. The negative connotations of the term propaganda and the derog-
atory use of spin often make the public cynical about the intentions of government
communications, despite the fact that the majority of government information is
honest (Graber, 2003). Once again, the constraints of the public sector environ-
ment can be blamed. Government’s traditional use of one-way models of commu-
nication, rather than two-way models, often limits dialogue, thereby diminishing
the role of public feedback (Garnett, 1997).

Lagging professional development. Perhaps due to both the government’s

and the public’s negative perceptions of government communication, the profes-
sional development of government communicators lags behind the professional
development of private sector communicators. Professionalism is necessary to ele-
vate the public image of a field (Ehling, 1992; Sieb & Fitzpatrick, 1995; Wright,
1981). One common metric of professionalism is membership in a professional or-
ganization, which provides professional norms and guidelines such as codes of
ethics (Cameron, Sallot, & Weaver Lariscy, 1996; Sallot, Cameron, & Weaver
Larisey, 1997). Under this metric, public sector communicators lag behind their
private sector counterparts in the development of professionalism. For example,
the first predominately corporate public relations association, the Public Relations
Society of America, was founded in 1948. Conversely, the first government public
relations association, the National Association of Government Communicators,
was founded in 1976.

Federalism. A final unique characteristic of the public sector environment is

that government communicators not only have to deal with their own agency con-
 THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION DECISION WHEEL 381

cerns, but they also have to work within a system of federalism. Public administra-
tion scholar Laurence O’Toole (2000) defined federalism as “a system of authority
constitutionally apportioned between central and regional governments” (p. 2).
Local agencies communicate on matters within their municipal boundaries, but
states may step in to communicate about matters that go beyond those geograph-
ical borders. Likewise, the federal government may intercede and communicate
about matters of national importance (Schneider, 1995). Partly due to federalism,
but also due to a lack of formalized communication structure, agencies practice a
decentralized approach to communication. As Graber (2003) explained, “The lack
of centralized control over external communications explains why public officials
in the United States often do not speak with one voice about major issues. When
authoritative pronouncements are contradictory, people become confused, an-
noyed, and often cynical” (p. 228).
In sum, the unique attributes of the public sector environment are: politics, pub-
lic good, legal constraints, devaluation of communication, poor public percep-
tions, lagging professional development, and federalism. Because of these unique
attributes, we argue that a new theoretical approach is needed to understand public
relations practiced in the public sector.

Current Government Communication

and Public Relations Models
In this section, we review five dominant public relations models to examine how
well the models fit public sector public relations. Two of the models were devel-
oped specifically for government communication (the government communica-
tion process model and the synthesis model for crisis communication). The other
three models were developed for general public relations (the public relations pro-
cess model, the two-way symmetrical model, and contingency theory). Based on
this review, we conclude by presenting a new model for public sector public rela-
tions: the government communication decision wheel.

The government communication process model. Hiebert (1981) pro-

vided one of the few government communication models: the government commu-
nication process model. The model identifies four basic information strategies
public officials can use to enhance their agency’s image: withholding information,
releasing information, staging special events, and persuading the public. The
model also provides recommendations for when to use each strategy. The govern-
ment communication process model is valuable because it incorporates both inter-
nal and external communications and addresses several public sector environmen-
tal attributes (e.g., media scrutiny, public good, and legal constraints). The model,
however, does not incorporate the effect of politics and federalism on public sector
communication. Furthermore, Hiebert’s model is a typology outlining strategies
382 LIU AND HORSLEY

and tactics, rather than the foundation for a theory. Finally, a review of the litera-
ture did not find any research testing Hiebert’s model.

Synthesis model of public sector crisis communication. Horsley and

Barker (2002) proposed a synthesis model for public sector crisis communication.
Although this model is specific to crisis situations, it highlights elements common
to all public sector communication: emphasis on interagency and political coordi-
nation. The synthesis model includes six interconnected stages: ongoing public re-
lations efforts, identification of and preparation for potential crises, internal train-
ing and rehearsal, the crisis event, evaluation and revision of public relations
efforts, and interagency and political coordination analysis. Throughout these
stages, the internal and external environment of the organization influences organi-
zational behavior and decision making. Horsley and Barker’s model is limited by
focusing only on government crisis communication. The model also does not in-
clude several significant attributes of government communication, such as oppor-
tunities for citizen feedback, legal constraints, and a focus on public interest. Hors-
ley and Barker developed their model from a survey of mid-Atlantic state
government agencies. The model has not been further tested.

Public relations process model. Hazelton and Long (1988) proposed the
public relations process model, which provides an open systems theory approach
to understanding public relations. The model outlines an environmental
supersystem that provides exogenous input for the three subsystems: organization,
communication, and target audience. These exogenous inputs consist of five inter-
related and interacting dimensions: legal/political, social, economic, technologi-
cal, and competitive. Within the organization subsystem, environmental inputs in-
teract with the organization, and organizational goals direct the behavior of public
relations practitioners. Hazelton and Long’s model has predominately been used
as an educational tool in public relations courses. Limited empirical research, how-
ever, has tested the model (e.g., Weaver, 2005, 2006). For example Werder (2006)
tested public relations strategies derived from the model to determine the influence
of problem recognition, involvement, constraint recognition, and goal compatibil-
ity on an organization’s response to activism.
The value of Hazelton and Long’s (1988) model is that it provides a roadmap of
the entire public relations process, not just one step, such as message dissemina-
tion. Also, unlike most models, the public relations process model incorporates the
importance of unique environments. However, the public relations process model
was developed with the private sector in mind, as evidenced by how Hazelton and
Long define public affairs: corporate relations with government rather than com-
munication originating from government.
 THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION DECISION WHEEL 383

Two-way symmetrical model. The two-way symmetrical model conceptu-

alizes both the persuasive and relationship-building goals of public relations (L. A.
Grunig, J. E. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002). The model aligns Murphy’s (1991)
mixed-motives model with J. E. Grunig’s (1984) symmetrical model to explain
how organizations adapt their strategies to effectively address publics’ needs
(Dozier, Grunig, & Grunig, 1995; Murphy, 1991). L. A. Grunig et al. referred to
the two-way symmetrical model as the two-way contingency model. In their
multimethod study of three Western countries, they concluded that public relations
practitioners ideally find the middle ground between opposing interests of the or-
ganization’s dominant coalition and the public. Other scholars have tested the
two-way symmetrical model in both Western and non-Western countries with
mixed results (e.g., Holtzhausen & Voto, 2002; Rhee, 2002; Roper, 2005;
Wakefield, 2000).
The two-way symmetrical model provides an accurate depiction of the ideal
government communication process, but has several limitations. The model does
not include environmental attributes that may constrain communication. Also, the
model does not incorporate the possibility that a third party may influence commu-
nication between an organization and a public (e.g., other government agencies
and foreign leadership). Finally, the model does not incorporate the possibility that
one-way communication may be most effective in some situations. Covello (2003)
noted that the government must use one-way communication during crises, but
one-way communication is only effective when paired with two-way risk commu-
nication prior to crises. Unfortunately, two-way communication is often over-
looked by government agencies in favor of simpler, and inevitably less successful,
communication tactics (Smith & McCloskey, 1998).

Contingency theory. Contingency theory proposes a continuum from pure

advocacy to pure accommodation to understand an organization’s communication
with a single public (Cancel, Cameron, Sallot, & Mitrook, 1997). Generally ap-
plied to studies of conflict management, contingency theory proposes 86 variables
that influence public relations practice. The underlying assumption of contingency
theory is that the practice of public relations depends on a number of factors that
vary across time, environments, situations, and publics. Scholars have applied con-
tingency theory to both public and private sector public relations, as well as to in-
ternational public relations. For example, through in-depth interviews, Choi and
Cameron (2005) examined how contingency factors affect multinational corpora-
tions’ stances in conflict situations. Also, through a content analysis of media cov-
erage Qiu and Cameron (2005) examined the role of strategic conflict management
in China’s response to the SARS crisis.
The basic tenant of contingency theory—that public relations responses must
be tailored to specific situations—parallels our argument that there is no one-
size-fits all approach to public relations. Contingency theory, however, is both too
384 LIU AND HORSLEY

narrow and too broad. The theory cannot be applied to all situations because it only
hypothesizes how factors affect public relations behavior during conflict resolu-
tion situations. Further, by identifying 86 factors, the theory lacks parsimony.
More significant to our research focus, these 86 factors predominately focus on
private sector considerations rather than public sector considerations. Critical fac-
tors unique to the public sector, such as political turnover and political party affilia-
tion, are not included in the extensive list of factors.
The review of models reveals that a new model is needed to better address the
unique attributes of public sector public relations. The review, however, also re-
veals that the existing models can make significant theoretical contributions to the
development of a new model. Table 1 provides a summary of the five models we
discussed and lists the elements that we used from each model to develop a new
model: the government communication decision wheel.

A NEW MODEL FOR PUBLIC SECTOR

COMMUNICATION

Due to the limitations of existing models of government communication and pub-

lic relations, we propose a new model for understanding public sector communica-
tion: the government communication decision wheel (see Figure 1). This model in-
corporates the importance of the unique environmental characteristics of the
public sector by identifying four coexisting, complementary microenvironments:
multilevel, intragovernmental, intergovernmental, and external. The model also
highlights eight environmental characteristics that affect government communica-
tion and proposes how these characteristics operate in each of the four micro-
environments.

The Microenvironments
Multilevel microenvironment. In the multilevel microenvironment, two or
more levels of government collaborate on a single issue. Each level of government,
however, still maintains some unique and separate responsibilities based on the
U.S. system of federalism. An example that typifies the multilevel microen-
vironment is the United States welfare program that is administered by both the na-
tional and state governments. The multilevel microenvironment also includes one
of more levels of the U.S. government interacting with foreign governments. An
example of this is the U.S. Department of Defense coordinating with the Iraqi Se-
curity Force.

Intergovernmental microenvironment. In the intergovernmental microen-

vironment, two or more units at the same governmental level coordinate. An exam-

Model
Model of the Government
Communication Process
Synthesis Model of Public Sector
Crisis Communication
Public Relations Process Model
Two-Way Symmetrical Model
Contingency Theory
385
TABLE 1
Summary of Five Public Relations Models
Strengths
Addresses public sector
environmental constraints;
identifies when to select various
communication vehicles for
government communication.
Addresses wide variety of public
sector environmental constraints.
Explains how organizations interact
with their environment and
change.
Combines mixed-motives and
two-way symmetrical; explains
how organizations adapt
strategies to effectively meet the
organization’s and the publics’
needs.
Explains how the practice of public
relations is contingent on factors
that vary across time,
environment, situation, and
publics.
Weaknesses
Only allows for one-way
asymmetrical
communication;
typology rather than a foundation
for a theory.
Only applies to crisis situations;
only allows for one-way
asymmetrical communication.
Biased toward corporate sector;
need more detail on the
subsystem dimensions.
Does not allow for one-way
communication; does not account
for unique public sector
environment.
Only applied to conflict resolution;
86 factors predominately focus
on private sector considerations.
Elements Applied to Government
Communication Decision Wheel
Inclusion of public sector
environmental constraints;
concept of adapting
communication strategy based on
specific public sector
environmental constraints.
Inclusion of public sector
environmental constraints.
Concept of supersystem and
subsystems.
Combining two-way symmetrical
and asymmetrical
communication; concept of
organizations adapting strategies
to effectively meet publics’
needs.
Concept that there is no
one-size-fits all approach to the
practice of public relations.
386 LIU AND HORSLEY

FIGURE 1 The government communication decision wheel.

ple is a state alcohol beverage control agency partnering with the state police de-
partment to educate retailers and minors about the implications of underage
alcohol purchases.

Intragovernmental microenvironment. In the intragovernmental microen-

vironment, only a single agency takes action. This agency can be part of the local,
state or national government. An example is a municipal government that raises
taxes to pay for recycling.

External microenvironment. Finally, in the external microenvironment,

any level of government coordinates with private and nonprofit organizations. This
microenvironment is typified by Rainey’s (2003) typology, which advocates for a
continuum from purely public to purely private organizations, with hybrid organi-
zations in between. An example is the relief efforts following Hurricane Katrina in
August 2005. Government agencies, including federal and state emergency man-
 THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION DECISION WHEEL 387

FIGURE 2 Communication choices in one microenvironment.

agement agencies, worked closely with nonprofits and private organizations to as-
sist survivors.

Interaction of the Microenvironments

In all four microenvironments, government managers share expertise and re-
sources, as well as coordinate communication. Also, within each microenviron-
ment, government communicators must decide the channel and direction of
communication. One axis on the decision wheel represents the media (mediated
communication), and the other represents the target publics (direct communica-
tion). The intercept point represents the proportion of mediated versus direct-
to-public communication, which would then determine the appropriate channels
(see Figure 2). This intercept point changes based upon the situation and com-
munication goals. The dashed arrows indicate the permeability of the boundaries
between the microenvironments, as well as the direction of the informational
flow. In all four microenvironments, the government may decide to withhold in-
formation from the media and/or the public, or to disseminate information di-
rectly to the media and/or public. In addition, the message may originate from
the public relations practitioner, the public, and/or the media, indicating the po-
tential for both one-way and two-way symmetrical and asymmetrical communi-
cation in the public sector.
388 LIU AND HORSLEY

Effect of Environmental Attributes

on the Microenvironments
Government communicators in each of the microenvironments must consider
eight overlapping primary environmental attributes: politics, public good, legal
constraints, devaluation of communication, poor public perceptions, lagging pro-
fessional development, and federalism. Alhough the environmental attributes are
relevant to all four microenvironments, it is possible that some attributes are more
prevalent in some microenvironments when compared to the others. Thus, we pro-
pose the following propositions about the effect of the environmental attributes on
the microenvironments. These propositions need to be tested empirically to deter-
mine their validity and reliability.

Proposition 1: The constraints posed by politics are most influential in

the multilevel and intergovernmental microenvironments. In all four micro-
environments, politics affect public relations practitioners. Politics may restrict
creativity and innovation in developing communication programs because govern-
ment officials do not want to appear too far out of the mainstream (Horsley &
Barker, 2002). Politics also introduces greater diversity in external influences out-
side of government, such as public interest groups, and a greater need for support
from the people (Allison, 2004; Graber, 2003). The greater the number of govern-
ment agencies and levels involved in a communication issue, the more likely the
constraints of politics will affect issues. Therefore, we propose that the constraints
of politics are most influential in the multilevel and intergovernmental micro-
environments. To test this proposition, we propose conducting interviews with
government communication managers at the state, local, and federal levels to de-
termine if political constraints are greater when these managers are cooperating
with communicators from other government agencies than when they are working
alone on issues.

Proposition 2: The constraints posed by public good are most salient in

the multilevel microenvironment and least salient in the external micro-
environment. Public good describes the government’s primary concern of
meeting the public’s needs rather than responding to market pressures (Avery et
al., 1996). Because the primary mission of government is to serve the public good,
all four microenvironments naturally will be concerned with this task. It is likely,
however that providing for the public good is most salient in the multilevel
microenvironment where several governmental levels collaborate to manage mas-
sive programs like welfare. Conversely, meeting the public good may be less sa-
lient in the external microenvironment because in this microenvironment the gov-
ernment partners with both private and nonprofit organizations. These
organizations may be more concerned with market pressures than providing for the
 THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION DECISION WHEEL 389

public good. To test this proposition, we propose a survey of government commu-

nicators in agencies that regularly collaborate with private and not-for-profit orga-
nizations, such as disaster relief organizations and human services groups. The
survey would determine whether the agencies’ focus on the public good is ham-
pered or helped by these external relationships.

Proposition 3: Legal constraints equally affect all four micro-

environments. Legal constraints often limit the ability of government agencies
to communicate fully and openly. Federal agencies must comply with the Freedom
of Information Act; states and local governments have their own access-to-
information laws. In addition, Title 18, Section 1913 of the United States Code
prohibits lobbying by government officials and spending public funds on advertis-
ing. Therefore, we propose that legal constraints equally affect all four micro-
environments. To test this proposition, we propose a survey of a representative
sample of government agencies from all levels of government to determine if legal
constraints are equally apparent while the agencies are conducting business in all
four microenvironments.

Proposition 4: The constraints resulting from media scrutiny are most

salient in the multilevel microenvironment. Media scrutiny produces a sym-
biotic relationship in which the government depends on the media to release im-
portant information and the media depend on the government as an important
source of information (Cutlip, 1981; Hiebert, 1981). Although all levels of govern-
ment are subject to constant media surveillance, the media are most interested in
issues that affect a large cross-section of the public. Because of the wide-spread
programs inherent in the multilevel microenvironment, this microenvironment is
most likely to be the primary object of media scrutiny. For example, the media
were highly critical of all levels of government for their ineffectual response to
Hurricane Katrina. The government, however, also relied on the media to relay im-
portant information to the public about Katrina. To test this proposition, we pro-
pose a content analysis of media coverage of government agencies to determine if
there is greater media scrutiny of agencies involved in multilevel activities than
when involved in activities that only concern a single agency.

Proposition 5: During routine times, government managers operating in

the multilevel environment place the highest value on the role of public rela-
tions. During nonroutine times, managers operating in all four micro-
environments place a high value on the role of public relations. The pre-
viously discussed example of President Richard Nixon epitomizes the ten-
dency for government managers not to recognize the importance of communi-
cation. A related challenge is that, in government, top management has a high
turnover rate due to the election cycle (Allison, 2004; Garnett, 1997; Graber,
390 LIU AND HORSLEY

2003). Thus, government communicators have to deal with fluctuating priori-

ties on communication, which hinders their ability to develop consistent com-
munication campaigns and programs. Therefore, we propose that when manag-
ing large-scale programs characteristic of the multilevel microenvironment,
government managers will be more likely to recognize the value of communi-
cation. Also, when responding to highly sensitive issues within any of the
microenvironments, government managers will be more likely to recognize the
value of communication. To test this proposition, we propose interviews with
government communicators from all three levels of government to determine if
the agency leadership places a higher value on the public relations function
when operating in different microenvironments or when operating under crises
versus routine conditions.

Proposition 6: The constraints posed by poor public perception of

government communication are most salient in the multilevel
microenvironment. Despite the fact that transparency encourages honest and
open communication, government communication frequently is labeled as spin or
propaganda. All four microenvironments are concerned about the public’s percep-
tion of their activities. As these activities become more complex, it is likely that the
public becomes more invested in the government’s response and communication.
Thus, the multilevel microenvironment is most likely to be affected by the con-
straints caused by poor public perception of government communication. To test
this proposition, we propose a survey of a representative sample of United States
citizens to determine if their perception of government communication differs
when an agency is operating on its own versus when an agency is operating in con-
junction with agencies from other levels of government.

Proposition 7: Lagging professional development creates constraints for

public relations professionals operating in all four microenvironments.
Government communicators need to have technical training, as well as strategic
management skills, to address large and complex public issues and provide reli-
able information to the public. One means of quantifying the skill level of com-
municators is to assess government communicators’ educational backgrounds,
work history, and membership in professional communication associations. In
some cases, managers with backgrounds in disciplines other than public rela-
tions are hired to supervise the communication function, thus further devaluing
the communicator’s role and lowering the level of professionalism for the subor-
dinates (Aldoory & Toth, 2002). To test this proposition, we propose a survey of
communicators from the public and private sectors to determine if there is a sig-
nificant difference between the groups in education and professional develop-
ment.
 THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION DECISION WHEEL 391

Proposition 8: The United States’ system of federalism poses greater

constraints in the intergovernmental and multilevel microenvironments
than in the intragovernmental and external microenvironments.
The United States system of federalism requires that multiple levels of government
coordinate on most policy issues so that no single level can act unilaterally. Al-
though this coordination allows the government to provide a wide variety of ser-
vices, it also creates tensions when the levels of government communicate differ-
ently on a policy issue. We propose that as the number of governmental levels
involved in an issue increases, the constraints posed by federalism also increase.
Therefore, the intergovernmental and multilevel microenvironments are more
likely to be affected by the constraints posed by federalism than the intra-
governmental and external microenvironments. To test this proposition, we pro-
pose interviews with government communicators to determine if these communi-
cators sense greater constraints on their activities when working with multiple
levels of government than when working on internal activities.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing public relations models provide one-size-fits-all approaches to under-

standing public relations practice. Public administration theory, conversely, has
long recognized that managing government organizations is quite different from
managing corporate and nonprofit organizations (Allison, 2004; Beckett, 2000;
Lee, 2001), perhaps most famously with Wallace Sayre’s often quoted “law” that
“public and private management are fundamentally alike in all unimportant as-
pects” (Allison, 2004, p. 396). The time also has come for public relations theory
to recognize that different models must be developed for studying the public sec-
tor. The decision wheel provides our first step toward conceptualizing the unique
characteristics of public relations practiced in the public sector.
We recognize that the decision wheel, like all other models, has limitations.
First, the wheel was developed from the literature, and both the model and the re-
sulting propositions need to be tested empirically. In addition, the wheel can only
be applied to democratic countries based on federalism principles, such as the
United States. Despite these limitations, the wheel provides a useful tool to help
government communicators select the most effective means of communication
based on the situation, environment, and available resources. The wheel also pro-
vides an initial framework for reconceptualizing how public relations is practiced
in government.
The public will never lose its reliance on government information. Public ad-
ministration scholar Doris Graber (2003) observed,

Every person’s life, in good times and bad, in peace and war, is affected by the ways
in which government organizations, including how thousands of administrative
392 LIU AND HORSLEY

agencies, handle [communication]. That is why the study of communication in pub-

lic organizations is so vital. (p. 5)

Because of the importance of government communication, we need to develop

and test models that reflect the public sector’s unique environment.

REFERENCES

Aldoory, L., & Toth, E. L. (2002). Gender discrepancies in a gendered profession: A developing theory
for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14, 103–126.
Allison, G. T. (2004). Public and private management: Are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant
aspects? In J. M. Shafritz, A. C. Hyde & S. J. Parkes (Eds.), Classics of public administration (pp.
396– 413). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Appleby, P. H. (1973). Big democracy. New York: Knopf.
Avery, G. D., Brucchi, S. J., & Keane, J. F. (1996). Public affairs in the public sector. In L. B. Dennis
(Ed.), Practical public affairs in an era of change: A communication guide for business, government,
and college (pp. 169– 176). New York: University Press of America.
Beckett, R. (2000). The “government should run like a business” mantra. American Review of Public
Administration, 30(2), 185– 204.
Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M., & Weaver Lariscy, R. A. (1996). Developing standards of professional
performance in public relations. Public Relations Review, 22(1), 43– 61.
Cancel, A. E., Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M., & Mitrook, M. A. (1997). It depends: A contingency the-
ory of accommodation in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9, 31– 63.
Choi, Y., & Cameron, G. T. (2005). Overcoming ethnocentrism: The role of identity in contingent prac-
tice of international public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17, 171– 189.
Covello, V. T. (2003). Best practices in public health risk and crisis communication. Journal of Health
Communication, 8, 5– 8.
Cutlip, S. M. ( 1981). Government and the public information systems. In R. E. Hiebert (Ed.), In-
forming the People: A Public Information Handbook (pp. 23– 37). New York: Longman.
Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in public relations
and communication management. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ehling, W. P. (1992). Public relations education and professionalism. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence
in public relations and communication management (pp. 439–464). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Garnett, J. L. (1992). Communicating for results in government: A strategic approach for public man-
agers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Garnett, J. L. (1997). Administrative communication: Domain, threats, and legitimacy. In J. L. Garnett
& A. Kouzmin (Eds.), Handbook of administrative communication (pp. 1– 20). New York: Marcel
Dekker.
Garnett, J. L., & Kouzmin, A. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of administrative communication. New York:
Marcel Dekker.
Graber, D. A. (2003). The power of communication: Managing information in public organizations.
Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Grunig, J. E. (1984). Organizations, environments, and models of public relations. Public Relations Re-
search & Education, 1(1), 6– 29.
Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present, and future. In R. L. Heath
(Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 11– 30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
 THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATION DECISION WHEEL 393

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organiza-
tions: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Hazelton, V., Jr., & Long, G. W. (1988). Concepts for public relations education, research and practice:
A communication point of view. Central States Speech Journal, 39(2), 78– 87.
Hiebert, R. E. (1981). Informing the People: A Public Information Handbook. New York: Longman.
Holtzhausen, D. R., & Voto, R. (2002). Resistance from the margins: The postmodern public relations
practitioner as organizational activist. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14, 57– 84.
Horsley, J. S., & Barker, R. T. (2002). Toward a synthesis model for crisis communication in the public
sector: An initial investigation. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 16(4), 406– 440.
Lee, M. (1997). President Nixon sees a ‘cover up’: Public relations in federal agencies. Public Rela-
tions Review, 23(4), 301– 325.
Lee, M. (2001). Intersectoral differences in public affairs: The duty of public reporting in public admin-
istration. Journal of Public Affairs, 2(2), 33– 43.
Murphy, P. (1991). The limits of symmetry: A game theory approach to symmetric and asymmetric
public relations. Public Relations Research Annual, 3, 115– 131.
O’Toole, L. J., Jr. (2000). American intergovernmental relations (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Qiu, Q., & Cameron, G. T. (2005, May). A public relations perspective to manage conflict in a public
health crisis. Paper presented at the International Communicators Association, New York.
Rainey, H. G. (2003). Understanding and managing public organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Rhee, Y. (2002). Global public relations: A cross-cultural study of the excellence theory in South Ko-
rea. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14, 159– 184.
Robinson, S. J., & Newstetter, W. C. (2003). Uncertain science and certain deadlines: CDC responses to
the media during the anthrax attacks of 2001. Journal of Health Communication, 8, 17– 34.
Roper, J. (2005). Symmetrical communication: Excellent public relations or a strategy for hegemony.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 17, 69– 86.
Sallot, L. M., Cameron, G. T., & Weaver Lariscy, R. A. (1997). Professional standards in public rela-
tions: A survey of educators. Public Relations Review, 23(3), 197– 216.
Schneider, S. K. (1995). Flirting with disaster: Public management in crisis situations. Armonk, NY:
M. E. Sharpe.
Sieb, P., & Fitzpatrick, K. (1995). Public relations ethics. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Smith, D., & McCloskey, J. (1998). Risk communication and the social amplification of public sector
risk. Public Money and Management, 18(4), 41– 50.
Viteritti, J. P. (1997). The environmental context of communication: Public sector organizations. In J.
L. Garnett & A. Kouzmin (Eds.), Handbook of administrative communication (pp. 79– 100). New
York: Marcel Dekker.
Wakefield, R. I. (2000). World-class public relations: A model for effective public relations in the mul-
tinational. Journal of Communication Management, 5(1), 59– 71.
Wamsley, G. L., & Schroeder, A. D. (1996). Escalating a quagmire: The changing dynamics of the
emergency management policy subsystem. Public Administration Review, 56(3), 235– 244.
Werder, K. P. (2005). An empirical analysis of the influence of perceived attributes of publics on public
relations strategy use and effectiveness. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17(3), 217– 266.
Werder, K. P. (2006). Responding to activism: An experimental analysis of public relations strategy in-
fluence on attributes of publics. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(4), 335–356.
Wright, D. K. (1981). Accreditation’s effects on professionalism. Public Relations Review, 7(1), 48–
61.

View publication stats